dinsdag 18 juli 2017

We and Only We Are on the Map


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo haaretz



Jewish World   >    Books
We and Only We Are on the Map


Arabs are perceived as inferior, hostile and threatening in history and geography textbooks. Did someone say something about educating toward peace?

Nurit Peled-Elhanan

Nov 19, 2012 1:45 PM


The controversial firing this past summer [ 2012 ] of Adar Cohen, civics studies supervisor for the Education Ministry, and the disqualification of history and civics textbooks over the past decade or so ‏(including “Olam shel Tmurot,” edited by Danny Yaakobi; “Bonim Medina Bemizrah Hatihon” by Eliezer Domke, Hanna Orbach and Tsafrir Goldberg; and “Yotzim Ladereh Ezrahit” by Bina Galdi, Asaf Matzkin and Nisan Nave, remind us that such books are still considered important tools in shaping students’ identity and worldviews.

A linguistic and semiotic analysis of more than 20 geography and history textbooks published between 1994 and 2010 that are intended for use in both the government-run secular school system and independent ultra-Orthodox schools shows that Israeli textbooks seek to bolster a territorial, nationalist brand of Jewish identity. This type of identity situates the modern Israeli as the direct descendant of the biblical heroes.

Israeli textbooks must be approved by the Education Ministry, and so, despite their differences, they all subscribe to a basic premise about identity that takes as a given :

1. the historical rights of the Jews to Palestine; Zionism’s existence as the answer to the Jews’ 2,000-year-old longing for their country; 2. the ongoing presence of anti-Semitism, 
3. Arab hostility and 
4. the Arab threat; and 
5. the need for a Jewish majority and 
6. Israeli control in order to maintain the character and security of the state.

History, according to the historian Keith Jenkins, is a “force field,” that is, a series of courses of action that organize the past by and for interested parties. It includes and it excludes, draws points of view to the central arena or pushes them to the margins, in different ways and degrees in response to the forces acting on them. 

Jenkins’ observation may be applied to geography textbooks too, and is particularly relevant in the case of maps, most of which remove or add geographical or political details. 

The geography texts I examined all had as their subject “Israel” or “Land of Israel” but not “State of Israel.” The only exception was “Israel: The Man and the Space,” by Zvia Fine, Meira Segev and Raheli Lavi ‏(Center for Educational Technology‏). 

However, although this text describes its subject as the “State of Israel” in the introduction, starting with the first map ‏(of Israel and its neighbours), it omits the pre-1967 border, while including the occupied territories, though they have never been legally annexed to the state.

On a map delineating the presence of Israel’s Arab population, the book indicates that “there are no statistics” for the Palestinian territories, whose inhabitants are described as “foreign workers” in the text. 

This method, by which land is acquired while its citizens and their existence are ignored, is called geographic or toponymic “silence.” It is, according to researcher A.K. Henrikson, “blank spaces, silences of uniformity, of standardization or deliberate exclusion, willful ignorance or even actual repression.”

Geographic silences in the book by Fine, Segev and Lavi are expressed by the fact that Arab cities and towns, including mixed cities within the 1967 borders − Nazareth and Acre − are not marked, and in the absence of Palestinian institutions. For example, a map of universities includes their branches, and also independent Jewish colleges in the territories ‏(in Alon Shvut and Elkana‏), but not one Palestinian university. The employment map marks Israeli workplaces in the territories, but not Palestinian ones. Furthermore, while there is a map of “national sites, cultural sites, [and] administrative and government institutions” in Jerusalem, none, except for the Western Wall, are marked in Arab East Jerusalem.

Surprisingly, a geography text for the independent ultra-Orthodox school system, “Sfat Hamapa,” by P. Dina ‏(Yeshurun Press‏), is excellent. It takes a clear ideological stance, puts the 1967 border in its maps, and asks questions that can lead students to the heart of the matter. For example : 

* “Consider why it is very important to know the precise borders of the Land of Israel as they are depicted in the Torah.” 
* “Why are the Golan Heights so important to us?” 
* “What is the Green Line?” 
* “Name some Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 border.” 
* “Clip and paste newspaper articles about the controversy over settlements in the ‘occupied territories’ beyond the Green Line.”

In the textbooks used in state-run secular schools that I surveyed, justifications of the occupation rest on biblical verses. In geography textbook “Artzot Hayam Hatihon” by D. Vadaya, H. Ahlman and J. Mimouni ‏(Maalot Press‏), in use by fifth grade classes since 1996, the section “One Sea and Its Many Names” doesn’t actually provide the names for the Mediterranean used by the different peoples who lived on its shores. Instead, it offers biblical quotes: 

* “I will set your borders from the Sea of Reeds to the Sea of Philistia” ‏(Exodus 23:31‏); 
* “your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River − the Euphrates − to the Western Sea” ‏(Deuteronomy 11:24‏). 

The map is titled “Northward and southward and eastward and westward” ‏(Genesis 13:14‏), with the explanation: “The meaning of the verse is that in the future your country will expand to the west, the east, north and south.” 

The title appears to the right of the map titled “Israel,” and includes all the occupied territories without any lines demarcating them. 
Inclusion of the Bible in a textbook stamps prophecy with a scientific seal of approval and awards a sacred dimension to a geography book.


