zaterdag 10 juni 2017

'Israël is een koloniale macht en niemand ligt er wakker van'


Vrij Nederland


'Israël is een koloniale macht en niemand ligt er wakker van'



Harm Ede Botje







De uitgezette NRC-correspondent Derk Walters en Ha’aretz-verslaggever Amira Hass spraken afgelopen week in een bomvol Nieuwspoort over pers en persvrijheid in Israël. ‘De leugens, de propaganda, het ging maar door.’
‘Israël is een koloniserende staat.’
‘Israël heeft een apartheidsregime.’
‘Gaza is een gigantisch concentratiekamp.’
‘Op de Westbank zijn Bantustans ontstaan.‘
‘We moeten aanvaarden dat Israël een koloniale staat is, waarbij de originele bevolking eruit wordt gejaagd en een nieuwe groep wordt geplaatst.’
Bovenstaande uitspraken zijn niet afkomstig van een Arabische Israël-hater of een linkse activist, maar van Amira Hass, sterverslaggever van de Israëlische kwaliteitskrantHa’aretz. Al twintig jaar woont ze in de Palestijnse stad Ramallah op de Westbank, van waaruit ze verslag doet van de ‘misdaden die dag in dag uit’ worden gepleegd door het Israëlische leger. Deze week was ze te gast in Nederland.
In de Nederlandse media is het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict zo goed als van de agenda verdwenen, óók bij Vrij Nederland. Het is steeds meer van hetzelfde, het is een uitzichtloos conflict. Stichting Een Ander Joods Geluid wil het onderwerp op de agenda houden en organiseerde aflopen week het Enough = Enough-festival. Ze vroegen mij een avond te leiden waarin Amira Hass (welbespraakt, vol met verhalen, fel) en de NRC-correspondent Derk Walters (bedachtzaam, bescheiden) in een bomvol Nieuwspoort met elkaar in gesprek gingen.
Dat Walters er was, is bijzonder. Hij is de eerste Nederlandse journalist ooit die door de Israëlische autoriteiten de deur werd gewezen: hij moest uiterlijk 1 juli 2017 het land verlaten. Walters werd gevraagd bij Pauw en andere talkshows maar hield alles af. Nu kijkt hij voor het eerst publiekelijk terug op de turbulente gebeurtenissen.
Walters en Hass, in Nieuwspoort. Foto: Cali Carale

‘Wij zijn IS niet!’

Voor ik verslag doe van het gesprek, die avond, schets ik het hoe en waarom van Walters vlucht uit Israël: het begon allemaal anderhalf jaar geleden, toen Walters een stuk schreef over de nederzetting in Hebron. Daar kwamen in korte tijd kolonisten om het leven door messteken. Walters schreef:
“De inwoners van Hebron geloven het eenvoudigweg niet meer als de Israëlische autoriteiten zeggen dat ze een Palestijnse messentrekker hebben doodgeschoten. Dat mes, zeggen de Palestijnen dan, is er neergelegd door de Israëliërs.”
Het Government Press Office (GPO) reageerde woedend: het zou onzin zijn dat messen werden neergelegd. ‘Wij zijn IS niet!’ Walters zou een ‘vijandig’ en ‘partijdig’ beeld hebben geschetst van de situatie in Hebron, en werd in een daarop volgende reeks emails dan ook beschuldigd van partijdigheid en zelfs ‘antisemitisme’. Glenys Sugarman van de Foreign Press Association (FPA) in Israël noemde het gedwongen vertrek van Walters raadsel, in NRC: ‘Ik kan het niet verklaren. Het moet het stellen van een voorbeeld zijn, iets anders kan ik niet bedenken.’ Ook zei Sugarman: ‘De overheid gedraagt zich vijandig tegen iedereen die de overheid of andere autoriteiten bekritiseert. De laatste twee, drie jaar lijkt het wel alsof de gemoedstoestand in het land is veranderd.’
Wat de affaire extra pikant maakte was dat Walters in een van de emails van de GPO een blijkbaar door de verzender vergeten passage aantrof, in het Hebreeuws, duidelijk niet voor zijn ogen bestemd. Er stonden zinnen als ‘we gaan ze flink laten zweten’ en ‘ik maak het hem moeilijk over zijn adres in Tel Aviv, omdat ik weet dat hij naar Oost-Jeruzalem is verhuisd’. Uit de passage klonk een enorm dédain. Walters: ‘Vlak daarvoor had ik een hele negatieve mail gekregen waarin stond dat ik alles fout deed wat je maar fout kon doen. Daar was ik heel ongelukkig over. Maar door de per ongeluk aan mij verstuurde interne communicatie begreep ik dat het een spelletje was dat ze met me speelden. Ik voelde opluchting.’ De Israëli’s blijven overigens beweren dat Walters zich simpelweg niet heeft gehouden aan visum-vereisten en zijn adreswijziging niet had doorgegeven: daarom moest hij het land verlaten.

