Just International

US closes in on $100bn deal to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia

By independent.co.uk

The United States is close to completing a series of arms deals for Saudi Arabia totaling more than $100bn, a senior White House official said on Friday, a week ahead of President Donald Trump’s planned visit to Riyadh.

The official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the arms package could end up surpassing more than $300bn over a decade to help Saudi Arabia boost its defensive capabilities while still maintaining US ally Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbours.

“We are in the final stages of a series of deals,” the official said. The package is being developed to coincide with Mr Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia. Mr Trump leaves for the kingdom on 19 May, the first stop on his maiden international trip.

Reuters reported last week that Washington was pushing through contracts for tens of billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, some new, others already in the pipeline, ahead of Mr Trump’s visit.

The US has been the main supplier for most Saudi military needs, from F-15 fighter jets to command and control systems worth tens of billions of dollars in recent years. Mr Trump has vowed to stimulate the US economy by boosting manufacturing jobs.

The package includes American arms and maintenance, ships, air missile defence and maritime security, the official said. We’ll see a very substantial commitment. In many ways it is intended to build capabilities for the threats they face.”

The official added: “It’s good for the American economy but it will also be good in terms of building a capability that is appropriate for the challenges of the region. Israel would still maintain an edge.”

While in Riyadh, the official said Mr Trump would attend three major events: a series of meeting with Saudi officials, a separate session with leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council and a lunch with Arab and Muslim leaders, 56 of whom have been invited, to discuss combating extremism and cracking down on illicit financing.

Mr Trump will discuss how to counter the threat from Islamic State militants, the war in Yemen and threats of ballistic missiles and maritime shipping in the Red Sea, the official said.

US Navy commanders have accused Iran of jeopardising international navigation by “harassing” warships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Gulf Arab states are optimistic about Mr Trump whom they see as a hawkish leader opposed to their adversary Iran.

A major part of the agenda with Gulf leaders will be the Syrian civil war amid calls for “de-escalation zones” in Syria to provide a safe haven for Syrian refugees.

Besides Saudi Arabia, Mr Trump’s first foreign trip will also include visits to Israel, the Vatican, Brussels for a NATO summit and Sicily for a Group of Seven summit.

14 May 2017

‘Enough is enough’: Norway’s trade unions vote to boycott Israel over Palestine

By rt.com

Norway’s largest trade union body has voted in favor of economic, cultural, and academic boycott of Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. In response, Tel Aviv said that the union “placed itself shoulder to shoulder with the worst enemies of Israel.”

The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) made the decision at the Congress on Friday, local media report. The Congress is the organization’s highest authority and holds its meetings every four years.

The Confederation should launch an effort “to achieve an international economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel,” representatives at the gathering stated. It is not yet clear, however, how the proposed ban would be implemented.

The boycott would serve as an instrument for Palestine to be recognized as state, and to bring an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and the Gaza blockade, Norwegian media report, citing the Congress.

The confederation went against the recommendations of its newly elected leader, Hans-Christian Gabrielsen, and voted 193 (some media report 197) to 117 in favor of boycotting Israel. Gabrielsen said that the decision would hurt Palestinian workers. “The situation for Palestinian workers is fragile. Many rely on work in Israel,” he said.

Jan Olav Andersen, a member of the LO editorial committee who voted for the boycott, said “enough is enough.”

“This year is the fiftieth year since Israel’s violation of international law of occupation [of Palestine]… And diplomacy has not made the situation better,” he said.

The LO has “a strong position in society and has set its stamp on society’s development for more than 100 years,” according to its website. The umbrella organization is affiliated with 24 unions with around 900,000 workers.

The country’s foreign minister, Borge Brende, criticized the confederation’s vote, saying the government “strongly opposes” the idea.

According to the ambassador, “accepting the claim of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, not to the Palestinian state but to Israel, means in reality the dissolution of the Jewish state.”

“By adopting these positions LO placed itself shoulder to shoulder with the worst enemies of Israel,” he added.

For decades, the Palestinian Territories – currently a non-member observer state at the United Nations – have been demanding that both the UN and the international community fully recognize their territories as an independent, sovereign nation.

At least 137 of the 193 UN member nations have recognized Palestine’s independence so far. In December 2016, the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities” on occupied Palestinian territories, with the US abstaining. It was the first resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in nearly eight years.

13 May 2017

Kashmir, A Way Forward

By Mir Suhail

Kashmir is said to be paradise on earth. However when India started implementing its policy of ” Kashmir baharat ka atoot ang hai  ( Kashmir is a integral part of India ) ”  , Kashmir once the valley of red apples became the valley of blood.

Successive Indian governments couldn’t resolve the problem and  Kashmiris kept the pot boiling. There is no solution in sight , unless through  tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and Kashmir.

