If I had my druthers, I would prefer Hillary Clinton not be the first woman president of the U S of A. Not that I underestimate her intelligence or capability to occupy this high office, but I feel very strongly that her marriage to “Scoundrel” Bill has both molded and tainted her against being credible to lead this nation… much less to be a leader most of the world would trust.

In this just completed Democratic first debate, of the five politicians taking the podium, she was perhaps the only unworthy presidential candidate; yet she performed quite well in a rehearsed, polished fashion that drew accolades from a guru-press grading her at CNN. Understandable; for gurus often deal in atmospherics, not substance!

If winning-losing was at issue in this debate, none of the five participants won or lost, as far as I am concerned. The American people, at least those who watched the debate, were the clear winners; as for who lost: the entire slate of Republican candidates. There was such substantive contrast between this debate and the two idiotic spectacles which have been staged by Republicans so far that much of the moderate Republican base, if viewing this exposure of national problems-issues, must have at times questioned their party’s errant ways being heirs to the greatness of Abraham Lincoln.

What became obvious in this debate: Americans need to be educated in civics, not just entertained. Those who give sole importance to the number of viewers as the measure of debating success are blatantly missing the point, taking us back to the old days when the Roman Coliseum served the emperors keeping the citizens of Rome entertained, using gladiators and killing Christians, bloodying them to the ferocity of lions, for their own governing purposes.

Record-breaking millions watched on TV this Democratic debate, and an even higher figure watched the previous two Republican debates where the celebrity reality star, posing as an insulting, arrogant-funny clown, Donald Trump, slapped silly his long list entourage of haughtiness-apprentices… all unbelievably emerging from a midget car with license plates reading “Special Interests.” Dare to compare!

There were five critical issues mentioned, if not fully discussed, at the Democratic candidates’ civil gathering: income inequality; a past flawed foreign policy; climate change; money and elections; and acknowledgement of a very real and persistent problem in America’s racial divide. In contrast, and serialized in two debates, Trump and his lesser Republican political-luminaries concentrated on all the negative aspects of the one thing which has done much to make America strong and diverse: immigration. A contrast of good and evil if there ever was one! Little left to our imagination as to which debates provided the Kardashian-worthy trash.

It’s unfortunate that CNN did not see fit to add a sixth candidate to the mix, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig. As refreshing and informative as the Democratic debate turned out to be, Lessig’s input on undemocratic elections, and how money determines their outcome, would have provided a valuable mini-seminar for the public. Perhaps even resulting in the professor concluding that his work as candidate was fait accompli after reaching 20+ million people with his message in one evening…

Tuesday night’s debate was a sane victory for the Democratic Party, all five people doing their thing with a common, worthy goal: that of a better, not a greater America. Lincoln Chaffee, former senator and governor of Rhode Island (also a former Republican), did his thing, and so did Martin O’Malley, former governor of Maryland. And Jim Webb, an ex-marine, former Secretary of the Navy and ex-senator from Virginia, did show many of us that even if he doesn’t make it as commander-in-chief, he would make a capable Defense Secretary in any administration, Democratic or Republican. As for Senator Bernie Sanders… what can we say that will properly honor his zeal?

Bernie is our own Jewish prophet who’s been preaching in the wilderness from his independent pulpit, as a democratic socialist – a term dirty-tainted by Wall Street with communistic and anti-American pigments. Bernie has pointed the fate of the poor and lower-middle class in America, blaming the money-elite for the greatest disparity in the US between haves and have not’s, greatest among economically advanced nations. Kudos to the Senator from Vermont who probably changed more than a few minds in the debate giving a new, honorable meaning to the “S” word, until now a toxic word…

It’s also unfortunate that Senator Elizabeth Warren decided a while back not to be a presidential candidate. It could have given the US not just a most capable person in the White House, but our first woman President.

Perhaps Bernie Sanders can make inroads by convincing her to become his running mate; or, predicting the nature of humble Bernie, to have her chosen in the Democratic convention at the top of the ticket. Whether Democrats have the vision to run a Sanders-Warren, or Warren-Sanders ticket, will ultimately determine whether a three-plus decade American spiral into oblivion can be halted, then reversed.

By Gwynne Dyer

No good deed goes unpunished. Two months ago Chancellor Angela Merkel amazed the world by opening Germany’s borders to all the genuine refugees (mostly Syrians and Afghans) who could get that far.

She must have known her own people well, because ordinary Germans showed extraordinary sympathy and generosity to the new arrivals.

Even when the first estimate of 800,000 refugees coming to Germany this year went up to 1.5 million, the “welcome culture” stayed strong. Only one month ago Merkel’s action still had the approval of half the population, with only 40 percent thinking her policy was wrong.

Now those numbers are reversed, and the voices of dissent are multiplying. Even Horst Seehofer, the prime minister of the state of Bavaria and leader of the Christian Social Union, (CDU), has lost patience, saying that “no society can cope with an influx on this scale.” In fact, he’s threatening to challenge her policy before Germany’s Constitutional Court.

That’s just “compassion fatigue”, you might say, and you would be right. Bavarians have seen 175,000 refugees arrive in their midst in just the past month. That’s almost 1.5 percent of the state’s population in just thirty days.

Many of them will move on to other states eventually – but another 175,000 will probably arrive in the coming month.
The scale of the refugee influx into Germany is almost unprecedented in modern European history: One and a half million people in six months (for the refugees only started arriving in large numbers in July). It’s as if the US, with four times Germany’s population, were taking in one million Syrian and Afghan refugees every month. Americans would never accept that.

What’s surprising is not the fall in support for Merkel’s policy. It’s the fact that it is still so strong, even though no other member of the European Union is being anything like so generous in its refugee policy. (Britain has offered to take in 20,000 refugees over the next five years.) There must be something special about the German response.

There is certainly something special about modern German history, though most people elsewhere have forgotten it or never knew it. Not the Nazis and the war, but what happened at the end of the Second World War and just afterwards. As the Soviet army rolled west across eastern Europe in early 1945, huge numbers of ethnic Germans fled before it.

Hundreds of thousands of them died of cold, hunger and the constant bombing, but between six and eight million made it into what is now Germany before the fighting ended. Almost as many more were expelled from Eastern European countries in the following five years, mostly from Czechoslovakia and the parts of Germany (about a fifth of its current area) that had been given to Poland by the victors.

Between 1945 and 1950 some 12 million German refugees arrived in Germany, a Germany that had been bombed flat and was desperately poor. Even food was scarce in the early post-war years. But the Germans took the refugees in, shared what they had with them, and together they gradually pulled their country out of the hole it had dug for itself.

Germans don’t like to dwell on this period of their country’s history, but it hasn’t been forgotten. Indeed, one-fifth of today’s Germans are those now elderly refugees and their children and grandchildren. Deep down Germans have an understanding of what it is to be a refugee that no other western Europeans can share.

Does this explain why Merkel did what she did? Nobody can say except herself, and she isn’t saying. She certainly hasn’t been a strong advocate of large-scale immigration in the past.

At a meeting with young CDU party workers in Potsdam five years ago, she said that the idea of creating a multicultural society in Germany had failed utterly:

“The concept that we are now living side by side and are happy about it does not work.” Indeed, she even said that Germans had Christian values and “anyone who doesn’t accept that is in the wrong place here.”

But she grew up in the town of Templin in northern Brandenburg, in what was then East Germany. When she was a child and a young woman, that area, not very far from the new Polish border, had a population that was 40 percent refugees.

Does their own refugee heritage explain why half of Germany’s 80 million people still support a policy that, so long as it lasts, will be adding one and a half million more non-German-speaking Muslims to the country’s population each year. Yes, it probably does.

By Manoj Joshi*

The report that the US was contemplating a nuclear deal with Pakistan, similar to the one it has with India, is yet another confirmation of the salience of geopolitics in international relations.

America’s relations with Pakistan have had their decadal ups and downs. Not surprisingly, these have often mirrored the geopolitical interests of Washington. In the 1950s, it was the contest with the Soviet Union, and so Pakistan, located strategically in what was called the “northern tier”, was privileged over the much larger India, which wanted to avoid getting entangled in superpower competition.

Of course, as is well known, Pakistan was not motivated by any anti-communist ideology, but its own contest with India. This was evident as early as 1962, when it befriended communist China, because it offered a more consistent anti-Indian stage.

After a hiatus, in which the US was preoccupied by the Vietnam war, Pakistan’s importance was recognised by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon as a key to their “China pivot” aimed at outflanking the Soviets. The monstrous price for this was the support that the Kissinger-Nixon duo gave to Islamabad in prosecuting its genocidal war against the liberation movement in Bangladesh.

A decade later came the final contest with the Soviet Union and this time Pakistan was not wanting. It provided Washington the platform needed to bleed the Soviets, never mind the price for that – the curse of jihadism, with which we are still grappling. The bonus for Islamabad was that Washington turned a Nelson’s eye on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.

Roughly, a decade later, the Americans were back, this time to fight the jihadists their earlier intervention had bred. The price this time has been in dollars – the $31 billion that has come by way of Islamabad as military and economic aid between 2002-2015 – and in the blood and treasure that the US has expended in Afghanistan, in considerable measure because of Pakistani duplicity.

So, what motivates the US this time to offer Islamabad the hand of friendship ? No doubt, geopolitical considerations relating to jihadism and Afghanistan are important elements. But, the emerging Sino-Pak alliance is an added factor. Inter-mixed are legacy concerns of the Obama administration which has ambitiously articulated a vision of a nuclear weapons free world.

From the time of the Indo-US nuclear deal, Pakistan has sought a similar arrangement for itself. It is using its time tested tactic of holding a gun to its own. head to achieve its goal. First, it has blocked all efforts to finalise the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). Second, it sharply ramped up its production of nuclear weapons, abandoning all pretenses of maintaining a “credible minimum deterrence” and moving to what it calls “full spectrum” deterrence.

However, given Islamabad’s terrible proliferation record, most experts initially laughed off the possibility. At the time, many of us argued that the Indo-US nuclear deal arose out of the desire of the US to build closer, strategic ties with India as a means of offsetting China’s rise. Now, it would appear that the American motives are more complex.