‘De leugens, de propaganda, het ging maar door.’

Hoe kan het, vraag je je af dat Amira Hass – die nog veel kritischer is, en dat al jaren lang – gewoon haar werk kan blijven doen.
In de jaren negentig was Hass een van de weinigen die niet geloofden in het Oslo-akkoord. ‘Ik zag wat er op de grond gebeurde, en was zeer argwanend. Bij mij op de redactie zei een chef dat ik het niet scherp zag omdat ik ter plaatse was! Echt waar!’ Nadat in 2000 de tweede intifada uitbrak ergerde ze zich wild aan het beeld dat Israël aan de wereld presenteerde: dat van de boze Palestijnen die het kleine, zwakke, zielige Israël aanvielen. ‘Mijn stukken werden geplaatst in de kelder, op pagina 8, terwijl op de voorpagina stukken verschenen waarin stond dat Arafat de oorlog had verklaard.’ Ze zag hoe Israël de werkelijkheid geweld aan deed. ‘De leugens, de propaganda, het ging maar door. Dan werd er gezegd dat Palestijnen het vuur hadden geopend, terwijl in werkelijkheid de Israëli drie uur daarvoor waren begonnen.’
Dan werd er gezegd dat Palestijnen het vuur hadden geopend, terwijl in werkelijkheid de Israëli drie uur daarvoor waren begonnen.
Hass doet veel onderzoek, vooral ook naar onderwerpen die moeilijk te verkopen zijn. Over de alledaagse werkelijkheid van het leven onder het juk van een koloniserende staat. Misdaden van de bezetting, dat is niet de juiste benaming, vindt Hass: ‘Dat impliceert dat het ook mogelijk zou zijn om een bezetting te hebben zonder misdaden.’ Daarom spreekt zij liever van een ‘koloniserende staat’.
Neem nou het Palestijnse land aan de andere kant van de door Israël gebouwde afscheidingsmuur? De Israëli’s zeiden altijd dat het land Palestijns zou blijven, dat het alleen maar om de veiligheid ging. ‘Bullshit,’ vindt Hass. ‘We wisten allemaal dat het uiteindelijk zou worden afgepakt.’ Uit haar onderzoek blijkt dat Palestijnen er heel moeilijk naartoe kunnen. Ze moeten vergunningen aanvragen – de poorten in de muur gaan maar een paar keer per dag open – als de eigenaar sterft moet het land verdeeld worden onder de nabestaanden, als er te veel nabestaanden zijn en het land dus versnipperd raakt, achtten de Israëli’s het niet langer meer geschikt voor landbouw. Het zijn dit soort kleine pesterijen, waar geen journalist over bericht, de de bezetting ondraaglijk maken: het eindeloos in de rij staan bij checkpoints, de bureaucratie, de invallen, het opblazen van huizen, het confiskeren van land, et cetera.
De enige verklaring die Hass kan geven dat ze ongestoord haar gang kan gaan (en zelfs zonder vergunning in Ramallah woont) is dat ze een Israëlische Jood is. ‘En Israël is nog steeds een democratie voor Joden,’ zegt Hass. ‘Weliswaar wordt die rechtsstaat nu uitgehold, worden mensenrechtenactivisten hard aangepakt, zijn er ministers met heel ondemocratische opvattingen, maar het is nog steeds een democratie, inclusief het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting.’
Haar verhalen hebben weinig impact, vindt ze. ‘Veertig jaar geleden was er nog een soort schaamte, de Arbeiderspartij zat in de Socialistische Internationale en wilde zich houden aan internationale verdragen. Maar dat is nu helemaal verdwenen. In Israël is het suprematistische gedachtegoed nu heel gangbaar: we zien onszelf als meer waard dan anderen, we zijn beter, we lijden meer, we zijn altijd het slachtoffer.’
In Israël is het suprematistische gedachtegoed nu heel gangbaar: we zien onszelf als meer waard dan anderen, we zijn beter, we lijden meer, we zijn altijd het slachtoffer.
Walters en Hass, in Nieuwspoort. Foto: Cali Carale