An Arab with a camel
In a study published eight years ago, Ruth Firer of the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, at the Hebrew University, wrote that “as political correctness has reached Israel, it is no longer appropriate to use blunt, discriminatory language in textbooks.” Nonetheless, not one book examined in my study contains a description or image of Palestinians, from either the territories or Israel proper, as modern or urban, or as employed in manufacturing or in a prestigious profession.

* Palestinian refugees are presented as people who want to enter Israel and 
* not as those who wish to return to their homeland; 
* Israeli Arab citizens are depicted as the enemy within, a demographic threat and a minority that is inferior to the Jewish majority − individually, socially and economically. The Palestinians appear in the text only as representatives of the problems they constitute for Israel − backwardness and terrorism − or as part of the “refugee problem” that “has poisoned Israel’s relations with the Arab world and the international community for more than a generation,” according to Elie Barnavi and Eyal Naveh in their history textbook, “Modern Times 2” ‏(Sifrei Tel Aviv Press‏).

The only pictures of Palestinians in the history textbooks I examined show barefoot refugees walking down an unidentified road ‏(“Idan Ha’ayma Vehatikva” by Ketzia Avieli-Tabibian, Matah Press‏); tents in an unidentified location and time ‏(“Hale’umiut Bayisrael Uba’amim,” by Eyal Naveh, Naomi Vered and David Shahar, Rekhes Press‏); masked terrorists ‏(“The 20th Century,” by Barnavi, Sifrei Tel Aviv Press‏); and farmers behind a plow led by oxen ‏(“Anashim Bamerhav” by A. Rapp and Z. Fine, CET Press‏). The book “The Geography of Eretz Israel,” by Y. Aharoni and T. Saguy ‏(Lilach Press‏), offers a caricature of a man with a mustache wearing a kaffiyeh, either leading a camel or riding on one, often accompanied by a bent woman and children and sometimes an old Bedouin, every time the text refers to Arabs. These are the images that shape the way Israel’s Jewish students view their Arab and Palestinian neighbors, including their fellow Israeli citizens.

It was a miracle


The history textbooks largely depict the Palestinians as constituting a wretched problem not unlike an environmental disaster; students are shown images of empty streets flooded with water or aerial photos of densely built structures in empty refugee camps. The blame for this ongoing problem is cast on the victims, that is, the refugees who did not integrate themselves into Arab countries, and on the leaders of Arab countries who refused to absorb them. The problem, students read, serves Arab leaders mainly as anti-Israeli propaganda. For example, Naomi Blank explains in the history textbook “Pnei Hame’a Ha’esrim” ‏(The Face of the 20th Century, Yoel Geva Press‏) that “the refugee problem remains an unsolved one that greases the wheels of the Middle East conflict and fans the flames. ... Leaders of Arab states have exploited the Palestinian refugee problem as a tool that serves their political needs.”

While the curriculum mandates the presentation of a variety of positions on important issues, the political, cultural and economic points of view of the Palestinians are excluded. In “Bonim Medina Bemizrah Hatihon,” writers Domke, Orbach and Goldberg tried to include the point of view of a Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi, about the refugees. That attempt led to the book’s being rejected by the Education Ministry. In the corrected version, Israeli historian Benny Morris was brought in to represent the Palestinian perspective.

Other books also ignore non-Israeli historians, even as they purport to be representing multiple points of view on Israeli-Arab issues. Abraham Hadad, in “Toldot Yisrael Veha’amim Betkufat Hashoah Vehatekuma” ‏(Dani Press‏), and “50 Shenot Milhamot Vetikvot,” by Shula Inbar ‏(Lilach Press‏) offer the authors’ own interpretations under the heading “the Arab position.” According to them, the Palestinians brought disaster onto themselves and the leaders of Arab countries want that disaster to continue. 

The exit of Palestinians in 1948 is portrayed, in all the books I’ve reviewed, as a “mass flight” or a “frightened retreat” stemming from a few unplanned acts of expulsion, but mostly from exaggerated rumors about the cruelty of Jews that remain as myths in the Palestinian narrative, as described in the book “Haleumi’ut Bayisra’el Uba’amim.” Inbar’s book describes how David Ben-Gurion visited the abandoned village of Salameh and tried, without success, to extract the reasons for the flight from an old blind woman.

Most of the textbooks explicitly support Israel’s refusal to allow refugees to return, and a few detail how Israel has managed to prevent them from returning. All emphasize the positive nature of the outcome for the Jews. “It was a miracle that the Arabs in Haifa, Jaffa and the Katamon neighborhood of Jerusalem ran away and left everything in Jewish hands,” writes Yekutiel Fridner of the independent ultra-Orthodox school system in the book, “Toldot Hadorot Ha’ahronim: Yisrael Ve’umot Ha’olam Metkufat Hamahapaha Hatzarfatit ad Lamilhemet Sheshet Hayamim” ‏(Yeshurun Press‏). Human rights considerations and international law are not discussed at all.