Islamabad has been insistently pushing for a nuclear deal, most recently in the seventh round of the US-Pakistan Security, Strategic Stability, and Nonproliferation (SSS&NP) working group in June. The press release, following the talks held under the auspices of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, says it all, “The US delegation welcomed Pakistan’s efforts to harmonise its strategic trade controls with those of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and other multilateral export control regimes. Both sides emphasised the desirability of continued outreach to integrate Pakistan into the international nonproliferation regime. Pakistan stressed the need for access to peaceful nuclear technology as a socio-economic imperative.”

A Pakistani nuclear deal would suggest that the US is determined, as it has always been to maintain good ties with both India and Pakistan. Those in India, who expected that Washington’s unhappiness with Islamabad would result in undivided attention to New Delhi, will be disappointed. But, the US is following the logic of its geopolitical interests.

So, sooner, rather than later, Pakistan will get what it wants. India’s best option is to let things ride. Opposing the deal, for the sake of opposing it, is a fool’s errand not unlike the hysteria that India unleashed when the US decided to supply F-16s to Pakistan in 1981-82.

What we need to do is to learn yet another lesson on the relentlessness with which big powers pursue their interests, and move ahead on the project that will give us geopolitical heft in Asia: The economic transformation that will enable us to straddle the region from the Middle East to South-East Asia.

*The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

Courtesy: Mid-Day, October 13, 2015

Indisputably, the 80–year old President Mahmoud Abbas has established himself internally and worldwide as the icon of Palestinian non – violence. His Israeli peace partners leave none in doubt that they are determined to smash this icon, which would leave them only with opposite alternatives the best of which is a massive peaceful intifada (uprising) against the Israeli occupation.

It is true that Abbas cannot yet be called the Ghandi of Palestine. He has yet to follow in the footsteps of the founder of modern India and deliver similar national results by leading a massive popular revolution for liberation and independence, but his strictly adhered to non – violence platform continues to be the prerequisite for any peaceful settlement of the Arab – Israeli conflict in and over Palestine.

For decades, before and after the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories was completed in 1967, Abbas has stuck to his belief in negotiations as the only way to settle the more than a century old conflict. Building on Abbas’ legacy, his chief negotiator, Saeb Erakat, wrote his book, “Life Is Negotiations.”

Abbas has all along rejected “armed struggle” and all forms of violence. He even did his best to avoid popular uprisings lest they glide into violence. Instead he has unequivocally opted to act as a man of state committed to international law and United Nations legitimacy.

Ever since he was elected as president he conducted Palestinian politics accordingly to make his people an integral part of the international community. His respect to the signed accords with Israel raised backlash among his own people when he described, for example, the security coordination agreement with the Hebrew state as “sacred.”

Demonising Abbas

Nonetheless, the Israelis are still persisting on an unabated campaign to demonise Abbas, tarnish his image, undermine his peace credentials and deprive him of any gains for his people.

A Haaretz editorial on Oct. 4 said that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “fanning the flames of incitement against” Abbas. On Oct. 10, The Times of Israel quoted the Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon as saying that “We have come a long way to convince Israeli society that he’s (i.e. Abbas) no partner.”

Evidently, this is the only way for the Israelis to absolve themselves from their signed peace commitments. Ya’alon’s deputy, Eli Ben – Dahan, was quoted on the same day as saying that “Palestinians have to understand they won’t have a state and Israel will rule over them.”

The Israeli minister of education Naftali Bennett, speaking to the army radio on Oct. 11, raised the anti – Abbas ante to an adventurous and irresponsible end game when he said that Abbas’ “absence is better.”

Bennett left it to the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, to explain the raison d’être for his call for the “absence” of Abbas. In a Ynetnews article on Oct. 3, Oren concluded absurdly that “Abbas poses a danger which may be revealed as strategically more serious than the tactical dangers posed by (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Hamas.”

Former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was more forthright when he called on Oct. 12 for Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank to be “overthrown.”

According to William Booth, writing in The Washington Post on Oct. 10, “Israeli (Cabinet) ministers have branded Abbas ‘a terrorist in a suit’ and ‘inciter in chief’. They mock him as weak,” ignoring that their smearing campaign accompanied by their government’s determination to undermine his peace – making efforts is making him weaker internally and render the “two – state solution” a non – starter among his people.

A poll released by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research on Oct. 6 found that 65% of the public want Abbas to resign and if new presidential elections were held the deputy chief of the Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas,” Ismail Haniyeh, would win 49 percent of the votes against 44 percent for Abbas. The “main findings” indicated a “decline in the level of support for the two – state solution” as 51 percent “opposed” this solution. What is more important in this context was that “57% support a return to an armed intifada.”

International Community Indifference

The Israeli anti – Abbas campaign could only be interpreted as a premeditated endeavour to evade a mounting international pressure for saving the so – called “two – state solution.”

The cancelation of a visit scheduled for last week by senior envoys of the international Middle East Quartet upon Netanyahu’s request was the latest example of the world community’s helplessness and indifference vis – a – vis Israel’s sense of impunity against accountability, which empowers the Israeli occupying power to escalate its crackdown on Palestinians under its military occupation since 1967.

In particular, U.S. President Barak Obama Administration’s “reversals” and “empty promises,” in the words of Peter Berkowitz on Oct. 13, to Abbas as well as the inaction of the European Union and the other two Russian and UN members of the Quartet are encouraging Israel in its anti – Abbas campaign, thus discrediting the Palestinian icon of non – violence further in the eyes of his own people as incapable of delivery to walk away from his non – violent path.

On Oct. 12 the AFP reported that the “frustrated’ Palestinians “have defied” both Abbas and the “Israeli security crackdown” to launch what many observers are calling the beginnings of a “third intifada.”

To his credit, Abbas proved true to his non – violence commitment. Israeli daily Haaretz on Oct. 11 quoted a senior official of the Israeli Shabak intelligence agency as telling a cabinet meeting on the same day “that not only does Abbas not support ‘terrorist attacks’ but also tells PA security services to ‘undermine’ anti-Israel protests as much as possible.”

Abbas was on record recently to tell “our Israeli neighbours that we do not want a security or military escalation. My message to our people, security agencies and leaders is that the situation must calm down.” He warned against “an intifada which we don’t want.” On Oct. 6, he publicly told a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that “we want to reach a political solution by peaceful means and not at all by any other means.”

The practical translation of his on record “principles” was self evident on the ground during the past two weeks of Palestinian rebellion against the escalating violence of the illegal Israeli settlers of the occupied Palestinian territories and the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), especially in eastern Jerusalem, which so far claimed the lives of more than 25 Palestinians and at least four Israelis in October 2015.

Within the PA security mandate, violence was practiced by the IOF only and only Palestinians were killed. Mutual violence was confined to Jerusalem, the area designated “C” by the Oslo accords in the West Bank and Israel proper, where security is an exclusive Israeli responsibility. There Abbas has no mandate. Most victims of both sides fell there and there only Israel should be held responsible and accountable.

One could not but wonder whether eastern Jerusalem and area “C” of the West Bank would have seen no violence had Abbas’ security mandate been extended to include both areas. U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who announced on Tuesday plans to visit “soon” to calm down the violence, should consider this seriously.

Ending the Israeli occupation is the only way to move the situation “away from this precipice,” lest, in Kerry’s words, the two-state solution, “could conceivably be stolen from everybody” if violence were to spiral out of control.

In 1974 late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat appealed to the UN General Assembly to “not let the olive branch fall from my hand,” saying that he was holding a “freedom fighter’s gun” in his other hand. Abbas embraced the “olive branch” with both hands and dropped the “gun” forever.

In May this year, Pope Francis told Abbas during a visit to the Vatican: “I thought about you: May you be an angel of peace.” The Jewish Virtual Library’s biography of the Palestinian President vindicates the Pope’s vision. It hailed him as “considered one of the leading Palestinian figures devoted to the search for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian – Israeli conflict… It was Abbas who signed the 1993 peace accord with Israel.

End of Era

Writing in Al – Ahram Weekly on Oct. 12, the President of Arab American Institute, James Zogby, was one only of several observers who announced recently the “burial” of the Oslo accords. In “fact” Oslo “was on life support” and “has been dying for years” Zogby said, concluding: “What happened this week was the final burial rite.”

The Oslo accords were the crown of Abbas’ life – long endeavour. The “burial” of Oslo would inevitably be the end Abbas’ era.

Smashing the Abbas icon of Palestinian non – violence would herald an end to his era, dooming for a long time to come any prospect for a negotiated peaceful solution. His “absence,” according to Gershon Baskin, the Co-Chairman of Israel/Palestine Center for research and Information (IPCRI), will be “definitely the end of an era” and “will be a great loss for Israel and for those who seek true peace.”

Israelis by their ongoing campaign of defamation of Abbas would be missing an irreversible historic opportunity for making peace.

However, Abbas will go down in Palestinian chronicles as a national symbol of non – violence, who raced against time to make what has so far proved to be an elusive peace. Despite his failure, thanks to Israeli unrealistic dreams of “Greater Israel,” he will be the pride of his people in future in spite of the current widespread national opposition to his life – long commitment.

The recent besiege and takeover of Kunduz from Afghan forces showed a political victory over the Afghan and ISAF forces in fact it was seen as an indication of strategic failure at their part though it happened in a period of less than one year of the drawdown of U.S and allies’ forces.

Most alarming is the fact that only 500 Taliban fighters drove over 7,000 Afghan National Security Forces out of the Kunduz in a very short period of less than a day without any sturdy resistance. This in a broader spectrum raises questions about the success of the U.S and Afghan forces in the coming future and many analysts believe that the fall of Kunduz has unveiled many lies about the promises of delivering stability, security and an inclusive peace process.

This also proved that the Taliban are still highly effervescent that they can easily capture many other major cities. The northern province Kunduz has always a remained a stronghold of the Afghan Taliban. The Kunduz incident dramatically erupted at the time when the US military strategists were exploring variety of options about keeping the troops’ presence beyond the withdrawal deadline of 2016. However, the Afghan security officials claim that the Taliban insurgents have been pushed forward and the parts of Kunduz city have been cleared.

The Northern Kunduz Police Chief Quasim Jangal Bagh, claimed that the clearing operations is still underway and the Taliban are pushed forward to the Takhar –Kunduz highway and in the Dasht-e-Archi district of Kunduz.