Europa moet wel druk zetten

Aan het slot van het gesprek vraag ik wat we hier in Europa kunnen doen om een doorbraak te forceren. Walters zegt dat hij ‘verbaasd is’ door het totale gebrek aan druk vanuit Europa op Israël. ‘Als je in Tel Aviv praat over de relaties geven ze altijd hoog op van de culturele banden met Israël. Geweldig, je kan vast goed zaken doen, het is een markt met acht miljoen mensen. Maar als je hun gedrag een beetje wilt veranderen moet je wel druk zetten. Al tijden wordt gesproken over het apart etiketteren van goederen uit de bezette gebieden, laat ze eerst dat maar proberen.’
Amira Hass is strenger, nog: zij hoopt dat Europa opnieuw de visumplicht invoert. ‘Je moet tegen Israël zeggen: jullie houden je niet aan de internationale afspraken. Al die overtredingen van het humanitaire recht moeten jullie niet langer tolereren en dus voeren we de visumplicht opnieuw in. En oh, ja, we maken geen onderscheid tussen kolonisten en mensen uit Israël zelf. Én heroverweeg de relaties met alle bedrijven die connecties hebben met de bezette gebieden, en dat is 98 procent van alle bedrijven. Kijk naar sport, wetenschap, cultuur.’

De Israëlische bezetting, wat lost het op?

Terwijl Hass bezig is met haar betoog staat in het publiek Hanna Luden op, werkzaam bij het Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël (CIDI). Ze vraagt of met dit soort boycot-acties de problemen tussen Israël en Palestijnen worden opgelost. Hass antwoordtwat vinnig: ‘Er zíjn geen problemen tussen Israëli’s en Palestijnen. Het gaat hier om de problemen van de Israëlische bezetting.’
Luden: Goed, prima, de Israëlische bezetting, wat lost het op?
Hass: ‘Zo’n visumplicht lost niet direct iets op, maar is wel een boodschap: de wereld vindt het niet normaal, wat de Israëli’s doen. Dat de Westerse wereld het niet langer accepteert. Want in Israël denken mensen dat het allemaal normaal is om lekker te leven in Tel Aviv, naar een concert te gaan, terwijl je zoon of dochter elke nacht tien, twintig, dertig Palestijnse huizen doorzoekt, kinderen bang maakt, geweren richt op kinderen, alle huisraad vernietigt, mensen arresteert, alleen maar om te achterhalen wie er een steen heeft gegooid op de Westbank. Daarna komen ze terug en dan ga je lekker een weekeindje naar Amsterdam. 
Wij, Israëlische journalisten, Israëlische activisten, zeggen al lange tijd gezegd dat het fout is om een bevolking vijftig jaar lang zonder enige rechten te laten zitten. Om hun land te controleren, hun water af te nemen… Voor elke vier liter voor een Israëli is er in de Bezette Gebieden één liter voor een Palestijn. Daar is geen enkele veiligheidsverklaring voor. 
Waarom krijgen tienduizend kolonisten in de Jordaanvallei 30 miljoen liter per jaar, terwijl 2,5 miljoen Palestijnen 120 miljoen liter tot hun beschikking hebben? Maar de Israëli’s luisteren niet en dat kan niet zo door kan gaan. En nu Israëli’s niet naar de rede willen luisteren, de feiten niet meer willen zien overal excuses voor hebben, moet de ouder in de kamer ingrijpen. En die ouder is Europa, nu Trump in het Witte Huis zit. En die ouder? Dat is niet meer dan een dwerg.’
Het is een treurige conclusie. Derk Walters wordt boekenredacteur bij NRC Handelsblad, Amera Hass gaat weer terug naar Ramallah. Haar verhalen zijn te volgen via de site van Ha’aretz