Successive governments with spineless policies, tying the hands of the Kashmiri youths, deteriorated the situation so much so that the unarmed youths are killed like fireflies . What is most shocking is the Indian government’s claim that Kashmiri stone throwing youths are getting funds from Pakistani  agencies .Political analysts believe that Kashmir is slipping out of India’s hands. Many feel that India may eventually lose Kashmir if tough measures are not taken with immediate effect.

Now every Kashmiri believes that Kashmir is  not less than an open prison. A harsh open prison in which no sunlight comes in and there is regular torture in torture chambers .The cell is claustrophobic , trapped in it are not just Kashmiris, not just Muslims, not just stone-pelters , not just Gujjars and Pahadis , not just Ladhakis, but also the people of India and Pakistan. Someone locked us all in and threw away the keys away.

Kashmiris are willing to die for Kashmiri nationalism, they call it shahadat. One of the saddest moments of my life was to meet a 19-year-old student in North Kashmir ,  who said he wanted to die of ‘Indian bullets’ while pelting stones. His martyrdom, he said, will bring Freedom for Kashmir. He may not be around to see this Azaadi ( Freedom) , alas, but he wanted to escape the prison of life. His father was  killed when forces took his father when he was on his way home from his  shop , located near his house . Since his death many in the family are mentally unwell .The young boy wanted revenge. What madness is this?

Every home in Kashmir has such heartbreaking stories to tell. Kashmir may be heaven on earth for the tourists but it’s the saddest place on earth for its denizens.

And now Kashmiri students throw stones at Indian government forces again after the attack by Indian government forces on students, on April 09, 2017, in Govt Degree College Pulwama, the southern part  of Kashmir.  Fresh clashes erupted between Kashmiri students and Indian government forces  in every nook and corner of the valley .

As another set of toddlers turn into teenagers and learn stories of the repression of Kashmir from friends, family elders, books and journals, the internet and the graveyard memorials of the martyrs they get angry. As many as a Lakh of people have sacrificed their lives  for Kashmir . I asked the young boy, “How will your shahadat bring Azadi? “It will,” he insisted, “it will.” We will wait a 1000 years if we must , things change so fast , look at Syria , look at the West . How long will they hold on to us “.

Kashmir has become a factory of martyrs  . Like any factory, its processes are repetitive and banal. If someone is dead, with stones as their weapons, the  death produces a few more misconceptions among Indians . From  TV to Twitter , Facebook to Instagram , the mainland India calls him a terrorist, and Kashmiris  calls him a martyr and his name becomes a legend in his neighbourhood .

For most of the Kashmiris , it’s a wall you try to break down at your own risk.

I once again asked a question to a young and delicate business student. Is Kashmir a economic or social issue? He said ” neither it’s a economic nor a social issue , the aspirations of every Kashmiri is entirely political , freedom is what we want not jobs , giving people jobs is a step  but not a solution , the violence is a reminder that Kashmiris still don’t consider themselves as part of india and a proof that they never will “.

India has maintained a force of several hundred thousands of troops and paramilitary forces in Kashmir , which has turned it  into a military camp frequently under  curfew and always under the gun  .

When I asked such uncomfortable questions, even after being a member of  Students Union ( All J&K Students Union ) , some people  labeled me as an agent of political party. I stopped asking question since   people were not ready to answer me .

Kashmiris  have rights and aspirations that the world outside the Kashmir valley doesn’t want to know. Yet Kashmiris also have to understand their open wounds are as much  caused by the politcal class. Kashmiris are oppressed, yes, but the oppressor is not a single entity.  The PDP-BJP alliance is a marriage of convenience which is used to keep Kashmiris suppressed and confused.

As BJP general secretary Ram Madhav recently said of the use of human shield by the Indian Army in Kashmir, “All is fair in love and war.” This statement is a confirmation that India is at war with what it calls its own people. The statement also raises the question of love. Where is the love?

Ram Madhav’s idea of handling Kashmir is no different from  war tactics. It is to strengthen   wall of the  prison in which Kashmiris are caged in so Kashmiris can bang their heads on it with ever greater ferocity. It is not just Kashmiris who lose their lives in this prison. The body bags come home to the Indian hinterland too, a voice cries out that these lives could be saved if we had said all is fair in love .

But love is for the weak. India wants to be a strong and brave super prime time nation. India thinks it becomes a greater nation by blinding Kashmiris with pellet guns so that they see no evil anymore. They  wonder if india is losing Kashmir. They gave up on Kashmiris long ago in a hoary past we choose to forget. It was when Nehru went back on his promise to let Kashmiris decide and put Sheikh Abdullah in jail.

Videos and images from Kashmir travel via instant messengers straight into Pakistani phones via social media and TV studios.  The same events in Kashmir prompt Delhi’s TV studios  target Pakistan , by raising baseless allegations that Pakistan is  funding Kahmiri youths to pelt stones.