The First Vice President of the Afghanistan General Abdul Rashid Dostum, also claimed that the government was aware of the plans of the Taliban attacks on Kunduz, Faryab, Helmand and Kunar provinces and he further claimed that the people in these areas should not think that we are careless and obviously we are ready to prevent their further penetration in other areas in the coming future.

During his recent visit to Russia, General Dostum emphasized that the Russia should help them by proving military equipment such as attack helicopters and long-range mortars and other latest weapons to the Afghan Security Forces in order to counter the Daesh and the Taliban militants.

Previously, the Taliban insurgents had assaulted on a prison of Ghazni province and released more than 350 most wanted Taliban insurgents and commanders and as a consequence it further has aggravated the situation and has brought serious concerns about the prevalent impulsive security situation in the country.

For some reasons, the partial failure of the Afghan strategy is also because of the U.S and its allies had been largely relying on their alignments with the corrupt warlord, drug-lords and corrupt politicians whereas, the current Unity Government under President Ashraf Ghani is still divided on many issues.

The matter of peace in Afghanistan in the near future seems obscure because of the breakthrough in the peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government and the Taliban demands of a complete withdrawal and the revoking all military and security accords with the foreign troops in Afghanistan.

The other side of speculation is also based on the hypothesis that the U.S and its allies are not that serious about the complete withdrawal of the ISAF forces and therefore, the ‘dragging-on’ policy will hardly bring complete peace in Afghanistan. Most importantly, the Afghan government and the Taliban had been engaged in a process of peace talks this summer and another round of talks under mediation of Pakistan was also expected whereby it was strongly believed that the two sides would reach at a consensus about seize fire and develop confidence building measures (CBMs) but unluckily the process was also halted with the revelation of the news about the death of Supreme Taliban leader and consequently the leadership crisis among Afghan Taliban.

It is worthwhile to note here that a over-delayed peace process between the two parties would further fuel the ongoing tension in the Country and ofcourse, at a point it will encourage some other militant groups to make their place in the Country. As an immediate neighbor, for Pakistan it is also the need of hour to play its effective role to revive the stalled peace process.

I recently read a report that the airport in Jeddah would be completed by mid-2016. Finally, I said to myself, but with some reservation as such announcements in the past have proven to be no more than public relations stunts aimed at mollifying an increasingly irritated army of passengers and patrons.

It was in 2009 that I watched the director of the airport on Saudi TV boldly claiming to the late King Abdullah that the project would be completed by 2012 during the late King’s visit to the facility. He was being shown a variety of models and slides when he bluntly asked when the project would be completed and 2012 was the answer.

In January of 2014, Prince Fahd Bin Abdullah, president of the General Authority of Civil Aviation boldly stated that the “new King Abdulaziz International Airport with world-class facilities” would be ready by the end of the year. Well, if my calendar is correct, it is well past 2012 and 2014. In fact, it will soon be 2016.

What makes Jeddah airport more noteworthy than other airports in the Kingdom is that it is the primary gateway for visitors to the holy shrines. It is where first impressions are quickly formed. And this airport has been severely criticized in the past for the lax manner with which airline staff as well as custom and immigration personnel deal with arriving passengers. Tired and haggard from long trips, passengers have complained of long delays at immigration counters staffed by indifferent personnel. And once beyond the experience of getting through immigration and passports and out of the arrival hall, visitors face another dilemma.

Jussi, a long-term expatriate from Finland captures the scene very well based on personal experience which visitors can relate to. He writes: “I wish to bring attention to a gross and sad practice that all expats and visitors face upon arriving at Jeddah airport.

“When we cross the last gate to the public area where family and friends usually meet passengers, we are faced with countless men in their white thobes all crying: ‘TAXI! YOU NEED TAXI!’ Some ask quietly and discretely, while others surround us and speak loudly.

“After being subjected to so many offers, I ask how much and they say: ‘TWO HUNDRED’ which we ignore and continue walking out to the taxi line outside the terminal buildings. They follow us persistently and then bring the price down to ‘ONE HUNDRED FIFTY.’

“I reject their offer as I do not live far and offer them SR50. The men who act kind of official and try to keep order with their badges agree with the prices and try to get the taxis to accept our offer because we live close to the airport. There are dozens of taxis all waiting for the SR150 customers.

“This is shameful and very intimidating, because no taxis should be allowed to be in the arrival hall. Taxis should be controlled as they are in Riyadh and in most all international airports.

“Riyadh airport is a long way from the city and the maximum a taxi can charge for the trip is SR 80. This first ‘Welcome to Jeddah’ for foreign arrivals is the worst possible, because it shows the kind of rip-off attitude some people have in this fantastic city. It is the worst welcome, because it takes place in an area that can be totally and easily controlled and organized.

“So I accept an offer for SR70 by a private limousine driver who is also fed up with the taxi drivers and drives us three blocks from the airport. Jussi.”

Here’s someone telling it like it is. He does not appreciate having to run through a gauntlet of greedy men soliciting fares upon his arrival. His words reflect the feelings of many who are daily confronted with this chaotic atmosphere as they leave the arrival hall of Jeddah airport.

And so a word of advice to the airport authorities. While the airport structure is waiting to be completed perhaps by mid-2016 or later, why not take care of the little things that can be done now, such as organizing this stampede of individuals soliciting exhausted passengers? It will not be your buildings only but the total package that will leave a lasting impression on visitors to the Kingdom.

This article appeared at Saudi Gazette

By Alessandra Bajec

As the 6th October anniversary went by, the Egyptian Ministry of Interior released over 300 prisoners. Another feast, another batch of detainees pardoned by the state, as per tradition. Yet this is a palliative measure that doesn’t camouflage the unchanged malaise in Egypt’s justice system, nor does it send a convincing message abroad.

A total of 331 detainees were released in commemoration of this year’s anniversary of the 6th of October war. Last month on the occasion of Eid el-Adha, around 100 detainees were freed under a presidential decree. Earlier in July, Sisi pardoned hundreds of prisoners on the occasion of Eid el-Fitr which marks the end of Ramadan.

Those pardoned on October 6 were non-political detainees, all charged with debt issues. By contrast, most of those released on Eid el-Adha had been convicted under the protest law or on politically motivated charges. Among them were two Al Jazeera journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, as well as human rights defenders Sanaa Seif and Yara Sallam along with other activists incarcerated for protesting near Ittihadiya presidential palace and the Shura Council in 2014.

A show of grace for prisoners in Egypt usually comes in conjunction with official holidays and feasts. As much welcomed as these presidential pardons may be, they are nowhere close to solving the problem so long as unfair legislation is being enforced, and freedom of expression goes repressed.

An inevitable thought goes to those who are left in jail. According to what criteria are some inmates freed, while others are excluded? What will be done about others imprisoned under the protest law? Are presidential pardons set to grant ad hoc amnesty, or will additional steps follow, leading to a repeal of the law eventually?

As it stands, there’s no indication that the state’s stance on rights and liberties is going to be rethought. A pardon issued by the president once in a while will hardly point towards a change in the status quo unless it is accompanied by other measures attempting to review recent laws that restrict civil liberties, and end the repressive practices used against political parties, activists, and the wider civil society.

If lawyer Amal Clooney naively believes that release of Mohamed Fahmy ‘’gives hope that things can change in Egypt’,’ as she commented on her client’s pardon, one may ask how many more amnesties it will take before the Egyptian state puts itself on the path to justice.

Thousands remain in Egypt’s prisons as a result of forced disappearances, random arrests, and faulty judicial procedures.

September’s pardon came just before El-Sisi’s trip to New York, where he attended the United Nations General Assembly, suggesting the timing was chosen to avoid global criticism of Egypt’s human rights record as critics say.

The two latest pardons come at a time where Egypt is also running for a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. In this context, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry attempted to make a connection between Egypt’s campaign for the Security Council with the world’s appreciation for President Sisi. In other words, the expectation is that a UNSC seat going to Egypt will ratify international recognition of the current regime. And to achieve that, it’s important to convey a sound public image of country that acts in line with the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

That may however work ‘for the occasion’ amid jubilation and praise as Egypt’s president announces a prompt amnesty for another bunch of prisoners. Then eventually things go back to normal, and that image given to the world fades away.

The bottom line is the protest law should be revoked altogether, and all those detained for violating this unjust law while participating in peaceful demonstrations should be released.

It would need to be replaced by a legal provision that regulates and safeguards the right to protest peacefully, in compliance with international standards.

A few days ago, a group of released prisoners, their families, and lawyers reportedly vowed to form a united front to advocate for the release of all other political prisoners left behind. Among them, Alaa Abd Al Fattah, Ahmed Douma, Ahmed Maher and Mohamed Adel, as well as Mahienour al-Massry, photojournalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid (known as Shawkan), and student Mahmoud Hussein.

Any move of this kind indicates that not only are occasional pardons simply not enough – and the world shouldn’t be fooled by Sisi’s pardons in first place – but that there’s also a growing call for justice coming out of Egypt’s jails that may not be ignored for very long. More former detainees are speaking up in solidarity with their fellow inmates who remain unjustly detained, demanding significant reforms, and more of them are now uniting to speak louder.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

When my book ‘Searching Jenin’ was published soon after the Israeli massacre in the Jenin refugee camp in 2002, I was quizzed repeatedly by the media and many readers for conferring the word ‘massacre’ on what Israel has depicted as a legitimate battle against camp-based ‘terrorists’.

The interrogative questions were aimed at relocating the narrative from a discussion regarding possible war crimes into a technical dispute over the application of language. For them, the evidence of Israel’s violations of human rights mattered little.

This kind of reductionism has often served as the prelude to any discussion concerning the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict: events are depicted and defined using polarizing terminology that pay little heed to facts and contexts, and focus primarily on perceptions and interpretations.

Hence, it should also matter little to those same individuals whether or not Palestinian youth such as Isra’ Abed, 28, shot repeatedly on October 9 in Affula – and Fadi Samir, 19, killed by Israeli police a few days earlier, were, in fact, knife-wielding Palestinians who were in a state of self-defense and shot by the police. Even when video evidence emerges countering the official Israeli narrative and revealing, as in most other cases, that the murdered youth posed no threat, the official Israeli narrative will always be accepted as facts, by some. Isra’, Fadi, and all the rest are ‘terrorists’ who endangered the safety of Israeli citizens and, alas, had to be eliminated as a result.