So, who are the DUP?


Home


So, who are the DUP?



The most likely coalition partners for a floundering Conservative party sit on the hard right fringe of British politics.
Former DUP leader Peter Robinson (left) in paramilitary uniform, 1986.
The Democratic Unionist Party now look like the Tories preferred coalition partners. The DUP, which is the biggest Unionist (ie pro-UK) party in Northern Ireland, are often treated as though they are just the same as the other Unionist party they have essentially replaced – the Ulster Unionists. But while the UUP have a long running relationship with the Tories, and are a centre right party, the DUP are another thing entirely. The idea that they are near power in Westminster should worry us all. Here are some things you need to know.
Theresa May's new partners in government have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups. Specifically, the terrorist group Ulster Resistance was founded by a collection of people who went on to be prominent DUP politicians. Peter Robinson, for example, who was DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister until last year, was an active member of Ulster Resistance. The group’s activities included collaborating with other terrorist groups including the Ulster Volunteer Force, to smuggle arms into the UK, such as RPG rocket launchers.
Of course, Northern Ireland has moved towards peace, and the DUP, like their opponents in Sinn Fein, have rescinded violence. As part of that normalisation, the fact that parties which include people who have abandoned civil war can be brought into the democratic process is a good thing. But for the Tories to end an election campaign which they spent attacking Corbyn for his alleged links to former Northern Irish terrorists by going into coalition with a party founded by former Northern Irish terrorists would be a deep irony.
It’s also important to know their politics. When Enoch Powell was expelled from the Tory party after his fascist turn, he moved to Northern Ireland. There, his campaign manager was a young man named Jeffrey Donaldson, who says on his website:
“I worked alongside two of the greatest names in Unionism in the 20th century. Between 1982 and 1984 I worked as Enoch Powell’s constituency agent, successfully spearheading Mr. Powell’s election campaigns of 1983 and 1986 when the South Down seat was retained despite the fact the constituency contained a natural ‘nationalist’ majority.”
Donaldson is now the longest serving of the DUP’s MPs.
The DUP also fights hard against women’s right to choose to have an abortion, making them the biggest pro-forced pregnancy party in the UK. The results in Northern Ireland are utterly grim for the many women each year who are in need of an abortion.
Despite being climate change deniers, they used their role in government in Northern Ireland to set up a subsidy scheme for biofuels, which gave those who bought into it more money than they had to pay out. The Northern Irish exchequer ended up paying out around half a billion pounds to those who knew about the scheme, leading to a scandal known as ‘cash for ash’, and a major investigation into whether DUP staff and supporters personally benefitted. 
The DUP have fought to stop equal marriage, making Northern Ireland the only part of this archipelago without equal relationship rights. Last year, DUP MP Sammy Wilson was caught up in a scandal when a member of the public said that Northern Ireland ought to “get the ethnics out”, and he appeared to reply “you are absolutely right”. 
The party backed Brexit, and as openDemocracy exposed earlier in the year, accepted a donation of £435,000 to pay for campaign materials across the UK. Under pressure, they admitted that the cash came from a shady group called the Constitutional Research Council, which is chaired by Scottish Tory Richard Cook. openDemocracy research showed that Cook founded a company in 2013 with the former head of the Saudi intelligence service, and a man who admitted to us that he was involved in a notorious incident in which hundreds of Kalashnikovs were flown to Hindu terrorists in West Bengal in 1995.
The DUP told us that the Constitutional Research Council’s chair’s surprising links with Saudi intelligence “aren’t a problem for us”.  
We don’t know what the DUP will demand from the Tories in exchange for supporting them – perhaps just more cash for Northern Ireland, which would be no bad thing. But the idea of a government involving the DUP should worry us all, and the failure to ask any questions about their involvement during the BBC’s coverage last night was fairly astonishing.