It was just a campaign


In these books, massacres committed by the Israel Defense Forces or the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi military forces that predated the founding of the state become “actions,” “campaigns,” “stories” and “battles,” or even “punitive actions.” The Deir Yassin massacre of 1948, the massacre in Kafr Qasem in 1956 and the one in the Jordanian village of Qibya in 1953 are presented as actions that led to positive results ‏(despite the condemnation of the international community and the political leadership’s unease‏). Those results include a continuous strip of Jewish settlements in the corridor to Jerusalem, a slowing of the “hasty retreat” by Palestinian Arabs ‏(as in Deir Yassin‏), a surge in the army’s morale and the security of Israeli citizens ‏(as in Qibya‏), and an opportunity to declare that soldiers should not carry out patently illegal orders and the beginning of the process of dismantling Israel’s military government in the territories ‏(Kafr Qasem‏). The lesson gleaned from all the textbooks I’ve examined is that any injustices that Israelis commit are justified if they prevent an injustice that might be committed against us.

Visual aids accompany this material, but the images and sidebars focus on the Israeli soldiers, not on any atrocities they may have committed or on the victims of such atrocities. For example, the text describing the Deir Yassin massacre in “Idan Ha’eima Vehatikva” is situated next to a picture of Israeli soldiers standing on the ruins of the Kastel fortress nearby and the words to the popular poem and song “Shir Hare’ut,” about the camaraderie of soldiers. Alongside a description of the massacre in Qibya in “Hale’umi’yut Beyisra’el Ube’amim,” soldiers of Unit 101 are depicted as models of courage, daring, devotion and such, while “Idan Ha’eima Vehatikva” shows a photo of Ariel Sharon and his fighters, accompanied by Moshe Dayan, who came to congratulate them on their successful “mission” at Qibya and the words to the popular song “Hasela Ha’adom,” about courageously, if foolishly, sneaking across the Jordanian border to visit the ancient city of Petra.

The lives and suffering of the victims are given virtually no “paper time,” to use philosopher Roland Barthes’ phrase. In these books, descriptions of massacres do not generate empathy for the victims or human solidarity with their pain.

Chances for peace

One common feature of all the textbooks studied is the depiction of Palestinians, both those who are citizens of the state and those who are its subjects in the territories, as a problem to be solved. A peaceful solution to the conflict is portrayed again and again as impossible, and the Palestinians are always to blame for violating cease-fires and treaties. ‏(Israeli violations of the Oslo Accords are described as the acts of extremists, such as Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli physician who murdered 29 Palestinian worshipers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994.‏)

The ultra-Orthodox textbook author Yekutiel Fridner is proud of Israel’s slyness in making sure that UN Resolution 242 called for Israeli forces to withdraw from “territories” occupied in the Six-Day War rather than from “the territories,” meaning from some of them rather than all of them. 

This wording, Fridner exults, allowed Israel to retain control of parts of the West Bank when it was divided into administrative areas − including the Gush Etzion settlement bloc, Beit El and Ariel, and parts of East Jerusalem. 

He adds that while “the Palestinians ‘committed’ themselves to give Jews access to Jewish holy sites, these promises do not have much value.”

In sum, the textbooks under examination tend to support students’ hostility to and alienation from, as well as their ignorance about, the lives, culture, leaders and potential contributions of Palestinians to our society and country. None of the books contain a hint of the benefits peace might bring.

I can only conclude that not only is there no peace education in Israel, but that the textbooks used in Jewish schools in Israel are actively educating toward hatred. 

Teachers who are interested in critical readings of history and geography, or in education toward peace, require explicit training in everything connected to the ways the textbooks at hand deliver their politically charged messages. This training is vital to Israel, whose textbooks represent powerful sanctified political and social ideologies, and to an educational system that makes it difficult for teachers and students to bring critical thinking skills to bear on the canonic narrative, or to get involved in a discussion about the accuracy and justice of that narrative.

Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan is a lecturer in language education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This essay is based on her linguistic and semiotic analysis of more than 20 geography and history textbooks published between 1994 and 2010 for use in both the government-run school system and independent ultra-Orthodox schools. The findings of the study were published recently in her book “Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education” ‏(I.B. Tauris‏).

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/books/we-and-only-we-are-on-the-map-1.479038

zondag 16 juli 2017

The Texas Gerrymandering Trial Could Change All of America






The Texas Gerrymandering Trial Could Change All of America






Hey, fellow non-Texan! What if I told you that three federal judges in San Antonio, Texas are weighing arguments about racial bias in the creation of three congressional districts, and that the case has the potential to seriously impact America's ongoing political power struggle at the national level?
Well, you'd probably believe me. But you might not know why the Texas Gerrymandering Case is such a big deal. How would these rootin' tootin' districts in the Lone Star State impact me here in Portland/Duluth/Biloxi? I hear some of you asking, like a character in a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon. After all, I don't even live in Texas!
OK, here goes.

A little on gerrymandering, which is totally legal:
Reddit-inspired graphic by Lia Kantrowitz

The trial centers on the notorious practice of Gerrymandering in Texas, so real quick, let's get that term out of the way first. Gerrymandering is slang for what happens after each US census (every decade), when many congressional districts have to be redrawn based on changes in America's population. According to the last Census, there was supposed to be one representative for roughly every 711,000 people. But because we don't like independent commissions very much in this country, partisan political operatives employed by elected officials get to do this complicated math and geography in many states. As you can imagine, that process isn't always fair.
In the image above, you can see how constituencies with a clear partisan bias can be divided in such a way that their votes become almost worthless. This can happen because likely voters of one party are consciously being peppered into a bunch of districts, such that they'll never form a majority voting bloc (which is called "cracking"). Other times, voters get bunched into their own little voting enclave where they have an insanely huge majority but don't have an impact on other districts (this is called "packing").
All of this is legal—so long as it's not explicitly done on the basis of race.