The same logic has been used throughout the last century, when the current so-called Israeli Defense Forces were still operating as armed militias and organized gangs in Palestine, before it was ethnically-cleansed to become Israel. Since then, this logic has applied in every possible context in which Israel has found itself, allegedly: compelled to use force against Palestinian and Arab ‘terrorists’, potential ‘terrorists’ along with their ‘terror infrastructure.’

It is not at all about the type of weapons that Palestinians use, if any at all. Israeli violence largely pertains to Israel’s own perception of its self-tailored reality: that of Israel being a beleaguered country, whose very existence is under constant threat by Palestinians, whether they are resisting by use of arms, or children playing at the beach in Gaza. There has never been a deviation from the norm in the historiography of the official Israeli discourse which explains, justifies or celebrates the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians throughout the years: the Israelis are never at fault, and no context for Palestinian ‘violence’ is ever required.

Much of our current discussion regarding the protests in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and as of late at the Gaza border is centred on Israeli priorities, not Palestinian rights, which is clearly prejudiced. Once more, Israel is speaking of ‘unrest’ and ‘attacks’ originating from the ‘territories’, as if the priority is guaranteeing the safety of the armed occupiers – soldiers and extremist settlers, alike.

Rationally, it follows that the opposite state of ‘unrest’, that of ‘quiet’ and ‘lull’, are when millions of Palestinians agree to being subdued, humiliated, occupied, besieged and habitually killed or, in some cases, lynched by Israeli Jewish mobs or burned alive, while embracing their miserable fate and carrying on with life as usual.

The return to ‘normalcy’ is thus achieved; obviously, at the high price of blood and violence, which Israel has a monopoly on, while its actions are rarely questioned, Palestinians can then assume the role of the perpetual victim, and their Israeli masters can continue manning military checkpoints, robbing land and building yet more illegal settlements in violation of international law.

The question, now, ought not to be basic queries about whether some of the murdered Palestinians wielded knives or not, or truly posed a threat to the safety of the soldiers and armed settlers. Rather, it should be centred principally on the very violent act of military occupation and illegal settlements in Palestinian land in the first place.

From this perspective then, wielding a knife is, in fact, an act of self-defence; arguing about the disproportionate, or otherwise, Israeli response to the Palestinian ‘violence’ is, altogether moot.

Cornering oneself with technical definitions is dehumanizing to the collective Palestinian experience.

“How many Palestinians would have to be killed to make a case for using the term ‘massacre’?” was my answer to those who questioned my use of the term. Similarly, how many would have to be killed, how many protests would have to be mobilised and for how long before the current ‘unrest’, ‘upheaval’ or ‘clashes’ between Palestinian protesters and the Israeli army become an ‘Intifada’?

And why should it even be called a ‘Third Intifada’?

Mazin Qumsiyeh describes what is happening in Palestine as the ‘14th Intifada’. He should know best, for he authored the outstanding book, Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment. However, I would go even further and suggest that there have been many more intifadas, if one is to use definitions that are relevant to the popular discourse of the Palestinians themselves. Intifadas – shaking off – become such when Palestinian communities mobilise across Palestine, unifying beyond factional and political agendas and carry out a sustained campaign of protests, civil disobedience and other forms of grassroots resistance.

They do so when they have reached a breaking point, the process of which is not declared through press releases or televised conferences, but is unspoken, yet everlasting.

Some, although well-intentioned, argue that Palestinians are not yet ready for a third intifada, as if Palestinian uprisings are a calculated process, carried out after much deliberation and strategic haggling. Nothing can be further from the truth.

An example is the 1936 Intifada against British and Zionist colonialism in Palestine. It was initially organized by Palestinian Arab parties, which were mostly sanctioned by the British Mandate government itself. But when the fellahin, the poor and largely uneducated peasants, began sensing that their leadership was being co-opted – as is the case today – they operated outside the confines of politics, launching and sustaining a rebellion that lasted for three years.

The fellahin then, as has always been the case, carried the brunt of the British and Zionist violence, as they fell in droves. Those unlucky enough to be caught, were tortured and executed: Farhan al-Sadi, Izz al-Din al-Qassam, Mohammed Jamjoom, Fuad Hijazi are among the many leaders of that generation.

These scenarios have been in constant replay since, and with each intifada, the price paid in blood seems to be constantly increasing. Yet more intifadas are inevitable, whether they last a week, three or seven years, since the collective injustices experienced by Palestinians remain the common denominator among the successive generations of fellahin and their descendants of refugees.

What is happening today is an Intifada, but it is unnecessary to assign a number to it, since popular mobilization does not always follow a neat rationale required by some of us. Most of those leading the current Intifada were either children, or not even born when the Intifada al-Aqsa started in 2000; they were certainly not living when the Stone Intifada exploded in 1987. In fact, many might be oblivious of the details of the original Intifada of 1936.

This generation grew up oppressed, confined and subjugated, at complete odds with the misleading ‘peace process’ lexicon that has prolonged a strange paradox between fantasy and reality. They are protesting because they experience daily humiliation and have to endure the unrelenting violence of occupation.

Moreover, they feel a total sense of betrayal by their leadership, which is corrupt and co-opted. So they rebel, and attempt to mobilize and sustain their rebellion for as long as they can, because they have no horizon of hope outside their own action.

Let us not get bogged down by details, self-imposed definitions and numbers. This is a Palestinian Intifada, even if it ends today. What truly matters is how we respond to the pleas of this oppressed generation; will we continue to assign greater importance to the safety of the armed occupier than to the rights of a burdened and oppressed nation?

By Jung Jin-Heon*

The vast majority of North Korean refugee-migrants living in the south call themselves Christians. Surveys in the mid-2000s showed almost 75 percent of those who make it to South Korea considered themselves converted, almost all to Protestantism.

Seeking solace, morality and new social networks with South Koreans — and even cash subsidies from the state — most of those who settle south of the demilitarized zone continue to depend on churches.

So why do most of these defectors choose to be Protestant over other denominations and faiths?

The origins of the recent wave of North Korean converts to Protestantism dates back 20 years to the devastating famine that killed an estimated half a million people, perhaps more. Fleeing across the border to China, the first Chinese word tens of thousands of North Koreans learned was “jiaohui,” meaning “church.”

Most headed for the brightly lit crosses that dot the skyline, particularly in China’s ethnic Korean prefecture of Yanbian, which lies just across the Tumen River, the most popular crossing point where the distance between both banks is short and the water shallow.

They went in search of a meal and dry clothes. Some voluntarily entered safe houses where they did not have to worry about their next meal, but rules were strict – Bible study was a requirement every day. Those called to mission in North Korea even returned, secretly taking Bibles to spread the Gospel inside the most closed country in the world, a dangerous endeavor. The penalty is typically detention in a high-security labor camp from where few return, or worse.

Among those that stay in China, some remain for years working or studying, particularly in Yanji, the main city in Yanbian. Others move on to bigger cities and often head for Mongolia or Southeast Asia to defect via South Korean embassies.

The percentage of North Koreans who convert to Christianity once they flee has dropped sharply since the famine, from about 85 percent in the late 1990s to less than 75 percent by the mid-2000s, and even lower today.

Chinese police have exerted greater control over missionary activities along the border and some have even faced arrest and deportation. Increasing numbers are also reaching South Korea without missionary help, further eroding evangelism.

As more have defected, greater numbers have been able to afford to bring family members over to South Korea with the help of brokers, most of whom are in it for the money, not the mission. Still, of the missionaries that continue to operate on the Chinese side of the border, almost all are Protestant.

Investing in new arrivals

Upon arrival in South Korea, North Koreans are sent to the Central Joint Interrogation Center, where authorities verify they are not a spy or Korean-Chinese. Then each defector must pass through Hanawon resettlement center, where they receive instruction on how to live in the bustling, capitalist south. Here Protestant, Catholic and Buddhist religious services are also offered.

Some observers and North Korean refugees often note — with cynicism — that newcomers in Hanawon typically prefer Protestants to other religious groups because of the quality of snacks and gifts distributed at the end of each Sunday service. Protestants have invested more time and money compared to other religious groups in a bid to reach new arrivals.

After three months in Hanawon, defectors receive South Korean identity cards and are then resettled in low-income housing. From then on, they are expected to adjust to the South Korean way of life, including its hypercompetitive school system and job market. After the state, it’s the Protestant Church that offers the greatest benefits to these newcomers.

Clergy and laypeople provide pastoral care, there are cash allowances for regular church attendance, Bible study, job training and all manner of services provided.

Many North Korean converts attend church for moral reasons and solidarity, and genuinely appreciate frequent contact with sympathetic deacons. But the intensity of South Korean induction into church care systems scares no small number of defectors.

Reminders of the north

For some, troubling similarities exist between church worship activities and the adulation enforced inside North Korea in the name of the ruling Kim dynasty. Instead of the Bible, North Koreans must study Kim Il-sung’s “Juche” philosophy, and religious testimony and confession can seem like the self-criticism sessions every North Korean faces at home.

Some converts become disappointed when they encounter discrimination by “superficial believers,” those who are just in it for the benefits, or when they realize regular praying has made little impact on the deprivation and persecution inside North Korea.

Many then claim a leadership role evangelizing to other North Koreans as opposed to staying second-class beneficiaries of welfare in the south. The Protestant Church, much less centrally organized, has always been far better set up for such a task compared to the Catholic Church.

Catholicism is much less visible among North Koreans once they reach the south.

Overall, Protestants still outnumber Catholics by nearly two to one, a ratio that is much more skewed among North Koreans living south of the demilitarized zone. A recent survey showed just 1 percent of defectors regularly attend a Catholic church even if the vast majority appear satisfied with what is a less aggressive evangelism.

So what can the Catholic Church learn from their more successful Protestant counterparts, at least in terms of evangelization numbers?

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Korea runs the Committee for the Reconciliation of the Korean People, which offers nationwide support for defectors. The church should therefore recruit North Korean laypeople to lead regional committees with support from South Korean clergy, catechists and other laypeople.