Kashmir is as much an emotive public issue in Pakistan as in India.  Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris can break down this triangular prison and break free. They can do so by picking up the formula  Manmohan and Musharraf had once discussed. Make borders irrelevant, demilitarise, give administrative autonomy, have joint control and eventually, some kind of joint sovereignty. A win-win situation that could make Kashmir belong to everyone. Lahoris could enjoy their holiday in Srinagar, and  punjabis in  Pakistani Punjab , a friendly relationship can be built on mutual trust

Mir Suhail is a Srinagar based journalist and  can be reached at suhailmir125@gmail.com

13 May 2017

New Moon over South Korea may doom US THAAD anti-missile system

By Rt.com

The alliance between the US and South Korea is expected to stay, but it is time for the new president in Seoul to rethink about how to deal with the THAAD anti-missile system, said Victor Gao from the China National Association of International Studies.

Moon Jae-in, who was sworn in as the new South Korean president, looks ready to forge closer ties in Asia, including with North Korea. America’s role in the region could be set to change as well, with Moon emphasizing that South Korea needs to stand its ground when it comes to Washington.

RT:  Should we expect new Seoul-Beijing alliance in the region with a new president?

Victor Gao: First of all, let’s congratulate President Moon for taking office at a very difficult time in South Korea, as well as on the Korean peninsula. As for relations between China and the Republic of Korea, it has been deteriorating mainly because of the US deployment of the THAAD system. And China-ROK economic relations have also taken a beating. Therefore, there is a lot of expectations for President Moon to really change course. First of all, I think we need to wait and see whether President Moon will have enough courage to discontinue the deployment of the THAAD in South Korea. And secondly, whether he will be able to pick up steam and strike for a rapprochement in relations with China and also – to follow the sunshine policy and improve the relations with DPRK. One word, which is very important: we do not want to see the breakout of war on the Korean peninsula; we want to see peace and stability maintained, and we devote our resources and focus on development rather than wars and conflicts.

RT:  Moon’s agenda seems to contradict the American one. Do you think Trump should be worried?

VG: I think the staunch alliance between the US and the Republic of Korea is expected to stay, but that doesn’t mean the deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system in ROK by the US is the right decision. It completely antagonizes China, as well as Russia. And keeping the THAAD system in South Korea will do more harm than any good for the people in South Korea, and eventually, the US is not going to gain anything. Therefore it is time for the new president in Seoul to rethink about how to deal with a THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea … I think the key questions are between North Korea and the United States. Therefore, South Korea is doing the right thing under the leadership of President Moon to position itself in a more conciliatory tone to DPRK through peaceful dialog with each other rather than warmongering.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

10 May 2017

French Presidential Election 2017: Nothing Succeeds Like Success. Macron “Selected”. Billionaires and Bankers Rejoice

By Diana Johnstone

There is great rejoicing tonight in places accustomed to rejoicing. The best champagne must be flowing in places that have plenty of it, chez Bernard Arnault, for example, first fortune in France (eleventh in the world), owner among so much else of the newspapers Parisien, Aujourd’hui France and Echos, all fervent supporters of Emmanuel Macron. The glasses should be clinking also wherever the peripatetic billionaire Patrick Drahi finds himself, born in Morocco, double French-Israeli nationality, resident of Switzerland, owner of a vast media and telecom empire, including the epitome of post-May ’68 turncoatism, the tabloid Libération, which ran a headline calling on voters to cast their ballots for Macron a day after the public campaign was legally over.

The list is long of billionaires, bankers and establishment figures who have a right to rejoice at the extraordinary success of a candidate who got elected President of the French Republic on the claim to be “an outsider”, whereas nobody in history has ever been so unanimously supported by all the insiders you can name.

There should also be satisfaction in the embassies of all the countries whose governments openly interfered in the French election – the U.S. of course, but also Germany, Belgium, Italy and Canada, among others, who earnestly exhorted the French to make the right choice: Macron, of course. All these champions of Western democracy can all join in gloating over the nonexistent but failed interference of Russia – for which there is no evidence, but part of the fun of a NATOland election these days is to accuse the Russians of meddling.

As for the French, abstention was nearly record-breaking, as much of the left could not vote for the self-proclaimed enemy of labor law but dared not vote for the opposition candidate, Marine Le Pen, because one just cannot vote for someone who was labeled “extreme right” or even “fascist” by an incredible campaign of denigration, even though she displayed no visible symptom of fascism and her program was favorable to lower income people and to world peace. Words count in France, where the terror of being accused of sharing World War II guilt is overwhelming.

Surveys indicate that as much as 40% of Macron voters chose him solely to “block” the alleged danger of voting for Marine Le Pen.

Others on the left voted for Macron vowing publicly that they will “fight him” once he is elected. Fat chance.

There may be street demonstrations in coming months, but that will have little impact on Macron’s promise to tear up French labor law by decree and free labor and management to fight it out between themselves, at a time when management is powerful thanks to delocalizations and labor is disorganized and enfeebled by the various effects of globalization.