Here's what Texas did that a federal court decided is not legal:

Image via Nationalatlas.gov/Wikimedia Commons
What was not legal, according to a 2-1 March ruling by a panel of three federal judges, is the method Texas used to draw its districts after the 2010 census. Essentially, the judges found it was done in a discriminatory way that deliberately diluted the voting power of minorities as much as possible. In April, the court also found that Texas had deliberately carved up state legislative districts (as opposed to congressional ones) in such a way that it diluted the voting power of Hispanics, which placed it in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
It's important to note here that this has been a legal issue for a while: Before the 2012 elections, a federal court sketched out some new districts in response to civil rights complaints, and the state government started using them officially in 2013. With those in place, everything seemed to be chugging along nicely for the Republican-dominated state government, until this spring.
That's when the judges on the aforementioned panel ruled that the official boundaries in place were deliberately unfair to people of color. That included District 35 (see above), a bizarre, long-necked beast that encompasses minority neighborhoods in San Antonio and Austin. "The Court finds that this evidence persuasively demonstrates that mapdrawers intentionally packed and cracked on the basis of race (using race as a proxy for voting behavior) with the intent to dilute minority voting strength," the majority wrote.

What's being argued in court:

The two sides in this arguments over the past week have been as follows:
The State of Texas is pointing out that the current map being used in elections is not the one that the panel of judges ruled was discriminatory, but a second one, drawn by the courts—the "interim" map. So, the thinking goes, there's no harm in continuing to use it.
The plaintiffs, who brought the civil rights case to the courts in the first place, say the tweaks the courts made to the district maps didn't erase the damage done to minorities. The result, the plaintiffs are arguing, is that people of color—who represent a huge economic force in Texas and are already a majority in the state—aren't adequately represented in electoral politics.

Why this matters so much to Texas:

If the court's next ruling says Texas has to redraw these three districts, the other congressional terrain nearby could be thrown out of whack as well. That effect could explode outward, forcing an unknown number of changes to the Texas electoral map.
And while everyone knows Texas is a red state—both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship are Republican—it's increasingly clear that it should probably be purple. According to a CBS/YouGov poll just before the 2016 election, 23 percent of Texans identified with the label "strong Democrat" compared to 25 percent who said "strong Republican." The final Trump/Clinton tally was about 52 percent to 43 percent—a solid win for Trump, but nothing like the 65-to-29 blow-out next door in Oklahoma. And it's also kind of a mysteryhow Fort Worth manages to be one of the only densely-populated metropolitan areas in the US run by Republicans.
So a new map that enfranchised minorities could have a major effect on the partisan balance of power in the state. As the Washington Post pointed out, of the top five American cities for explosive growth, four are in Texas, and that explosion is largely due to a surge in the Hispanic population.
"What was done here was to knowingly and intentionally impede the opportunity for African Americans and Latinos to elect candidates of their choice," Allan Lichtman, a social scientist at American University testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs, said in court this week. "What we see here is intentional discrimination."

Why this may matter to Americans in general, and possibly even you personally:

No matter how the judges rule, this process could conceivably go all the way to the US Supreme Court, where gerrymandering has been at the center of lots of big, precedent-setting decisions lately. In June, the justices agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. Race was at issue in May when the justices upheld a lower court's rejection of two districts in North Carolina. Plus, this all relates to a larger push for the voting rights of non-whites that gained new urgency after the Supreme Court tossed out a key feature of the Voting Rights Act mandating federal oversight of state voting laws in 2013.
But the impact could be even more immediate. According to the Associated Press, Texas gives the US House of Representatives a bigger "gerrymandering bump" than any other state. Per the AP's number-crunching, gerrymandering allowed House Republicans to occupy as many as 22 seats they otherwise wouldn't have, and "nearly four" of those seats are in Texas.
Texas currently has 25 Republican members of Congress, and just 11 Democrats. If the judges say Texas has to redraw these three districts, and the new ones result in the election of more Democrats in 2018, that could provide a real boost for the national Democratic Party's overall fate in the midterms—an election in which they have a fighting chance of taking back the House. Hell, even one new Texas Democrat making it to DC would be a big deal.
But try not to despair if you're a Republican, or get your hopes up too much if you're a Democrat who wants to see Donald Trump get impeached. There's a whole lot of "if" going on here, and at the end of the day, this is Texas we're talking about.

vrijdag 14 juli 2017

World war 3 is coming...



Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the independent


World war 3 is coming...