Also, each regional committee should campaign for South Korean Catholics to learn the culture of their northern counterparts beyond superficial biases including the “red complex,” a fear of northern communists.

In short, understanding North Koreans as people offers a better solution than wooing them with gifts.

Like anyone, North Koreans tend to observe and follow what people do in practice rather than trust what they say. It’s an approach that also helps create what most Koreans dream of: a cultural contact zone creating a small-scale reunification between north and south.

*Jung Jin-Heon is coordinator of the Seoul Lab, a Korea think tank at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, and author of the book “Migration and Religion in East Asia: North Korean Migrants’ Evangelical Encounters” published in September by Palgrave MacMillan.

The United States has played a “key role” in the Colombian peace process, admitted Iván Márquez, the head negotiator for the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) in the peace talks hosted in Havana, Cuba.

The guerrilla leader stressed the importance of a US involvement, specifying that the contacts between the armed group and Washington have been “systematic” over the past months.

The peace process, added Márquez, “doesn’t foresee any stalling”, he confirmed, ensuring intention of signing a peace deal with the government of President Juan Manuel Santos within the next six months, emphasizing the “harmonious atmosphere” of the talks.

Márquez also stated that, once demobilized, the former rebels will accept the rules of political participation to promote “urgent political reforms, especially in the electoral system”.

Romanian President Klaus Iohannis met European Parliament President Martin Schulz on October 15 to discuss the refugee crisis, EU reforms that might be needed in the near future and the freedom of movement within the Union. This was the Romanian president’s first visit to the European Parliament, after taking up office last December.

The meeting was followed by a short press conference.

After the meeting, Schulz told reporters, “As far as the situation of the refugees is concerned, we have to provide help on the ground in Turkey. We also hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria. The neighboring countries — Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey — need our help.”

Iohannis added, “I was glad to see that in Mr Schulz’s opinion, Romania’s place is in the Schengen Space. We also agreed that the movement of the work force inside the Union cannot be questioned, being an earned value which needs to be preserved.”

By S.N.M. Abdi

Nepalis are burning the Indian flag and effigies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These blots on India’s image cannot be erased by Modi’s speeches in Washington, New York and San Jose, lobbying for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council or even by hosting the upcoming India-Africa Summit on a grand scale to dazzle the dark continent.

Modi today stands thoroughly exposed for shirking his sacred duty of guarding the nation’s honor. Instead of dousing the fire in his backyard, he was shaking hands with US President Barrack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — exercises as meaningless as skiing in the Alps or rafting down the Gangotri when you should be in fire-fighting mode.

Modi is personally responsible for India’s huge loss of face in Nepal as he directly handled Nepal elbowing out the foreign minister and foreign secretary. It’s the only country, besides the US, Modi has visited twice as prime minister. After gifting Katmandu’s Pashupatinath Temple 2,500 kg of sandalwood worth Rs20 million during his first visit, Modi thought that he had Nepal eating out of his hand.

Firstly Modi tried to influence Nepali politicians by helping them draft a new constitution that declared Nepal a Hindu state. He also hoped to cajole Nepal’s original inhabitants living in the hills, many of them Buddhists, into granting equal constitutional rights to Madhesis, who are predominantly Hindu settlers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in Nepal’s southern plains and whose cause India espouses much like the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

The Indian prime minister failed miserably on both fronts. The new constitution defined Nepal as a secular republic and guaranteed certain privileges for the hills people who are citizens by “descent” compared to Madhesis who have acquired citizenship either by “birth” or “naturalization” and therefore barred from holding high constitutional posts or heading security organizations.

While countries like China and Pakistan congratulated Nepal on its Constitution, India merely took “note” of its promulgation to convey its displeasure. Moreover, it clamped an economic blockade starving Nepal of fuel, medicines and food even as Madhesis, who India was batting for, killed 10 policemen during protests which left over 40 dead. But Katmandu refused to buckle down.

It blocked 42 Indian television channels, banned Hindi films, accused India of arming Madhesis and turned to China for essential supplies.

India’s Foreign Office issued as many as five statements attacking the constitution and stridently advocating talks with Madhesis. But Nepal leaders shrugged it off and elected Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli, a staunch secularist known for being pro-China and anti-India besides being uncompromising on the Madhesi issue, as the new prime minister.

Oli, interestingly, was ensconced with Wu Chuntai, China’s ambassador to Nepal, when Modi telephoned to congratulate and invite him to India. It’s now left to be seen which capital — New Delhi or Beijing — Oli visits first.

Today Modi cuts a rather sorry figure in India’s immediate neighborhood which appeared to be the core of his foreign policy. His coercive approach has backfired badly denting India’s image in its so-called zone of influence. Relations with Nepal and Pakistan have hit rock bottom. While ties with Sri Lanka seem to be stabilizing, Bangladesh is trying hard to conceal its unhappiness over unfulfilled promises even as educated Bhutanese resent their leaders’ subservience to India and demand establishment of diplomatic relations with China in Bhutan’s national interest.

Modi seems to have got it all wrong in Maldives too. In March he called off his trip to Male after pro-Indian former President Mohammad Nasheed was thrown into prison on terrorism charges. India tried to browbeat Maldives but the pressure tactics only cemented the Indian Ocean archipelago’s ties with China. Realizing his mistake, Modi last week dispatched Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj to soothe President Abdullah Yameen’s ruffled feathers.

But Yameen is clearly in no mood to kiss and make up.

After holding talks with Swaraj, Yameen’s office issued a statement putting on record that the President told her he would not tolerate “foreign interference in domestic issues” of Maldives. The snub however found no mention in the Indian External Affair Ministry’s press release on the meeting.

New Delhi later tried to explain that Yameen’s message was for a larger audience and not just India. But Modi’s aggression is boomeranging even in the most unlikely places. Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Kyi, whose National League for Democracy in a major contender for power in Myanmar, which shares a 1624 km long border with India, says that India’s cross-border June raid in hot pursuit of Naga rebels lacked “transparency,” creating “suspicions that erode the very foundations of friendship.”

The UN Security Council has unanimously passed a renewal – promoted by Spain – of the resolution on the protection of women in armed conflict. Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said that gender inequality “is an injustice, immoral and an obstacle preventing progress by humanity.”

Rajoy chaired the open session entitled “Women, Peace and Security” that was held within the framework of the Spanish Presidency of the United Nations Security Council. In his speech, Rajoy stressed that one of the main conclusions from the debate is that “gender inequality is a threat to international peace and security.” He also believes it to be “an injustice, immoral and an obstacle preventing progress by humanity.”

The Spanish Prime Minister highlighted that the resolution is the result of a joint effort by the Member States, the United Nations System and civil society, and lays “renewed, sound and ambitious foundations for the next 15 years on the ‘Women, Peace and Security’ agenda.”

According to Rajoy, Resolution 2242 has a two-fold objective: to strengthen the protection of women and girls in armed conflict; and increase their full and active participation in the prevention of conflict and peacebuilding.

“We must spare no effort in combating the sexual violence that is used as a weapon of war and terror, it is very often more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in conflict,” Rajoy said.

Rajoy added that women are key to the preservation and building of peace, and their contributions are essential against the senselessness of conflict.

Rajoy said that Spain is fully committed to equality between men and women. In this regard, he mentioned the approval of the Strategic Plan for Equal Opportunities and the National Strategy to Eradicate Violence Against Women, among others. In application of UN Resolution 1325, Spain also has a National Action Plan, is enhancing a gender focus in peacekeeping missions and the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation maintains a strategic relationship with UN Women and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Furthermore, and in order to improve the protection of women, Mariano Rajoy announced that Spain will make a contribution of one million euros in 2016 to the new Global Acceleration Instrument and the Multi-agency Fund against Sexual Violence in Conflict.

Rajoy also committed to strictly applying the zero tolerance policy in terms of accusations of sexual violence affecting Spanish civilian and military members of overseas missions.

Other commitments include further developing the training on gender issues provided to members of the Armed Forces and State Law Enforcement Agencies, and fostering the participation of military women in peacekeeping operations and mediation teams.

In a statement to the media at the end of the session, Rajoy specified that 600 military women took part in international missions in 2015.

Rajoy also stressed that the resolution was approved unanimously by the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council, sponsored by 70 countries and over 100 countries expressed their interest in the issue. Furthermore, he reiterated that the resolution consolidates the progress achieved in recent years and offers a response to current shortcomings.

Rajoy added that the approval of this text is “a very positive step towards guaranteeing gender equality” and moving towards “a more civilised, fairer and more reasonable world that has greater respect for people’s rights, basically women and girls.”

The avid nuclear dispute in European and Russian expert and political communities is still ongoing after a report by Germany’s ZDF TV channel about Washington’s plans to station B61-12 modernized high-accuracy nuclear bombs in Germany.

From US budget reports and WikiLeaks secret documents, the journalists concluded that 20 new bombs will be stationed at Buchel airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz federal land by the end of 2015. According to experts, together these bombs have the explosive power of up to 1,000 kt, 80 times more than Little Boy atomic bomb used in the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

Soon after, the US National Nuclear Security Administration disproved the information, saying new B61-12 bombs will be stationed in Germany much later as their production will not begin until after 2020. At the same time, Ruediger von Fritsch, Ambassador of Germany in Russia, explained that the modernization plan only concerns the replacement of out-of-date components.

However, in March 2010, the German Bundestag voted in favor of beginning talks with Washington over gradual withdrawal of nuclear bombs from the country, while similar plans were included in the 2009 coalition agreement.

According to the 2014 report published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), B61 variable yield bombs stationed in Europe under the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement were first put into US service in 1968. At least 180 of such bombs are located in storage at six US bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands. Under the modernization program, they will be dismantled and converted into B61-12s equipped with guided tail kits instead of parachute systems for increased accuracy.

The modernization project for the US nuclear arsenal in Europe promises to become an expensive undertaking for Washington. According to official report, the United States allocated some $200 million for this program only in 2015, while the whole cost of the project that will last into late 2019 is at least $1 billion. This includes the costs for upgrading F-15E and F16 fighters, B-2 bombers and Panavia Tornado European aircraft to be able to carry the new bombs. These upgrades are scheduled to end by Q4 2018.