As Jean Bricmont put it, outgoing French President François Hollande deserves a Nobel Prize for political manipulation.

At a time when he and his government were so unpopular that everyone was looking forward to the election as a chance to get rid of them, Hollande, with zealous assistance from of the major media, leading banks and oligarchs of various stripes, succeeded in promoting his little-known economic advisor into the candidate of “change”, neither left nor right, a totally fresh, new political star – supported by all the old politicians that the public wanted to get rid of.

This is quite an amazing demonstration of the power of “communications” in contemporary society, a triumph for the advertising industry, mainstream media and the billionaires who own all of that.

France was perceived as a potential weak link in the globalization project of eliminating national sovereignty in favor of the worldwide reign of capital. Thanks to an extraordinary effort, this danger has been averted. At least for now.

8 May 2017

The hazards of criticizing Israel

By Richard Falk

To “smear critics with allegations of anti-Semitism is to confuse criticisms of Israel’s state policies with anti-Semitism,” writes international law expert Richard Falk.

In recent years, there has been an increasing tendency by Western governments and some media to deal with criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians by labelling critics as anti-Semites. The tactic, pioneered and promoted by the Israeli government, is to disable and discredit the messenger, and by so doing divert attention from an unwelcome message.

This has several unfortunate consequences. Most importantly, it avoids a careful inquiry into whether the Palestinians are victims of violations of international humanitarian law. Such an inquiry is not far-fetched since they have been living in the West Bank without rights under military administration for the past 50 years.

At the same time, to smear critics with allegations of anti-Semitism is to confuse criticisms of Israel’s state policies with anti-Semitism. Of course, some critics of Israel are anti-Semites. However, very many critics, including many Jews, such as those active in Jewish Voice for Peace, are certainly not. Real anti-Semitism, which is on the rise, ranges from prejudicial attitudes and practices against Jewish people to the kind of racial hatred and persecution of Jews that reached its climax during Nazi times, culminating in the Holocaust.

It should be appreciated that Zionism, a Jewish nationalist movement, is a political project of Jewish return, with roots in the late 19th century, which from its outset was controversial among Jews for a variety of reasons. The moral and legal dilemmas confronting Zionism from its inception arose from seeking to establish a Jewish state in a society already containing a large indigenous Arab population.

Thus anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism can reflect very different attitudes. In fact, there are several examples of prominent people who are anti-Semitic although pro-Zionist. It is also a feature of the Christian Zionist movement in the U.S. to be fanatically supportive of Israel while openly hoping that Jews will leave America.

I mention these considerations as background for my own recent experience. I have been personally attacked as “anti-Semitic” and “a self-loathing Jew” following the release of a United Nations-sponsored study that I co-authored investigating whether the available evidence supported a finding that Israel was guilty of apartheid — as defined by the UN Convention on Apartheid — due to the manner by which it controlled the Palestinian population.

This was an academic study I jointly undertook with Prof. Virginia Tilley, a world class expert on apartheid as a result of widely praised scholarly work on South African racism and apartheid. Before it was released by a UN regional commission in the Middle East, our report had been reviewed separately by three anonymous distinguished jurists from around the world who each urged publication.

As authors, we understood that our study, and especially its conclusions and recommendations, would be controversial. We welcome debate and discussion. However, to ignore the analysis and defame the authors is to close off discussion, and signal that international law and the Palestinian people don’t matter if you have geopolitics on your side. To accuse me of being a self-hating Jew as well as an anti-Semite is to further evade the challenge posed by our report.

I have worked on many issues over the course of my 60 years of university teaching, but until I began dealing with Israel and Palestine a decade ago I have never experienced this kind of attack on my person rather than my ideas.

Because the allegation that I am anti-Semitic is so baseless it is often accompanied by taking my views on other issues out of context, presenting them in a distorted form. I request that anyone who considers giving credence to attacks on my character investigate the context of any unsavoury views ascribed to me.

It is my opinion that our UN study that has provoked such controversy, and can be found online, deserves serious consideration. After half a century of failed diplomacy and harsh occupation, it is time to re-examine what can be done to create the conditions for a fair and sustainable peace for both peoples.

What our study proposes is that an essential precondition for such a desirable outcome depends on dismantling present systematic structures of domination that are relied upon by Israel to control the Palestinian people as a whole, whether they live under occupation or as refugees and involuntary exiles or as a discriminated minority in Israel itself. By thinking of the situation in this way we begin to understand that the conflict is most fundamentally about people and only secondarily about territory.

It is an illusion to suppose that ending the occupation, even if achieved, would bring peace. However, ending apartheid could.

Richard Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University.