dinsdag 6 juni 2017

Russian agents hacked US voting system manufacturer before US election – report




Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the independent


Russian agents hacked US voting system manufacturer before US election – report

  • * Federal contractor arrested and charged with removing classified material
  • * NSA report: cyber-attack on software supplier and phishing emails hit officials


The NSA is convinced that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate was responsible for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. The NSA is convinced that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate was responsible for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Photograph: Larry W. Smith/EPA

Russian intelligence agents hacked a US voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election, according to the Intercept,citing what it said was a highly classified National Security Agency (NSA) report.
The revelation coincided with the arrest of Reality Leigh Winner, 25, a federal contractor from Augusta, Georgia, who was charged with removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet. It was not immediately clear if the incidents were related.
The hacking of senior Democrats’ email accounts during the campaign has been well chronicled, but vote-counting was thought to have been unaffected, despite concerted Russian efforts to penetrate it.
Russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one US voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll, the Intercept reported on Monday.
The website, which specialises in national security issues, said the NSA document had been provided to it anonymously and independently authenticated. “The report, dated May 5, 2017, is the most detailed US government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light,” it continued.

On Monday afternoon, the justice department said Winner had been arrested by the FBI at her home on Saturday and appeared in federal court in Augusta on Monday. She is a contractor with Pluribus International Corporation, assigned to a US government agency facility in Georgia, it added. She has been employed at the facility since on or about 13 February and held a top-secret clearance during that time.

Reality Winner poses in a photo from her Instagram account. Reality Winner poses in a photo from her Instagram account. Photograph: Reuters

Winner’s mother, Billie Winner-Davis, told the Guardian that her daughter was a former linguist in the US air force who spoke Farsi, Pashto and Dari.
“I never thought this would be something she would do,” said Winner-Davis. “She’s expressed to me that she’s not a fan of Trump, but she’s not someone that goes and riots and pickets or stuff.”
The NSA report makes clear that, despite recent denials by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the NSA is convinced that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) was responsible for interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The document reportedly states: “Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.”
The Intercept noted that, although the document does not directly identify the company in question, it contains references to a product made by VR Systems, a Florida-based vendor of electronic voting services and equipment whose products are used in eight states.
The Intercept said the NSA requested a number of redactions in its publication of the document and that it agreed to some that were not clearly in the public interest.
The intelligence assessment acknowledges that there is still a great deal of uncertainty over how successful the Russian operatives were and does not reach a conclusion about whether it affected the outcome of the election, in which Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton hinged on three closely contested states.
But the suggestion that Russian hackers may gained at least a foothold in electronic voting systems is likely to add even more pressure to special counsel and congressional investigations. The Obama administration maintained that it took preventive measures to successfully guard against breaches of the systems in all 50 states.
The former FBI director James Comey is set to testify before the Senate intelligence committee on Thursday regarding Russian meddling in the election.
The FBI is handling the investigation into Winner’s alleged breach of national security. In a deposition in support of the Winner’s arrest warrant, the justice department said: “On or about May 9, Winner printed and improperly removed classified intelligence reporting, which contained classified national defense information from an intelligence community agency, and unlawfully retained it. Approximately a few days later, Winner unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet.”
The statement added: “Once investigative efforts identified Winner as a suspect, the FBI obtained and executed a search warrant at her residence. According to the complaint, Winner agreed to talk with agents during the execution of the warrant. During that conversation, Winner admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a ‘need to know’, and with knowledge that the intelligence reporting was classified.
“Winner further admitted removing the classified intelligence reporting from her office space, retaining it, and mailing it from Augusta, Georgia, to the news outlet, which she knew was not authorized to receive or possess the documents.”
Vivian Siu, director of communications at the Intercept, said: “As we reported in the story, the NSA document was provided to us anonymously. The Intercept has no knowledge of the identity of the source.”