At present, the main point of discussion in the media and online is compatibility of the plans by Washington and Berlin with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT): however, the opinions are currently ambiguous. Nevertheless, heads of Security Councils of Russia and Japan as well as some German political figures, such as the Bundestag member and representative of the Left Party of Germany Stefan Liebich, already expressed their concern over Washington’s plans.

“In a world where disarmament is more necessary then ever, it would be a signal of great value if the German government would tell the United States of America that their nuclear weapons are not to be stationed here any longer,” the politician said.

The Left Party of Germany has always been standing against any measures that could cause an inter-state conflict, he stressed.

The expert community in Germany and other European countries also met the news with mixed reaction. In particular, Goetz Neuneck, deputy director and head of Interdisciplinary Research Group on Disarmament, Arms Control and Risk Technologies of the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy (IFSH) at the University of Hamburg, noted that the European public is largely unaware of the plans and wants no new nuclear bombs in NATO states, while he himself finds these measures unnecessary.

“The government, I think, is not very eager to have new bombs and what should be the rationale of it. […] But, as you know, military people in many countries, including Russia, are eager to modernize their weapons, and this is the argument by the Pentagon,” the analyst told “PenzaNews” agency in an interview.

He criticized Russia and the West for being unable so far to achieve a consensus over several urgent defense and security issues to defuse tensions, and added that a prolonged diplomatic stalemate can turn into another highly expensive arms race.

From the expert’s point of view, the modernization of US nuclear arsenal stationed in Germany and other states poses a danger to the 1991 Conventional Forces Treaty in Europe, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed by the US and the USSR in 1987.

“[The parties] should start negotiating a new treaty on conventional forces with limitations, including verification and crisis management architecture, and both nuclear sides – the American side and the Russian side – should negotiate an add-on protocol to the INF treaty,” Goetz Neuneck urged, placing particular emphasis on bilateral transparency measures.

In his opinion, Russia and the West can enjoy a successful cooperation in the field of defense by solving different objectives and exchanging data to neutralize common threats, but such a scenario is hardly a possibility at present time.

Meanwhile, Henning Riecke, head of Transatlantic Relations program at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), stressed that the United States will not get rid of their nuclear arsenal in Europe, in spite of the voices of protest coming from the German public and nuclear disarmament activists.

For several dozens of years, the nuclear bombs in Europe had served only as a political symbol, and completely lost their importance with the end of the Cold War, he remarked.

“The nuclear deterrent element in NATO has been underrated for 20 years, because nuclear deterrence was seen as unimportant and outdated by NATO members,” the analyst said.

According to him, the NATO stance on this changed in 2014, after they learned that the regime change in Kiev could have resulted in Russian nuclear forces being put on standby.

Moreover, Henning Riecke expressed his belief that the US nuclear arsenal in Germany does not constitute a violation of the NPT.

“The Americans are not giving nuclear weapons to Germans in terms of ‘now you have them, you can use them.’ […] One has control over the nuclear weapons, the other has control over the means of delivery,” he said.

At the same time, Anna Peczeli, research fellow for the Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies at the Corvinus University of Budapest, recalled that the American nuclear bombs have been stationed in Europe since mid-50s, yet NATO officials still decline to disclose the exact location and number of these weapons.

“Today, the US only has one type of non-strategic nuclear weapon in its stockpile, which is the B61 gravity bomb. This has three modifications: the B61-3, B61-4 and the B61-10. The B61-3 (with a yield between 0.3-170 kilotons) and -4 (with a yield between 0.3-50 kilotons) modifications are the ones which are deployed in Europe. In the framework of the standard Life Extension Program of the US nuclear arsenal, the Barack Obama administration plans to retire the current modifications and convert the B61-4 into the B61-12,” the expert explained.

From her point of view, the US nuclear bomb modernization program in Europe itself is unlikely to lead to significant escalation of tensions or ruptured agreements between Washington and Moscow, as neither side wants to provoke a dangerous arms race.

According to Anna Peczeli, the nuclear arsenal stationed in Germany has great diplomatic significance that needs to be mentioned.

“Non-strategic nuclear weapons traditionally served four purposes during the Cold War: deterrence, reassurance, signaling and burden-sharing. Since the end of the Cold War, they have primarily become a political tool to symbolize alliance cohesion. Therefore Germany’s continued involvement in the nuclear mission is a sign of solidarity towards NATO,” she said, suggesting that in Berlin may eventually choose to phase out the US nuclear bombs the long-term perspective.

Hans-Joachim Schmidt, Senior Researcher at Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) and expert in conventional arms control and global security, also highlighted the political aspect of the issue.

“Firstly, should Germany be a part of the nuclear planning group within NATO, have some say in that group and the use of these instruments in case of crisis or war in particular on German soil? The other issue is: if [German] government says it wants to have this capability, is it ready to accept the modernization? As far as I know, Germany has not finally decided on the modernization,” he said.

He also added he thinks the phase-out of the US nuclear arsenal in Germany that was discussed several years ago is unlikely, and described why.

“Under the current more confrontational security conditions, a unilateral withdrawal of these weapons by the US would surely raise nuclear weapon efforts by France and United Kingdom. In Turkey, there is also a secret discussion on whether it should become a nuclear weapon state because of the growing instability in the region. So we would need again a more cooperative security situation to increase the chance for a withdrawal. Under confrontation, it will not work, and could lead to counter actions by other countries, which could lead to even greater instability,” Hans-Joachim Schmidt concluded.

In his opinion, the current situation represents a threat to European security and several international military agreements, such as the INF treaty.

“The modernization of US bombs [in Germany] will lower the nuclear threshold because the new ones are better suited for military purposes. The new bomb can be guided, and has a higher accuracy. This can be used to lower the variable nuclear detonation power of this bomb,” Hans-Joachim Schmidt reminded, adding that Moscow also leads its own parallel modernization program for its substrategic nuclear arsenal.

He called for Russia and the West to establish direct contacts to resolve mutual security complaints and seek a way to overcome confrontation, as well as cancel any unilateral development, procurement and deployment projects in nuclear arms field.

At the same time, Jens-Peter Steffen, peace campaigner for International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, claimed that the German government took no serious measures so far to withdraw US nuclear arsenal from the country.

“The Cold War period may have gone, but accepting US-nukes on German soil and being trained to use them in the case of war is the closest that Germany can get to nuclear weapons after having signed the NPT,” the rights activist said.

According to him, those who speak in favor of the US program say that any potential nuclear standoff will result in NPT being rendered void, after which the German Air Force will get the nuclear bombs while already having trained personnel to use them against any foe.

However, many observers take an opposite stance on the issue, he stressed.

“[We] see the training of German forces by the US to use their nuclear arsenal in case of war – named nuclear sharing – as a violation of the NPT,” Jens-Peter Steffen stated.

He also pointed out that German peace activists have been pushing against the policy that binds their country to an aggressive military alliance for several generations.

“During the different periods of the Cold War, West Germany and even Germany as a whole was a target for Soviet missiles. As a possible zone of war, it was even a target for the nuclear weapons of the Western allies. That created the impressive peace movement of the 1980s in West Germany and other European states. Hundreds of thousands of people on the streets confronted the political class saying they did not want to be the targets,” the expert reminded.

According to him, escalating tensions and new flashpoints emerging all over the world, including Iraq and Syria, call for immediate actions from people in Europe and Russia to push politicians to cancel all nuclear rearmament programs.

“We need the establishment of a common system of security of partners and stop falling for the fake security of nuclear weapons,” Jens-Peter Steffen summed up.

This article was published at PenzaNews.

The US government will cancel new offshore oil drilling lease sales in the Arctic and will not extend leases already held by companies such as Royal Dutch Shell.

The decision comes from the US Department of the Interior, which said new lease sales that had been scheduled for the next two years will be canceled.

The news also follows the decision by Shell to stop its offshore oil exploration project in Alaska for the foreseeable future. In September, the company stated that it experienced a “disappointing exploration outcome” in the Chukchi Sea and that, despite investing $7 billion on the project and gaining federal approval, it would not move forward.

“In light of Shell’s announcement, the amount of acreage already under lease and current market conditions, it does not make sense to prepare for lease sales in the Arctic in the next year and a half,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell in a statement.

“I am proud of the performance of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard and others in ensuring that Shell’s program this past season was conducted in accordance with the highest safety and environmental standards.”

While Shell did say it would stop its project, a spokesperson said the company still believes its lease should be extended, the Associated Press reported. In addition to finding the oil deposits disappointing, Shell also complained that the lack of clarity regarding federal regulations played a role in its decision.

However, environmental activists welcomed both Shell’s decision to abandon the Chukchi project as well as Friday’s announcement by the Interior Department.

“This is great for the Arctic and its polar bears,” said Miyoko Sakashita of the Center for Biological Diversity to AP. “We need to keep all the Arctic oil in the ground.”

Environmentalists have waged an intense campaign against drilling operations near Alaska, even dangling off bridges to keep vessels from leaving port. They argue that more drilling would make global warming worse and that an accident could potentially cause even more damage than the 2010 BP oil spill.

Former Venezuelan presidential candidate Manuel Rosales was arrested yesterday upon his return to Venezuela from exile in Peru, six years after the government of late socialist leader Hugo Chavez accused him of illicit enrichment.

Agents of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) detained the opposition official at the international airport of Maracaibo, capital of Zulia State, where Rosales served as governor in the past.

Judiciary authorities announced his transfer to Caracas to face illicit enrichment charges, he averted fleeing the nation in 2009 before the opening of his trial.

After his defeat in the polls by late Hugo Chavez in 2006, Rosales was charged in 2008 with improperly reporting his income while he was Zulia governor and of registering income the origin of which he could not explain to the comptroller general, according to state prosecutors.

After fleeing to Peru he disappeared from the Venezuelan political scene, also because barred from holding office until 2022.

Rosales made an appeal to his supporters gathered at the Maracaibo airport, calling for the to vote in mass for the opposition in the December 6 legislative elections.

The sun has sprung a leak: A hole in the topmost layer of the sun and its magnetic field, the size of 50 Earths, is letting loose an ultrafast solar wind that has kicked off several nights of auroras down on Earth.