9 May 2017

Israel’s New Cultural War of Aggression

By Richard Falk

A few weeks ago my book Palestine’s Horizon: Toward a Just Peace was published by Pluto in Britain. I was in London and Scotland at the time to do a series of university talks to help launch the book.

Its appearance happened to coincide with the release of a jointly authored report commissioned by the UN Social and Economic Commission of West Asia, giving my appearances a prominence they would not otherwise have had. The report concluded that the evidence relating to Israeli practices toward the Palestinian people amounted to ‘apartheid,’ as defined in international law.

There was a strong pushback by Zionist militants threatening disruption. These threats were sufficiently intimidating to academic administrators, that my talks at the University of East London and at Middlesex University were cancelled on grounds of ‘health and security.’ Perhaps, these administrative decisions partly reflected the awareness that an earlier talk of mine at LSE had indeed been sufficiently disrupted during the discussion period that university security personnel had to remove two persons in the audience who shouted epithets, unfurled an Israeli flag, stood up and refused to sit down when politely asked by the moderator.

In all my years of speaking on various topics around the world, I had never previously had events cancelled, although quite frequently there was similar pressure exerted on university administrations, but usually threatening financial reprisals if I was allowed to speak. What happened in Britain is part of an increasingly nasty effort of pro-Israeli activists to shut down debate by engaging in disruptive behavior, threats to security, and by smearing speakers regarded as critics of Israel as ‘anti-Semites,’ and in my case as a ‘self-hating,’ even a self-loathing Jew.

Returning to the United States I encountered a new tactic. The very same persons who disrupted in London, evidently together with some likeminded comrades, wrote viciously derogatory reviews of my book on the Amazon website in the U.S. and UK, giving the book the lowest rate possible rating, This worried my publisher who indicated that how a book is rated on Amazon affects sales very directly.

I wrote a message on my Facebook timeline that my book was being attacked in this way, and encouraged Facebook friends to submit reviews, which had the effect of temporarily elevating my ratings. In turn, the ultra-Zionists went back to work with one or two line screeds that made no effort whatsoever to engage the argument of the book. In this sense, there was a qualitative difference as the positive reviews were more thoughtful and substantive. This was a new kind of negative experience for me. Despite publishing many books over the course during this digital age I had never before had a book attacked in this online manner obviously seeking to discourage potential buyers and to demean me as an author. In effect, this campaign is an innovative version of digital book burning, and while not as vivid visually as a bonfire, its vindictive intentions are the same.

These two experiences, the London cancellations and the Amazon harassments, led me to reflect more broadly on what was going on. More significant, by far, than my experience are determined, well-financed efforts to punish the UN for its efforts to call attention to Israeli violations of human rights and international law, to criminalize participation in the BDS campaign, and to redefine and deploy anti-Semitism so that its disavowal and prevention extends to anti-Zionism and even to academic and analytic criticism of Israel’s policies and practices, which is how I am situated within this expanding zone of opprobrium.

Israel has been acting against human rights NGOs within its own borders, denying entry to BDS supporters, and even virtually prohibiting foreign tourists from visiting the West Bank or Gaza. In a remarkable display of unity all 100 U.S. senators recently overcame the polarized atmosphere in Washington to join in sending an arrogant letter to the new UN Secretary General, António Guterres, demanding a more friendly, blue washing, approach to Israel at the UN and threatening financial consequences if their outrageous views were not heeded.

Israel’s most ardent and powerful backers are transforming the debate on Israel/Palestine policy into a cultural war of aggression. This new kind of war has been launched with the encouragement and backing of the Israeli government, given ideological support by such extremist pressure groups as UN Watch, GO Monitor, AIPAC, and a host of others.

This cultural war is implemented at street levels by flame throwing militants that resort to symbolic forms of violence. The adverse consequences for academic freedom and freedom of thought in a democratic society should not be underestimated. A very negative precedent is being set in several Western countries. Leading governments are collaborating with extremists to shut down constructive debate on a sensitive policy issue affecting the lives and wellbeing of a long oppressed people.

There are two further dimensions of these developments worth pondering: (1) In recent years Israel has been losing the Legitimacy War being waged by the Palestinians, what Israeli think tanks call ‘the delegitimation project,’ and these UN bashing and personal smears are the desperate moves of a defeated adversary in relation to the moral and legal dimensions of the Palestinian struggle for rights.

In effect, the Israeli government and its support groups have given up almost all efforts to respond substantively, and concentrate their remaining ammunition on wounding messengers who bear witness and doing their best to weaken the authority and capabilities of the UN so as to discredit substantive initiatives; (2) while this pathetic spectacle sucks the oxygen from responses of righteous indignation, attention is diverted from the prolonged ordeal of suffering that has long been imposed on the Palestinian people as a result of Israel’s unlawful practices and policies, as well as its crimes against humanity, in the form of apartheid, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and many others.