A 50-Year Occupation: Israel’s Six-Day War Started With a Lie








Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the intercept






A 50-Year Occupation: Israel’s Six-Day War Started With a Lie


June 5 2017, 3:07 p.m


FIFTY YEARS AGO, between June 5 and June 10, 1967, Israel invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. The Six-Day War, as it would later be dubbed, saw the Jewish David inflict a humiliating defeat on the Arab Goliath, personified perhaps by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt.
“The existence of the Israeli state hung by a thread,” the country’s prime minister, Levi Eshkol, claimed two days after the war was over, “but the hopes of the Arab leaders to annihilate Israel were dashed.” Genocide, went the argument, had been prevented; another Holocaust of the Jews averted.
There is, however, a problem with this argument: It is complete fiction, a self-serving fantasy constructed after the event to justify a war of aggression and conquest
Don’t take my word for it: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war,” declared Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, in March 1972.
A year earlier, Mordechai Bentov, a member of the wartime government and one of 37 people to sign Israel’s Declaration of Independence, had made a similar admission. “This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon, a posteriori, to justify the annexation of new Arab territories,” he said in April 1971.
Even Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former terrorist and darling of the Israeli far right, conceded in a speech in August 1982 that “in June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
The reverberations of that attack are still being felt in the Middle East today. Few modern conflicts have had as deep and long-lasting an impact as the Six-Day War. As U.S. academic and activist Thomas Reifer has observed, it sounded the “death knell of pan-Arab nationalism, the rise of political Islam … a more independent Palestinian nationalism” and “Israel’s emergence as a U.S. strategic asset, with the United States sending billions of dollars … in a strategic partnership unequalled in world history.”
Above all else, the war, welcomed by the London Daily Telegraph in 1967 as “the triumph of the civilized,” forced another 300,000 Palestinians from their homes and ushered in a brutal military occupation for the million-odd Palestinians left behind.
The conflict itself may have lasted only six days, but the occupation that followed is now entering its sixth decade — the longest military occupation in the world. Apologists for Israel often deny that it is an occupation and say the Occupied Territories are merely “disputed,” a disingenuous claim belied by Israel’s own Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that the West Bank is “held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.”
Fifty long years of occupation; of dispossession and ethnic cleansing; of house demolitions and night curfews; of checkpointswalls, and permits.
Fifty years of racial discrimination and ethnic prejudice; of a “separate but unequal” two-tier justice system for Palestinians and Israelis; of military courts and “administrative detention.”
Fifty years of humiliation and subjugation; of pregnant Palestinian women giving birth at checkpoints; of Palestinian cancer patients denied access to radiation therapy; of Palestinian footballers prevented from reaching their matches.
Fifty years of pointless negotiations and failed peace plans: AllonRogersFahdFezReaganMadridOsloWye RiverCamp DavidTabaRed SeaAnnapolis. What did they deliver for the occupied Palestinians? Aside from settlements, settlements, and more settlements? Consider: In 1992, a year before the Oslo peace process began, West Bank settlements covered 77 kilometers and housed 248,000 Israeli settlers. By 2016, those settlements covered 197 kilometers and the number of settlers living in them had more than tripled to 763,000.
These settlements have rendered the much-discussed “two-state solution” almost impossible. The occupied West Bank has been carved up into a series of bantustans, cut off from each other and the wider world. The settlers are not going anywhere, anytime soon. They are Israel’s “facts on the ground.” To ignore them is to ignore perhaps the biggest obstacle to ending the occupation. “It’s like you and I are negotiating over a piece of pizza,” the Palestinian-American lawyer and former adviser to the PLO, Michael Tarazi, explained in 2004. “How much of the pizza do I get? And how much do you get? And while we are negotiating it, you are eating it.”