A new image, from NASA’s orbiting Solar Dynamics Observatory, reveals the enormous hole as it was Oct. 10, taken at an ultraviolet wavelength unseen by the human eye. To an ordinary observer, the gaping hole would be invisible, though you should never stare at the sun because serious eye damage can result.

The gap in the sun’s magnetic field lets out a stream of particles traveling at up to 500 miles (800 kilometers) per second, kindling a days-long geomagnetic storm upon hitting Earth.

Coronal holes, like the one that materialized last week, normally form over the sun’s poles and lower latitudes, more often when the sun is at a less active point in its 11-year cycle. They are areas within the sun’s outermost layer, called its corona, which are lower-density and cooler — that, plus the weakened magnetic field, lets the plasma and charged particles that make up the corona stream out more easily in a solar wind. If aimed toward Earth, that spells the makings of a geomagnetic storm: a phenomenon that can affect power and navigation for satellites orbiting the Earth as well as radio communication.

Another side effect of a geomagnetic storm is enhanced northern lights: the glowing auroras that often form in the night sky over the northernmost reaches of the planet grow much brighter and can even extend much farther south than usual. (Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s [NOAA] Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado, initially predicted auroras to be visible as far down as Pennsylvania, Iowa and Oregon, although they didn’t ultimately appear quite so low.) Geomagnetic storms and auroras can also be caused by other sun phenomena, such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, which both blast the corona’s material outward because of increased magnetic activity.

As the coronal hole continues its slow march westward on the sun’s surface (to the right, from Earth’s perspective), solar winds will stay strong, NOAA officials said in a statement, which may lead to additional minor geomagnetic storming. Thus, bright auroras will likely continue — at least around the Arctic Circle.

Why is the economy still in the doldrums after 6 years of zero rates and three rounds of Quantitative Easing?

It’s because consumers aren’t consuming and there’s too much debt. You see, despite the Fed’s wacko theories about pumping liquidity into the financial system to make investors feel wealthier, people actually have to buy things to generate growth. And the truth is, consumers have reduced their spending because wages are flat, incomes are falling and many of them are still hanging on by the skin of their teeth.  So consumption has been unusually weak. Economist Stephen Roach made a good point in an article at Project Syndicate. He said, “In the 22 quarters since early 2008, real personal-consumption expenditure, which accounts for about 70% of US GDP, has grown at an average annual rate of just 1.1%, easily the weakest period of consumer demand in the post-World War II era.” (It’s also a) “massive slowdown from the pre-crisis pace of 3.6% annual real consumption growth from 1996 to 2007.” (“Occupy QE“, Stephen S. Roach, Project Syndicate)

So how is the economy supposed to grow if people aren’t buying things?

It can’t.

Now according to the Fed, the best way to fix the problem is to make money cheaper (so more people borrow and spend) and to pump $4 trillion in liquidity into the financial system so stock prices soar. The point of this crazy experiment is to further enrich big time speculators so they spend more money and, thus, rev up the economy. It’s called the “wealth effect” and the Fed actually believes this trickle down nonsense will work if given enough time. But, the fact is,  QE hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, and won’t work. Because it doesn’t address the fundamental problem: How to get more money to the people who will spend it and grow the economy. That’s the issue.

Zero rates can help because they lower the cost of borrowing. But lower rates don’t work if there’s no demand for funds, that is, if no one is borrowing.  And what economists have found out is that, after a major financial crash, where households have seen much of their wealth vanish overnight, people are not as eager to borrow as they were before. This is easy to understand. If you’re in a hole, you stop digging.  The average Joe can’t operate like a Wall Street banker who thinks, “I’ll just keep borrowing until I get out of debt.” No. Ordinary working people can’t do that. They have to reduce their spending until they get their heads above water again.

This is why the credit expansion has been so weak since the recession ended in 2009. Yes, there have been exceptions, like subprime auto loans and student loans which have skyrocketed in the last few years, (and many of which are headed for default) but as a whole the demand for credit has remained weak.

Once again, this is entirely predictable. When people find themselves deep in the red, (like after a financial meltdown) they don’t borrow as much.  It’s that simple. So it doesn’t matter if rates are low or not, the demand for credit is going to remain weak until household balance sheets are repaired and consumers feel comfortable borrowing again.

So if low rates don’t lead to a credit expansion, then what good are they?

Not much good at all, in fact, they’re extremely damaging. Time and time again we’ve seen how low rates encourage all kinds of risky behavior, because when money is cheap and easily available, it fuels massive speculation that creates asset bubbles. For example,  the stock buyback craze is entirely attributable to the Fed’s zero rates, and it’s precipitated a huge bubble in stock prices. Get a load of this from Zero Hedge:

“In 2014, the constituents of the S&P 500 on a net basis bought back ~$430Bn worth of common stock and spent a further ~$375Bn on dividend payouts. The total capital returned to shareholders was only slightly less than the annual earnings reported. On the fixed income front, the investment grade corporate bond market saw a record $577Bn of net issuance in 2014. While the equity and bond universes don’t overlap 100%, we think these numbers convey a simple yet important story. US corporations have essentially been issuing record levels of debt and using a significant chunk of their earnings and cash reserves to buy back record levels of common stock.”  (“Buyback Bonanza, Margin Madness Behind US Equity Rally”, Zero Hedge)

What does this mean in English? It means the giant corporations aren’t even thinking about the future of their companies any more. They’re not building more capacity or hiring more workers or expanding R&D. They’re taking every dime they can get their greasy mitts on and goosing stock prices so they can stuff their pockets full of cabbage and walk away like King Charlie. This is the effect of low rates. This is what happens when speculators get hold of cheap money. It throws the whole system out-of-whack.

Consider this:  If the Fed sets rates at zero, and the rate of inflation is 1.5 percent; then for every dollar the Fed lends out, they get $.98 cents back in return. Does that sound like a good deal to you, dear reader?

Zero rates mean that the Fed is subsiding bubblemaking and inducing speculators to take risks that are inherently destructive to the system. This isn’t a reasonable way to spur growth or stimulate the economy. It’s the well-worn path to financial crisis.

Keep in mind, the Fed’s policies come at a high price too. As we said earlier, the Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned to over $4 trillion dollars. So ask yourself this: How do the service payments on that $4 trillion debt impact economic growth?

Obviously, the service payments drain resources away from the real economy. Let’s use an example: Joe Blow decides he doesn’t want to live in his ramshackle $500 per month basement hovel on Capital Hill anymore, so he moves to a beautiful two bedroom apartment in Madison Park overlooking Lake Washington for a whopping $2,200 per month. So, now Mr. Blow has $1,700 less per month to spend on nights-on-the-town or exotic LARPing adventures in Port Orchard with his computer-geek friends. What impact will Joe’s new arrangement have on the economy?

It will hurt the economy because less spending means less growth. And that same rule applies to the corporations that borrowed money to repurchase their own shares. The billions in debt servicing will be diverted away from the real economy where it would have done some good.  This is why the big Wall Street banks should have been euthanized following the Crash of ’08, so their debts could have been wiped out instead of transferred to the Fed’s balance sheet where they are a constant drag on growth.

The global economy faces so many headwinds at present that it’s hard to know where to begin. China’s real estate bubble has popped, capital flight has put emerging markets into a nosedive, commodities prices have plunged triggering fears of  deflation, the economic data is increasingly bleak, and the Fed’s plan to “normalize” rates has sent stocks gyrating like never before.

Even so,  economic policy should focus on the things that increase growth, boost demand and lead to a more evenly-shared prosperity.  Full employment and solid wages gains should be on top of the list. Those are the foundation blocks for a strong economy that can withstand the ups-and-downs of an erratic business cycle or the periodic battering of financial crises.

We tried QE, now let’s try higher wages.

ISRAELI DEMOCRACY is sliding downwards. Sliding slowly, comfortably, but unmistakably.

Sliding where? Everybody knows that: towards an ultra-nationalist, racist, religious society.

Who is leading the ride?

Why, the government, of course. This group of noisy nobodies which came to power at the last elections, led by Binyamin Netanyahu.

Not really. Take all these big-mouthed little demagogues, the ministers of this or that (I can’t quite remember who is supposed to be minister for what) and shut them up somewhere, and nothing will change. In 10 years from now, nobody will remember the name of any of them.

If the government does not lead, who does? Perhaps the right-wing mob? Those people we see on TV, with faces contorted by hatred, shouting “Death to the Arabs!” at soccer matches until they are hoarse, or demonstrating after each violent incident in the mixed Jewish-Arab towns “All Arabs are Terrorists! Kill them all!”

This mob can hold the same demonstrations tomorrow against somebody else: gays, judges, feminists, whoever. It is not consistent. It cannot build a new system.

No, there is only one group in the country that is strong enough, cohesive enough, determined enough to take over the state: the settlers.

IN THE middle of last century, a towering historian, Arnold Toynbee, wrote a monumental work. His central thesis was that civilizations are like human beings: they are born, grow up, mature, age and die. This was not really new – the German historian Oswald Spengler said something similar before him (“The Decline of the West”). But Toynbee, being British, was much less metaphysical than his German predecessor, and tried to draw practical conclusions.

Among Toynbee’s many insights, there was one that should interest us now. It concerns the process by which border districts attain power and take over the state.

Take for example, German history. German civilization grew and matured in the South, next to France and Austria. A rich and cultured upper class spread across the country. In the towns, the patrician bourgeoisie patronized writers and composers. Germans saw themselves as a “people of poets and thinkers”.

But in the course of centuries, the young and the energetic from the rich areas, especially second sons who did not inherit anything, longed to carve out for themselves new domains. They went to the Eastern border, conquered new lands from the Slavic inhabitants and carved out new estates for themselves.

The Eastern land was called Mark Brandenburg. “Mark” means marches, borderland. Under a line of able princes, they enlarged their state until Brandenburg became a leading power. Not satisfied with that, one of the princes married a woman who brought as her dowry a little Eastern kingdom called Prussia. So the prince became a king, Brandenburg was joined to Prussia and enlarged itself by war and diplomacy until Prussia ruled half of Germany.

The Prussian state, located in the middle of Europe, surrounded by strong neighbors, had no natural borders – neither wide seas, nor high mountains, nor broad rivers. It was just flat land. So the Prussian kings created an artificial border: a mighty army. Count Mirabeau, the French statesman, famously said: “Other states have armies. In Prussia, the army has a state.” The Prussians themselves coined the phrase: “The soldier is the first man in the state”.