The real institutional scandal is not that the UN is obsessed with Israel but rather that it is blocked from taking action that might exert sufficient pressure on Israel to induce the dismantling of apartheid structures relied upon to subjugate, displace, and dispossess the Palestinian people over the course of more than 70 years with no end in sight.

5 May 2017

Israeli ministers back nation-state bill delisting Arabic as official language

By RT.com

A ministerial legislation committee has approved a controversial bill that seeks to enshrine Israel’s status as a nation state of the Jewish people, but critics say it would undermine democracy and could lead to discrimination of non-Jews.

The proposed bill would become a new Basic Law, which serve as Israel’s constitutional legislation. It would declare Israel a Jewish nation state and a unique realization of its right to self-determination. It would also set Hatikva as the country’s national anthem, describe the country’s national symbol and flag, and designate Hebrew as Israel’s only official language, although Arabic would be given special status. The bill also mentions the Right of Return – the right of ethnic Jews to receive Israeli citizenship.

Critics of the bill say it makes non-Jews de facto second-rate citizens in Israel, arguing that its emphasis on Jewish identity undermines the country’s commitment to being a democratic state, as is stated in its Basic Laws.

The legislation was drafted in August of 2011 by Avi Dichter, an MP for the ruling Likud party, and has been floating around in various versions since. The bill was one of the factors leading to the collapse of the Israeli coalition government in November of 2014, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a strong supporter of the legislation, clashed with then-Ministers Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, who opposed it.

After winning a snap election in March of 2015, Netanyahu pledged to eventually pass a softer version of the controversial bill, but has faced opposition from some of his new ministers. In October of 2015, it was shelved to the chagrin of its supporters, only to return to the agenda now.

The bill is set to go to a preliminary vote on Wednesday during the first week of the Knesset’s summer session, the Jerusalem Post reported. The Justice Ministry will draft its own version within 60 days, and the two bills will be combined.

“I’ve been working on the Jewish State bill for six years,” Dichter recounted. “Six years to establish the simple and most basic truth: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People.”

Zehava Gal-On, chairwoman of the left-wing Meretz party, has criticized the proposed legislation.

“The result of the Jewish State bill is clear. Jews will get preference over all other citizens, clearly violating human rights, democracy, and the rights of the Arab minority in Israel,” she said.

7 May 2017

Death Toll Rises To 37 Amid Continuing Clashes In Venezuela

By Bill Van Auken

The death toll rose to at least 37 Thursday in the nationwide protests and street clashes that have gripped Venezuela over the past month.

The identity of the latest victims reflects the violent and provocative character of the campaign being waged by Venezuela’s right-wing opposition, as well as the increasingly repressive crackdown being carried out by the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

Parallel to this political confrontation playing out in the streets of Caracas and other major cities, the country’s desperate economic crisis has unleashed a growing wave of looting by sections of the oppressed, driven to desperation over the lack of food and declining real incomes.

Hecder Lugo Perez, 22, died Friday after being hit in the head by a projectile in the northwestern city of Valencia, a center of Venezuela’s moribund auto industry and other manufacturing plants that have seen mass layoffs. The city of 1.8 million has been one of the major flash points in the looting that has swept the country, with some 70 stores sacked on Tuesday.

Killed on Thursday was Juan Lopez Manjares, 33, the student federation president at the Instituto Universitario Tecnologico Jose Antonio Anzoategui in the northeastern city of El Tigre. The student leader, a supporter of the government, was gunned down after leading a student assembly, with his assassin fleeing on a motorcycle.

Also reported Thursday was the death of a policeman, Gerardo Barrera, 38, who died from gunshot wounds suffered the day before in a confrontation with demonstrators in the northwestern town of San Joaquin.

The wave of demonstrations was touched off on April 1 after Venezuela’s Supreme Court issued a ruling abrogating the legislative powers of the country’s opposition-controlled National Assembly. The move was part of the attempt by the Maduro government to consolidate power under conditions in which the president and his policies have become deeply unpopular, not only among the well-heeled constituency of the political right, but among far wider layers of working people.

The government was compelled to reverse the measure after coming under significant criticism from within its own ranks, including by the country’s attorney general, Luisa Ortega Diaz, a government loyalist who is married to a legislator of the ruling PSUV. Symptomatic of the continuing internal crises of the Maduro government, and calculations among some of its leading figures that regime change may be near, Ortega intensified her criticisms in an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, declaring, “It’s time to hold talks and to negotiate. It means one has to yield on decisions for the good of the country.” She also departed from the government’s blaming of all the violence on demonstrators, stating, “We can’t demand peaceful and legal behavior from citizens if the state takes decisions that don’t accord with the law.”

Demonstrations have intensified after Maduro’s announcement that he is calling a “constituent assembly” to make changes to the constitution instituted in 1999 by his predecessor as president, the late Hugo Chavez.