Although there has been no major combat between the great powers since the Second World War, there are three key fronts emerging that make the prospect of a third global conflict alarmingly conceivable

Youssef El-Gingihy

world-war-3.jpgFuture conflict could take the form of another cold war or even a conventional hot war, as opposed to thermonuclear Rex

The prospect of a global conflict – World War III if you like – appears somewhat unthinkable. Since the Second World War, there has been no major war between the great powers. The original post-war European project was based around peace, social justice and harmony. The unravelling of this project, accompanied by rising nationalism, is likely to exacerbate the dangers of war on a continent with a fraught history of bloody conflict.
In the 20th century, both world wars were unanticipated. Christopher Clark’s much acclaimed The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 – published in timely fashion for the centenary of First World War – charted Europe’s unexpected descent into war. First World War had been preceded by a prelude of serenity – the long 19th century of relative peace and stability. The great powers of Edwardian Europe had been engaged in diplomacy and trade prior to the onslaught of carnage.
During the 1930s, the major powers were keen to avert another war hence the policy of appeasement, the initial reluctance of the US to become involved and the Nazi-Soviet pact. Neville Chamberlain’s ill-fated announcement of “peace for our time” should be viewed in this context. Throughout the Cold War, the concept of a third world war was inextricably associated with nuclear war and the MAD doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Yet it is possible that future conflict between the great powers may take the form of another cold war or even a conventional (as opposed to thermonuclear) hot war. In the 21st century, there are three key fronts emerging as the loci for future wars. The first is the Europe-Russia front with a new cold war triggered by the Ukrainian conflict. The second is the Middle East cauldron centred around Isis and the Syrian war. The third is the Asia-Pacific front with a face-off between the United States and China.
Cold War II
Time magazine – the original Cold War mouthpiece of the American establishment – trumpeted the start of Cold War II in 2014. Western powers have characterised Vladimir Putin’s incursions into Georgia in 2008 and lately Ukraine as aggressive expansionism. Evidently the irony of the US casting aspersions around violation of national sovereignty, in light of the folly of the Iraq war, seems to have been lost. The realist perspective – as articulated by John Mearsheimer in the pages of US foreign policy bible Foreign Affairs – is that the Ukrainian crisis was preceded by two decades of NATO expansionism up to the borders of Russia. This was in contravention of promises made to respect these boundaries at the end of the Cold War.
cold-war-2.jpg
Time trumpeted the start of the second cold war in 2014
In this view, events in Ukraine have merely been the endgame of this process. It is worth recalling that the United States did not respond amicably to Soviet interference in Cuba in the 1960s. Such arguments have been rendered somewhat academic as they are overtaken by events. Increasing deployments of troops by both Nato and Russia, dangerous confrontations and massive war games are being played out.
The European Leadership Network (ELN) think-tank produced a 2015 report entitled Preparing for the Worst: Are Russian and Nato Military Exercises Making War in Europe more Likely? The report analysed recent war games including a Russian exercise involving 80,000 military personnel and a set of Nato war games comprising 15,000 personnel.
It went on to say that, “Both exercises show that each side is training with the other side’s capabilities and most likely war plans in mind... Whilst spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise. Russia is preparing for a conflict with Nato, and Nato is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia.”
gorbachev-reagan.jpg
Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan were able to improve US Russia relations but will the same be able to be said of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump? (Getty)
Recently, the US has stationed troops in Poland in the largest deployment of American troops in Europe since the end of the Cold War. As reported, these US troops will also, “fan out across other eastern European states, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania”. Russia alarmed the Baltic states by, “moving nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to its naval base at Kaliningrad in the autumn”.
According to the New York Times, an American missile shield is, “to be built in Poland mirroring one already in place in Romania”. Whether Trump’s attempted rapprochement with Russia defuses the situation remains to be seen. If the cold warriors in the Atlanticist defence establishment and hard-liners on the Russian side have their way, then tensions are only likely to be ratcheted up.
Middle East geopolitics
The intrepid German author Jürgen Todenhöfer took the concept of embedded journalism to a whole new level by holing up with Isis. He points out that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were only a few hundred Islamist fighters in the Hindu Kush mountains. Fast forward through 16 years of the war on terror costing some $4,000bn (£3,300bn) and leaving 1.3 million dead, according to Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the number of terrorists is currently about 100,000. Even on its own terms, the war on terror has been an abysmal failure. How on earth did this happen? Retired US General Wesley Clark revealed that, in the wake of 9/11, the Pentagon drew up plans to attack 7 countries.
These plans have been adhered to with remarkable fidelity with Western involvement in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The pretext may have been terrorism but the intention was to guarantee economic and military supremacy in the region. Many critics argued that the Iraq war was fundamentally about the opening up of state assets to global capital. Naomi Klein reported that the reconstruction of Iraq was estimated to have been worth about $100bn to the US economy. In the process, Iraq was transformed from a secular dictatorship into a Jihadist safe haven. Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to disband Saddam Hussein’s Baathist army led to chaos and now makes up a significant component of Isis.
iraq-war.jpg
Intelligence predicted that the Iraq war would lead to the amplification of Islamist terrorism (Getty)
The deliberate stoking of tensions through a US sponsored sectarian Shia-led Iraqi government was notable. This ultimately led to the Sunni backlash and the spawning of al-Qaeda in Iraq. This is a hallmark of colonial-era tactics of divide and rule. In fact, British and American intelligence predicted that the Iraq war would lead to the amplification of Islamist terrorism.