Unlike most other countries, in Prussia the word “state” assumed an almost sacred status. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism and a great admirer of Prussia, adopted this ideal, calling his future creation “Der Judenstaat” – the Jew-State.

TOYNBEE, NOT being given to mysticism, found the earthly reason for this phenomenon of civilized states being taken over by less civilized but hardier border people.

The Prussians had to fight. Conquer the land and annihilate part of its inhabitants, create villages and towns, withstand counterattacks by resentful neighbors, Swedes, Poles and Russians. They just had to be hardy.

At the same time, the people at the center led a much easier life. The burghers of Frankfurt, Cologne, Munich and Nuremberg could take it easy, make money, read their great poets, listen to their great composers. They could treat the primitive Prussians with contempt. Until 1871 when they found themselves in a new German Reich dominated by the Prussians, with a Prussian Kaiser.

This kind of process has happened in many countries throughout history. The periphery becomes the center.

In ancient times, the Greek empire was not founded by the civilized citizens of a Greek town like Athens, but by a leader from the Macedonian borderland, Alexander the Great. Later, the Mediterranean empire was not set up by a civilized Greek city, but by a peripheral Italian town called Rome.

A small German borderland in the South-East became the huge multi-national empire called Austria (Österreich, “Eastern Empire” in German) until it was occupied by the Nazis and renamed Ostmark – Eastern Border area.

Examples abound.

JEWISH HISTORY, both real and imagined, has its own examples.

When a stone-throwing boy from the Southern periphery by the name of David became King of Israel, he moved his capital from the old town of Hebron to a new site, which he had just conquered – Jerusalem. There he was far from all the cities in which a new aristocracy had established itself and prospered.

Much later, in Roman times, the hardy borderland fighters from Galilee came down to Jerusalem, by now a civilized patrician city, and imposed on the peaceful citizens a crazy war against the infinitely superior Romans. In vain did the Jewish king Agrippa, descendent of Herod the Great, try to stop them with an impressive speech recorded by Flavius Josephus. The border people prevailed, Judea revolted, the (“second”) temple was destroyed, and the consequences could be felt this week on the Temple Mount (“Haram al Sharif”, the Holy Shrine in Arabic), where Arab boys, imitators of David, threw stones at the Jewish imitators of Goliath.

In today’s Israel, there is a clear distinction – and antagonism – between the affluent big cities, like Tel Aviv, and the much poorer “periphery”, whose inhabitants are mostly the descendents of immigrants from poor and backward Oriental countries.

This was not always so. Before the founding of the State of Israel, the Jewish community in Palestine (called “the Yishuv”) was ruled by the Labor Party, which was dominated by the Kibbutzim, the communal villages, many of which were located along the borders (one could say that they actually constituted the “borders” of the Yishuv.) There a new race of hardy fighters was born, while pampered city dwellers were despised.

In the new state, the Kibbutzim have become a mere shadow of themselves, and the central cities have become the centers of civilization, envied and even hated by the periphery. That was the situation until recently. It is now changing rapidly.

ON THE morrow of the 1967 Six-Day War, a new Israeli phenomenon raised its head: the settlements in the newly occupied Palestinian territories. Their founders were “national-religious” youth.

During the days of the Yishuv, the religious Zionists were rather despised. They were a small minority. On the one hand, they were devoid of the revolutionary élan of the secular, socialist Kibbutzim. On the other hand, real orthodox Jews were not Zionists at all and condemned the whole Zionist enterprise as a sin against God. (Was it not God who had condemned the Jews to live in exile, dispersed among the nations, because of their sins?)

But after the conquests of 1967, the “national-religious” group suddenly became a moving force. The conquest of the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem and all the other biblical sites filled them with religious fervor. From being a marginal minority, they became a powerful driving force.

They created the settlers’ movement and set up many dozens of new towns and villages throughout the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. With the energetic help of all successive Israeli governments, both left and right, they grew and prospered. While the leftist “peace camp” degenerated and withered, they spread their wings.

The “national-religious” party, once one of the most moderate forces in Israeli politics, turned into the ultra-nationalist, almost fascist “Jewish Home” party. The settlers also became a dominant force in the Likud party. They now control the government. Avigdor Lieberman, a settler, leads an even more rightist party, in nominal opposition. The star of the “center”, Yair Lapid, founded his party in the Ariel settlement and now talks like an extreme rightist. Yitzhak Herzog, the leader of the Labor Party, tries feebly to emulate them.

All of them now use settler-speak. They no longer talk of the West Bank, but use the settler language: “Judea and Samaria”.

FOLLOWING TOYNBEE, I explain this phenomenon by the challenge posed by life on the border.

Even when the situation is less tense than it is now, settlers face dangers. They are surrounded by Arab villages and towns (or, rather, they interposed themselves in their middle). They are exposed to stones and sporadic attacks on the highways and live under constant army protection, while people in Israeli towns live a comfortable life.

Of course, not all settlers are fanatics. Many of them went to live in a settlement because the government gave them, almost for nothing, a villa and garden they could not even dream of in Israel proper. Many of them are government employees with good salaries. Many just like the view – all these picturesque Muslim minarets.

Many factories have left Israel proper, sold their land there for exorbitant sums and received huge government subsidies for relocating to the West Bank. They employ, of course, cheap Palestinian workers from the neighboring villages, free from legal minimum wages or any labor laws. The Palestinians toil for them because no other work is available.

But even these “comfort” settlers become extremists, in order to survive and defend their homes, while people in Tel Aviv enjoy their cafes and theaters. Many of these old-timers already hold a second passport, just in case. No wonder the settlers are taking over the state.

THE PROCESS is already well advanced. The new police chief is a kippah-wearing former settler. So is the chief of the Secret Service. More and more of the army and police officers are settlers. In the government and in the Knesset, the settlers wield a huge influence.

Some 18 years ago, when my friends and I first declared an Israeli boycott of the products of the settlements, we saw what was coming.

THIS is now the real battle for Israel.

By Anirudh Menon*

India’s stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) has once again come to fore given that New Delhi is set to host Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during the India Africa Summit from 26-29 October 2015, despite al-Bashir being declared a ‘war criminal’ by the ICC, which has issued two warrants for his arrest.

ICC in Context

The ICC is an independent international court with 123 member states, and is not part of the UN system. Unlike ad hoc tribunals, the ICC does not have primacy over national courts and will only step in to assert its jurisdiction if the State is unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute crimes. But over a decade and billions of dollars since, the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC has brought only 23 cases involving nine situations – all of which concern African countries. Of these, only one has reached its natural conclusion.

Additionally, India, China, the US, and several other countries are not signatories to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This undermines the Court’s assertions of being a permanent criminal court with an international mandate. Moreover, the ICC’s sluggish legal proceedings and the Africa bias have sparked debates on the Court’s relevance and necessity.

India and the ICC

In al-Bashar’s case, section two under the related UNSC Resolution 1593 makes its non-obligatory for non-signatories of the ICC to comply with this resolution. India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute yet because it believes that the ICC threatens its sovereignty. New Delhi’s primary reasons for opposition are: the extraordinary privileges given to the UNSC to make referrals to the Court; the exclusion of cross-border terrorism from the ICC’s ambit; the refusal to enlist the use of nuclear weapons; and the power to initiate cases on his/her own volition given to the ICC Chief Prosecutor.

India is particularly conscious of the vulnerability of its troops defending its borders as well as its peacekeepers on UN missions, as they are susceptible to possible allegations of human rights violations. There have been regular reports of mass graves unearthed in Kashmir, and instances of extra-judicial killings in Northeast India. This explains India’s reluctance and hostility towards signing the Rome Statute to some extent.

Some of these reservations have been publicly addressed by the ICC, but India continues to not participate in discussions involving the Court. According to Ninan Koshy, a foreign policy commentator, the US, compelled India to campaign against the ICC in 2002, in exchange for being recognised as a “strategic partner” in Asia.

Furthermore, he indicates that India’s stance on the ICC was heavily influenced by the US’ passing of the American Service Members’ Protection Act, into law, in August 2002, as a broader supplement to the “war on terror.” This law authorises the US to use military force to liberate its citizens and allies held by the ICC.

Although incumbent US President Barack Obama’s has comparatively warm views towards the ICC, he has refused to repeal this obsolete law; and by doing so, has restricted the ability of the US’ allies such as India, to support the ICC.

India prides itself in having a comprehensive legal system and has frequently dismissed international scrutiny on national matters. However, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not explicitly include crimes such as genocide, torture, forced sterilisation, and extra-judicial killings. The IPC also does not recognise the distinction between mass crimes and crimes committed by individuals – making the investigation and prosecution process difficult. India can seek the expertise and support of the ICC towards strengthening its own legal system in this regard.

Simultaneously, India’s opposition to the extraordinary privileges granted to the UNSC is justifiable, given how the US, China and Russia – three of the five permanent members with veto powers – have not ratified the Rome Statute. This discrepancy makes the ICC vulnerable to political interference as these countries have great leverage over who is investigated, and more importantly, on who is not investigated. These nations have the powers to begin proceedings against individuals from other countries, while having ensured that their own citizens enjoy immunity. Additionally, these nations can protect their allies, as was seen when China and Russia vetoed multiple UN resolutions to refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the ICC.

New Delhi has largely remained silent on matters of international justice and the functioning of the ICC, and it is unlikely that India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi will change its stance. However, the Court’s pro-activeness has begun a real debate on anti-impunity efforts in India, where the civil society and the legal fraternity are critically re-examining the criminal justice system.

The Way Forward

The ICC suffers from various structural weaknesses. It cannot prosecute crimes committed before 2002 and does not have the authority to make arrests. To garner international support in order to avoid an atrophy of court, it is crucial that the ICC be open to suggestions from non-members like India.

Even if India is reluctant to become a member, it should start participating in discourses on international criminal justice. India has already submitted itself to various dispute settlement bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the International Court of Justice. Therefore, taking membership of the ICC will not compromise its sovereignty and instead will only strengthen its national legal system.

*Anirudh Menon
Risk Consulting Executive, KPMG

Views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation/s he is affiliated to.