The government has given no clear indication of what it intends to change in the existing constitution, but has made it clear that it intends to pack the body with its own supporters, drawing 50 percent of its members from “social movements,” which are state-controlled, and 50 percent from regional elections.

Maduro has vaguely described the assembly as a path to “peace” and “national dialogue.” The right-wing opposition has charged that it is aimed at circumventing a 2018 presidential election that he would likely lose.

In a May 1 speech, Maduro claimed that the revisions to the constitution would include measures to support the “post-petroleum economy,” an oblique reference to the failure of 18 years of chavista rule to alter Venezuela’s fatal semi-colonial dependence on a single commodity, oil. It is entirely possible that the government aims to invite foreign investors to bid on parts of the state-owned oil industry, PDVSA. Late last year, the government opened up 112,000 square kilometers to open-pit mining in a $4.5 billion dollar deal with transnational mining companies.

Like the attempted suspension of the right wing-led National Assembly, there is nothing progressive about the convening of such an assembly, which will reflect not the will or aspirations of the masses of Venezuelan working people, but rather the political exigencies of the Maduro government and its principal constituencies: the military, functionaries within the state apparatus and ruling party and the boliburguesia, the layer of capitalist investors, contractors and speculators who have enriched themselves under the rule of so-called “Bolivarian Socialism.”

Under Chavez—and thanks to oil prices that topped $100 a barrel—these layers were able to pursue their interests while still providing minimal social assistance programs that reduced poverty and provided housing, health care and improved education to the more oppressed sections of the population. Chavez’s death in 2013, however, was quickly followed by the plummeting of the price of oil, the commodity that accounts for 95 percent of the country’s export earnings. Since then, the economy has contracted by 27 percent, while the inflation rate, the highest in the world, is set to reach 720 percent this year, according to an estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

With vastly reduced export earnings, the government has slashed imports of foreign food, medicine and other basic necessities in order to divert dwindling reserves to meet foreign debt payments to international finance capital.

Venezuelan working people have borne the terrible burden of paying off Wall Street. Four out of five people now live in poverty, and masses are facing hunger. Recent surveys have found that nearly a third of the population now eats two or fewer meals a day—compared to 12.5 percent in 2015—and three out of four Venezuelans had lost on average 19 pounds last year.

In the face of the right-wing campaign to topple his government, on the one hand, and growing social unrest and class tensions, on the other, Maduro has turned increasingly to the military, which has always served as the principal pillar of the movement founded by Hugo Chavez, himself a former paratrooper colonel who led an unsuccessful coup in 1992.

Military officers now head up a third of the government’s ministries and make up half of the country’s governors. Key areas of the economy, including those where the most money is to be made off of corruption, have been placed under military control, including ports, food distribution and the control of foreign exchange.

Under a decree known as Plan Zamora, the Maduro government has essentially arrogated to itself the power to impose martial law, while bringing the police under the control of the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB). On Thursday it was announced that “70 vandals” arrested during a wave of looting in the state of Carabobo will be brought before military tribunals to face charges of looting and “rebellion.”

The right-wing opposition is appealing increasingly to the military to overthrow Maduro in a coup under the pretext of defending the constitution. Venezuelan right-wing opposition leader and former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, who has demanded that the military “intervene,” claimed on his Twitter feed Friday that “85 officers of our FANB (Bolivarian National Armed Forces)” had been arrested for “having manifested their discontent.”

The New York Times, which openly supported the CIA-backed abortive coup against Chavez in 2002, published an opinion piece this week by a Venezuelan journalist, who assessed that “the possibility of a negotiated transition satisfactory to the opposition is negligible,” adding that “the alternative would be a military intervention to install a national unity government.”

Meanwhile, one of the biggest holders of Venezuelan bonds has made it clear that his firm is betting on and supporting “regime change.”

“Like most Venezuelans, we would welcome, and ultimately expect a change in regime,” Mike Conelius, who manages the $6.5 billion T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Bond Fund, wrote investors in an email reported by Bloomberg News. The firm has posted huge profits as Venezuela has repeatedly made interest payments by slashing imports and the living conditions of masses of Venezuelan workers. It expects even richer dividends in the event of a coup against Maduro. “The cathartic moment of regime change will be quickly repriced in the market,” Conelius wrote.

Attempting to place US imperialism’s thumb more firmly on the scale, a bipartisan group of US Senators has urged President Donald Trump to intervene more aggressively against Venezuela. The Senators, who include Democrats like Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate Tim Kaine of Virginia, introduced on Wednesday the “Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act of 2017” to ratchet up sanctions against Venezuela and pressure on its government.

In particular, the legislation calls attention to investments by the Russian energy giant Rosneft in Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned PDVSA petroleum company, describing the ties as a “significant risk to U.S. national security and energy security.”

The pursuit of a more aggressive policy against Venezuela, linked to the military buildup against Russia, would be entrusted in large measure to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. He is the former CEO of ExxonMobil, whose predecessor company, Standard Oil, controlled Venezuelan oil production for half a century until Caracas nationalized the industry in 1976.