Back in 2007, the veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh posited in an extended New Yorker essay, The Redirection, that US Middle East geopolitical strategy was directed against the regional superpower of Iran and its Shia sphere of influence extending through Syria and to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh has since elaborated, in a series of controversial London Review of Books essays, that the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad would have severed this Shia sphere. Following the destruction of Iraq, this sphere remained the only obstacle to US full-spectrum dominance of the world’s largest oil fields.
The Syrian war has seen allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – arming and funding radical Jihadist groups, such as the al-Nusra front. Former Vice President Joe Biden – renowned for bloopers – frankly admitted as much to a Harvard audience. The Wikileaks disclosures of Hillary Clinton’s emails revealed that she too was aware of Saudi and Qatari governments arming Isis. In realpolitik, the ends apparently justify the means.
Hersh elaborates on how British and American intelligence have been enmeshed with the use of CIA front companies in an arms pipeline from Libya to Syria dubbed the “rat line”. It was under these conditions that the mutation into the Frankenstein monster that is Isis took place. In fact, a 2012 Defence Intelligence Agency memo had anticipated the rise of Isis and its establishment in Syria in order to “isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion”.
The terrorist attacks in Europe have demonstrated the difficulty in containing the spill-over from these policies. The Syrian war has seen the return of great-power politics with the involvement of Russia. This contamination has the potential for a wider conflict in which western countries could be drawn in. One possible trajectory is that a Sunni-Shia war along the Saudi-Iran axis looks increasingly likely. Yet this destabilisation of Iraq and Syria may well have been engineered deliberately.
isis-suicide-bombing-al-bab.jpg
A recording of an Isis suicide bombing in al-Bab was sent out on propaganda channels last week
According to Nafeez Ahmed, documents from the Rand Corporation and US private intelligence firm Stratfor confirm this picture. An incendiary report, authored by no less than former Bush Vice President Dick Cheney and former deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, envisioned ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq. All in all, this could represent a new Sykes-Picot (the post Ottoman empire settlement) or redrawing of the Middle East carving it up into smaller, weaker territories, which are more pliable.
Back in the 1990s, the political scientist Samuel Huntington made some dire predictions of a clash of civilisations. Even in the wake of 9/11, such apocalyptic theories appeared quaint; now they no longer seem absurd. Isis directives aim to create more violence and chaos with the obliteration of the “grey zone” of multicultural societies, in which non-Muslims and Muslims live side by side, forcing Muslims to join the “caliphate”. Ironically, US policy is doing Isis’s work for them and, in another bizarre twist, it seems that Isis is aiding US geopolitical strategy.
Asia Pacific
Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War is an intelligent thriller written by PW Singer and August Cole, both of whom have national security expertise. Ghost Fleet imagines what a 21st century world war might look like pitting the US, China and Russia against each other complete with cyber-warfare, robotics and drones. But could this nightmarish fiction turn into dystopian reality? 
south-china-sea.jpg
China’s Liaoning aircraft carrier conducts a drill in the South China Sea (Reuters)
During the Obama administration, the Pentagon pursued the pivot to Asia aiming to transfer 60 per cent of naval bases to Asia. The US also strengthened alliances with Japan and other Far East partners to “contain” China. Economically, the US pursued the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a massive trade agreement, which would have deliberately excluded China. Admittedly, a Trump executive order indicates imminent withdrawal from TPP. In recent years, tensions have been mounting between China and Japan.
Both sides are now equipped with vertical take-off aircraft. There have also been a series of stand-offs between the US and China in the South China Sea. The US is currently installing a missile defence system in South Korea prompting China to warn of a new atomic arms race in the region. A recent US taskforce report unsurprisingly concluded that America and China are on a dangerous collision course.
The Trump transition is likely to exacerbate US-China tensions. Trump has threatened a trade war with China. While his chief strategist Steve Bannon stated in March of last year that, “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years…. There’s no doubt about that.” If there is a coherent philosophy of Trumpism then it is represented by the ideology of Bannon. Bannon subscribes to the Huntingtonian idea of a coming clash of civilisations between west and east with the Orient bracketing both China and Islam.
Bannon views China and Islam as expansionist threats. He has also stated that the Judaeo-Christian west is, “at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism” and that, “We’re clearly going into, I think, a major shooting war in the Middle East again.” China will eventually overtake the US in economic terms but US supreme military dominance is unchallenged. This is a dangerous discrepancy as it means that the US will use this military power to guarantee its economic prerogative – particularly as a massive national security apparatus now seems to dictate US foreign policy. As Obama has put it, the US is exceptional because it acts.
north-korea-nuclear-abilities.jpg
People watch a news report on North Korea’s first hydrogen bomb test (Getty)
This would be in keeping with the default operational mode of capitalism. One might even argue that capitalism often resolves systemic economic crises through war. After all, a war economy with militarisation, mobilisation, full employment and jingoism can be viewed as the ultimate solution to economic woes and social unrest. The transition of Western democracy to oligarchy and the descent into soft fascism is under way. Citizens will need to participate actively, rather than as passive consumers, to demand an end to this cycle of violence from governments and to defend the assault on democratic processes. We can only hope that British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey’s refrain on the commencement of First World War – “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time” – will not be repeated in ours. But the omens are not good. As the late Eric Hobsbawm put it, the old century has not ended well.