Gen. Moshe Dayan talks to reporters in Tel Aviv during his first news conference, June 3, 1967, after taking the post of Minister of Defense.

It wasn’t just the 1967 war that was launched on a lie; so too was the occupation that began after it. It was never supposed to be temporary, nor were the Palestinians ever supposed to get their land back. If Israel had planned to withdraw from the Occupied Territories, as some of its supporters suggest, then why was the first settlement in the West Bank, Kfar Etzion, established less than four months after the Six-Day War, in defiance of “top-secret” advice from the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser that “civilian settlement” in the territories would contravene “the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention”? Why has it revoked the residency rights of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank over the past 50 years? Why has the Jewish state spent the past five decades exploiting the charade of a “peace process” to gobble up more Palestinian land and build more illegal settlements? The truth is that the Jewish state, from the very beginning, “used negotiations as a smokescreen to advance its colonial project,” to borrow a line from imprisoned Palestinian militant and activist Marwan Barghouti. Fifty years on, it is time for both the Palestinian leadership and the international community to stop pretending otherwise.
The legendary Israeli general and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, who was one of the architects of Israel’s victory in 1967 and was adamant that the country should hold onto the territories it had seized, best summed up the cynical attitude of Israeli governments of both right and left over the past five decades. “The only peace negotiations,” pronounced Dayan, when asked about the possibility of a peace deal with the Palestinians in November 1970, “are those where we settle the land and we build, and we settle, and from time to time we go to war.”