7 May 2017

Inequality in France

By Thomas Piketty

“The break with the ‘Trente Glorieuses’ or thirty year post-war boom is striking: between 1950 and 1983, incomes were rising steadily by almost 4% per annum for the immense majority of the population. On the contrary, it was the highest incomes which had to settle for a growth of barely 1% per annum. The fact that the post-war boom (Trente Glorieuses) is not over for everyone has not gone unnoticed: you only have to read the weekly magazines with the salaries of the executives and the ranking of fortunes to realise this”.

A long-standing legend has it that France is a profoundly egalitarian country which has miraculously escaped the sharp rise in inequality observed elsewhere. If so, how can we explain the anxiety provoked by globalisation and by Europe which is expressed so forcefully in this presidential campaign? In the first instance by recognising that  this great national myth of France as egalitarian and an exception to the rule is grossly exaggerated and, secondly, because it is too often used by the dominant groups to justify our own national hypocrisy.

There is nothing new here. France was the last country to adopt a progressive income tax, and did so under the Law of 15 July 1914, voted in extremis to finance the war. In contrast, this tax had already been introduced in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the United States and Japan, sometimes decades previously, to finance schools and public services. Until 1914, the political and economic elites in the Third Republic had stubbornly refused this type of reform declaring that France had already become egalitarian, thanks to the Revolution, and therefore had no need of an intrusive and predatory tax, more suited to the aristocratic and authoritarian societies which surrounded us. In reality, the inheritance archives demonstrate that the concentration of property and income was as extreme in the France of the period as in other European societies (and greater than in the United States).

Today we find the same hypocrisy when confronted with the glaring inequalities in our educational system. In France, in all good republican conscience, we choose to devote three times more public resources to the selective « grandes ecoles » than is spent on those university courses in which young people from socially underprivileged backgrounds are concentrated. Now this elitist and austerity tendency which has already led to a fall of 10% in expenditure per student between 2007 and 2017 (even though we all talk of the ‘knowledge society’, ‘innovation’, etc) may well get worse in the next five years, if we judge from some of the electoral programmes. France is also the country in which private primary and secondary schools are almost entirely financed by the taxpayers, while reserving the right to choose the pupils which suit them. This contributes to unacceptable levels of social segregation. There again the status quo is breezing ahead.

As far as the development of monetary inequalities is concerned, a new study carried out with Bertrand Garbinti and Jonathan Goupille-Lebret (on line on WID.world), clearly shows the limits of the French myth of egalitarianism. True, the rise in inequality has been less widespread than in the United States, where the share of the poorest 50% in the national income has literally collapsed. The fact remains that France has also experienced a sharp rise in inequality. Between 1983 and 2015, the average income of the richest 1% has risen by 100% (above inflation) and that of the 0.1% richest by 150%, as compared with barely 25% for the rest of the population (or less than 1% per annum).  The richest 1% alone has siphoned off 21% of total growth, as compared with 20% for the poorest 50%. The break with the ‘Trente Glorieuses’ or thirty year post-war boom is striking: between 1950 and 1983, incomes were rising steadily by almost 4% per annum for the immense majority of the population. On the contrary, it was the highest incomes which had to settle for a growth of barely 1% per annum. The fact that the post-war boom (Trente Glorieuses) is not over for everyone has not gone unnoticed: you only have to read the weekly magazines with the salaries of the executives and the ranking of fortunes to realise this.

The study also confirms the strong growth of the highest assets, 90% of which are held in financial portfolios, when above 10 million Euros, These have risen, not only much faster than GDP since the years 1980-1990, but also faster than the average assets (driven upwards by property assets). We find this prosperity in the number and amounts of assets declared year after year in the wealth tax. There is no problem of outflow here: on the contrary we see a very dynamic basis for fiscal purposes.

In these conditions, it is difficult to understand why some candidates think it opportune to abolish the wealth tax on financial assets, or to impose a lower tax on financial incomes than on income from employment. To promote mobility, it would be more judicious to lower the property tax (which is by far the principal tax on wealth: it generates 30 billion Euros as compared with 5 billion Euros for the wealth tax) for the households who have borrowed to buy property.

Some may consider this a kickback in return for the political financing observed. One can also see in these fiscal choices the effects of a sincere but false ideology, whereby subjecting people and territories to whole scale competition would spontaneously result in social harmony and prosperity for all. What is sure is that it is dangerous to address first and foremost those who have gained from globalisation and to invent a new French passion for the regressive tax, while the most vulnerable social groups have the impression they have been abandoned and are increasingly attracted by the sirens of xenophobia.  It is urgent to face up to the fact that inequality does exist in France.

Thomas Piketty is professor of economics at the Paris School of Economics. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including Capital in the Twenty-First Century

18 April 2017