woensdag 12 juli 2017

JARED KUSHNER TRIED AND FAILED TO GET A HALF-BILLION-DOLLAR BAILOUT FROM QATAR





Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo the intercept





JARED KUSHNER TRIED AND FAILED TO GET A HALF-BILLION-DOLLAR BAILOUT FROM QATAR





By Ben Walsh, Ryan Grim, Clayton Swisher




July 10 2017, 5:25 p.m.

NOT LONG BEFORE a major crisis ripped through the Middle East, pitting the United States and a bloc of Gulf countries against Qatar, Jared Kushner’s real estate company had unsuccessfully sought a critical half-billion-dollar investment from one of the richest and most influential men in the tiny nation, according to three well-placed sources with knowledge of the near transaction.

Kushner is a senior adviser to President Trump, and also his son-in-law, and also the scion of a New York real estate empire that faces an extreme risk from an investment made by Kushner in the building at 666 Fifth Avenue, where the family is now severely underwater.

Qatar is facing an ongoing blockade led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and joined by Egypt and Bahrain, which President Trump has taken credit for sparking. Kushner, meanwhile, has reportedly played a key behind-the-scenes role in hardening the U.S. posture toward the embattled nation.

That hard line comes in the wake of the previously unreported half-billion-dollar deal that was never consummated. Throughout 2015 and 2016, Jared Kushner and his father, Charles, negotiated directly with a major investor in Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, known as HBJ for short, in an effort to refinance the property on Fifth Avenue, the sources said.

Trump himself has unsuccessfully sought financing in recent years from the Qataris, but it is difficult to overstate just how important the investment at 666 Fifth Avenue is for Kushner, his company, and his family’s legacy in real estate. Without some outside intervention or unforeseen turnaround in the market, the investment could become an embarrassing half-billion-dollar loss. It’s unclear precisely how much peril such a loss would put Jared’s or his family’s finances in, given the opacity of their private holdings.

HBJ, a former prime minister of Qatar who ran the country’s $250 billion sovereign wealth fund, is a billionaire and one of the world’s richest men. He owns a yacht worth $300 million called Al Mirqab, the same name he gave to the private investment firm that Kushner pitched. The former emir of Qatar summed up HBJ’s power with a quip: “I may run this country, but he owns it.”

HBJ ultimately agreed to invest at least $500 million through Al Mirqab, on the condition that Kushner Companies could raise the rest of a multibillion refinancing elsewhere. The negotiations continued long after the election, carried out as recently as this spring by Charles Kushner. “HBJ basically told them, we’re good for 500, subject to a lot of things, but mainly subject to you being able to raise the rest,” said one source in the region with knowledge of the deal. The talks were confirmed by two additional sources with knowledge of the talks. One of those sources claimed that the potential deal was not contingent on the rest of the money being raised and that the HBJ investment was on hold as the overall structure of the financing was reconsidered. None of the sources would agree to talk on the record about a private financial transaction that has until now remained a secret.

After the election, Kushner Companies found many more suitors interested in doing business, one of the sources, who is U.S.-based, said. One of the investors taking the deal more seriously in late 2016 and early 2017, the U.S. source said, was “Hamid bin what’s-his-name,” referring to HBJ. Top executives at Kushner Companies, the source said, “are dumb enough to not know that why they want to deal with them has nothing to do with the real estate. Around the New Year they were like, ‘LPs” — industry slang for limited partners, or investors — “are engaging more!’ It’s like, I wonder why?”

Or, perhaps, they know quite well what’s going on. The $500 million still left the Kushners far short, and to try to fill the financing hole, the company turned to China. An insurance firm there with close ties to the country’s ruling elite had been pursued for months, but, like the other investors, wasn’t truly interested in the deal until after the election. (A source familiar with the dealmaking said that the Kushners had been in discussions with HBJ since before Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015. When a potential deal with Anbang was first reported by the New York Times in January 2017, company spokeswoman Risa Heller said the talks began “well before the president-elect’s victory,” right around when he officially sealed the Republican nomination.)

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks referred questions to Kushner Companies; a spokesman there declined The Intercept’s request for comment. HBJ declined to comment.

In March, the details of the talks between Kushner and the firm, Anbang, became public. Anbang would invest $400 million in the project and the Kushners would put up $750 million, and additional investors, of which The Intercept’s sources say HBJ was to be one, would contribute a total of almost $2 billion more, according to a document being shown to investors that was shared with Bloomberg. The investment would have fit a trend of increasing Qatari investment in New York City real estate: Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, which HBJ used to run, has increased its investment in New York City real estate in recent years, and HBJ has a number of property investments in London and New York.

Anbang’s $400 million, plus $100 million from other investors, would flow to the Kushners, meaning the family would recoup the entirety of their initial $500 million investment, a startling turnaround given that the New York Times’s detailed analysis of the building’s woes found the Kushners’ investment was now essentially worthless.

Crucially, in addition to the cash investment, the deal called for Anbang to take out a $4 billion loan to finance the demolition of the current building and the construction of an 80-story Zaha Hadid-designed residential and retail tower in its place. (The total cost for the project would be around $7.5 billion.) Only a handful of companies in the real estate business, such as Blackstone and Brookfield, are big enough to secure a loan of that size, and to date they appear unwilling to take on the level of scrutiny the deal would bring, never mind offer terms as favorable as Anbang’s. Additionally, any borrower would have to get their loan from somewhere, and one dynamic stymying the deal may be that any bank that underwrote such a loan would face just as much scrutiny for their financial and political judgment as the investor they gave it to.