maandag 5 juni 2017

Theresa May’s Deal With Donald Trump Will Harm The UK Much More Than Brexit



HuffPost UK


Theresa May’s Deal With Donald Trump Will Harm The UK Much More Than Brexit


 04/06/2017 22:33

Kieran Turner-Dave Blogger and Film Aficionado





British democracy, healthcare, energy, food and environmental standards would all be up for sale.
In just under a week, people across the UK will go to the polls to vote for who they want to represent them in the next government. Ever since she announced the snap election with a 24-point poll lead, Theresa May has used her limited public appearances to browbeat the electorate with calls for “strong and stable leadership”and to “strengthen her hand” in Brexit negotiations. After a disastrous Tory manifesto launch and a surge in popularity for Labour’s domestic policies, her lead has now slipped down to 3 points , according to recent polls. This has led the Prime Minister to double down, and further push for Brexit as the defining issue of the election.
Ms. May has boasted that she will be a “bloody difficult woman” with the European Union. She has also repeatedly stated that “no deal [with the EU] is better than a bad deal”, and that she would be willing to default to World Trade Organisation terms if a deal cannot be struck by 2019. While this bold stance may court the votes of hard Brexiteers during a General Election, the reality is that the economic effects of “no deal” are potentially disastrous for the UK. A recent World Bank study argues that a shift to WTO terms would cause trade in UK goods within the EU to halve, while trade in services would fall by 60 per cent. No members of the G20 currently trade with the EU on WTO rules. All have some special trading relationships in place.
Of course, the UK has its own ‘special relationship’ - with the United States. Within a week of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Theresa May was seen holding hands with the President in the halls of the White House. At a joint press conference with The President, The Prime Minister spoke about how “the USA is the single biggest source of inward investment to the UK” and was keen to promote a closer US-UK trade and military partnership, “particularly as the UK leaves the European Union”. Trump, meanwhile, complained about the difficulty he found in navigating EU regulation while working in business. He spoke of his anger at being “ripped off” by the rest of the world. He confirmed his eagerness to renegotiate trade deals in the US interest, to stop them “losing”, and claimed that past leaders had made the US “look foolish” after being out-negotiated.
Trump is hoping to succeed where his predecessor failed. Barack Obama, throughout his Presidency, attempted to pass the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - an EU trade deal that firmly favoured US interests.
TTIP aimed to curb regulations and remove all customs duties on corporations trading between the US and the EU, as well as removing ‘non-tariff trade barriers’. This broad and ill-defined term included any law, financial regulation, ethical code, health standard or environmental protection that restricted the operations of US corporations within the EU.
Most worryingly, the agreement would have allowed for ‘investor-to-state dispute settlements’ (ISDSs), which would have allowed large multinationals to sue a sovereign nation if their government passed a law that limited the corporation’s ability to make profit. These cases wouldn’t have been settled through national or European courts (as they were deemed to be biased) instead, they would be decided through private courts that the TTIP would create.
The deal was also suspiciously secretive. If an MEP wished to view the document outlining the terms of the deal, they would only get two hours to look through the complex legal document (which is hundreds of pages long). They would have to give over their possessions before entering the sealed-off reading room, and a guard would watch over them the entire time. They were also not allowed to tell anyone what they found inside the document.
After the Dutch arm of Greenpeace leaked 250 pages of the agreement, senior figures in Germany, France and Italy declared TTIP all but dead. They cited the heavy favouring of US interests and the overwhelmingly hostile public backlash to the deal from citizens across Europe.
However, the men who now form Theresa May’s Brexit negotiation team all strongly supported Britain’s part in the TTIP deal. Liam Fox said he would push for TTIP even with Britain leaving the EU. Boris Johnson said there was “nothing not to like about TTIP” and lauded it as a “sensational opportunity to break down the remaining trade barriers [with the USA]”. Whilst David Davis wrote that upon leaving the EU he will seek to “accelerate our component of the TTIP deal with the USA, and include financial services.”
It’s also worth remembering that these are the men who will likely be working with Theresa May to renegotiate UK trade deals for the next five years. They will be the ones sitting down with a President who is as enthusiastic about putting America first as he is about his own ability to broker “big deals”. Undoubtedly, any US-UK trade deal struck with Donald Trump will go further than Obama’s TTIP. Theresa May has already suggested that the UK health service could be part of a US trade deal. If the UK cannot hash out a deal with the EU over the next two years and ends up defaulting to WTO terms, the US will be eagerly waiting to exploit the huge gaps left in the UK market.
The passing of a TTIP-like deal would allow American private healthcare firms to bid for NHS contracts. American energy corporations would be free to frack for gas on UK land. American food companies could bypass regulations to sell food currently not deemed fit for consumption in the EU. Internet freedoms and net neutrality can be totally undermined by American entertainment giants. The same US bankers that caused the Global Financial Crisis could operate within the UK financial markets without regulation. All the while, none of these big American companies would have to pay import or export tariffs.
Worst of all, if a democratically elected UK government tried to pass legislation renationalising the NHS, increasing food standards, protecting internet freedom, cutting fossil fuel subsidies, or taxing bankers bonuses; an American corporation could effectively sue the government for loss of profits in a private court and win damages paid for by the taxpayer.
Lobbyists will be able to effectively blackmail the government into only passing laws that increased profits for dominant corporations - to the detriment of patients, taxpayers, voters and small and medium-sized European businesses.
Theresa May’s special relationship with Donald Trump will have disastrous consequences for the UK. A Tory-Trump deal will inevitably flood the British market with low quality products; allow American corporations to buy off public services wholesale; negatively affect the health of millions; permanently damage the environment; accelerate climate change; encourage risky, speculative and unregulated financial trading; and completely undermine our democracy.
With Article 50 signed, and the UK definitely leaving the EU, it is now time to decide. Do we want to take back control of our sovereign democracy and protect our public services? Or, do we want to allow American corporations to control our Parliament and fully privatise our National Health Service?