Anbang pulled out after the deal was criticized as a conflict of interest, given Kushner’s role in the White House. With Anbang, and its ability to secure a $4 billion construction loan, out, the Qatari condition wasn’t met, and the Gulf deal fizzled, according to a source in the region. That chain of events was disputed by a source who said the deal between HBJ and the Kushners wasn’t dead, but on hold as the deal’s mix of loans and equity was reconsidered.

The revelation of the half-billion-dollar deal raises thorny and unprecedented ethical questions. If the deal is not entirely dead, that means Jared Kushner is on the one hand pushing to use the power of American diplomacy to pummel a small nation, while on the other his firm is hoping to extract an extraordinary amount of capital from there for a failing investment. If, however, the deal is entirely dead, the pummeling may be seen as intimidating to other investors on the end of a Kushner Companies pitch.

THE CRISIS DATES to May, when President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and met with regional leaders there, laying his hands on the now-famous orb. The Emir of Qatar met with Saudi King Salman, a high-level Qatari source told The Intercept, and it went well. “The Emir was in Jeddah before the summit, had a meeting with King Salman. King Salman did not bring up any subject about differences with Qatar,” he said. “After the summit, the Saudis and the Emirates, they thought, after signing all these contracts, they can have the upper hand in the region and they don’t want any country not to be in the same line.”

Whatever the reasoning, on June 5, a diplomatic crisis broke out, as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, along with Egypt and Bahrain, downgraded ties with Qatar, citing Qatar’s funding of terrorist organizations. Weeks earlier, the same countries blocked a number Qatari-backed media outlets citing derogatory public comments by the Emir, which Qatar insisted were fabricated and the result of a hack.

On June 6, President Trump took sides, taking credit for the moves by the Gulf nations.

During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017


So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

…extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

On June 9, after Saudi Arabia and the UAE had begun to blockade Qatar, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sought to calm nerves, calling for mediation and an immediate end to the blockade.

Within hours, Trump, at a White House ceremony, contradicted Tillerson, slamming Qatar again and claiming it had “historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

Trump’s White House remarks, Tillerson came to believe, had been written by UAE Ambassador Yousef Al-Otaiba and delivered to Trump by Jared Kushner.

The blockade continued. At a private fundraiser in late June, he aimed at Qatar again, this time mocking the pronunciation of the country’s name. “We’re having a dispute with Qatar — we’re supposed to say Qatar. It’s Qatar, they prefer. I prefer that they don’t fund terrorism,” he quipped, according to an audio recording of his speech obtained by The Intercept.

THE KUSHNERS’ PURCHASE of 666 Fifth Avenue for a record-breaking $1.8 billion in 2007 was a capstone to an era marked by high prices and reckless amounts of debt. The Kushners invested $500 million in the building, and took out debt to cover the rest. But even at the height of a bubbling New York real estate market, there were clear signs that the price was too high and the debt was too much. The Kushners paid $1,200 a square foot, twice the previous per square foot record of $600, while records show that even with the building initially almost fully rented out, revenue only covered about two-thirds of the family’s debt costs.

When the financial crisis hit, rents went down, vacancies went up, and the Kushners were short on cash to pay their debts. They sold off the Fifth Avenue retail space for $525 million and used the proceeds to pay off non-mortgage debt on the building. Then, in 2011, the Kushners sold off just under 50 percent of the building’s office space to Vornado, as part of a refinancing deal with the publicly traded real estate giant.

The $1.2 billion interest-only mortgage is due in February 2019. The office space is worth less than its mortgage and “there is no equity value” left in the office section of the building, Jed Reagan of Green Street Advisors told the New York Times in April. (Because they sold the retail space to make payments on other debt tied to the building, the office space is the only part of the tower the Kushners still have a stake in.) As a result, the family’s initial $500 million investment, once heralded as an example of Jared’s emergence as a brash real estate star, has for now effectively been wiped out. A massive refinancing and construction of a new tower that dramatically increases the building’s value is one way to try to get out of that hole.

The Kushners are also looking for loans totaling $250 million to pay off debt used to build an apartment building in Jersey City, Bloomberg first reported in June. The tower, called Trump Bay Street, was financed in part by Chinese investors. Those investments were made through the E5-B visa program, which gives green cards to wealthy foreigners in exchange for investments in the U.S. The family also owes CIT Group $140 million, which it must repay by September. A company spokesman later confirmed to the New York Times that it was indeed seeking the $250 million loan.

The Kushners came under fire in May when the New York Times reported that Jared’s sister Nicole Meyer had pitched her family’s ties as part of a roadshow to raise money for another Jersey City building under the same pay-for-residency visa program. After the report, the family backtracked and said they would not take part in the roadshow going forward.

Meanwhile, the water is rising on the Fifth Avenue investment. And the blockade continues.

Had the Qataris known where things were heading diplomatically, said the source in the region, they’d have happily ponied up the money, even knowing that it was a losing investment. “It would have been much cheaper,” he said.