Category Archives: Government Oppression

It was only a few weeks ago that I published an opinion warning about the threat to our freedom posed by the climate change/global warming insanity.

The problem is that our government and our media have become addicted to the concept that humans are causing irreparable harm to our environment. Harm they claim will inevitably make life on earth unsustainable. For government zealots it is a perfect storm. Only government can create the regulations and laws needed to protect us from this external threat to our existence.

The result is that many uniformed and fearful subjects have fallen prey to the tyrants, government zealots and their enablers around the globe.

If the science were solid they would have case to support their position. But the science is not settled. Climate change zealots claim a consensus of scientists agree, but science is not settled by a vote. Science is settled by incontrovertible facts.

A growing number of well qualified scientists have begun to question the science. Some have even gone so far as to call it a hoax. That includes Ian Plimer, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, and Patrick Moore, a former President of Greenpeace. According to Wikipedia Moore holds a PhD in ecology from the University of British Columbia.

Both Plimer and Moore have been vilified as misguided individuals who have turned their back on science to become paid spokesmen for the oil industry. Notice that they do not challenge the scientific facts Plimer and Moore use to make their case against global climate change.

First of all, Plimer and Moore both say carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. In fact they both make the case that carbon dioxide levels are at the lowest level in the history of the planet. Moore says that plant life is currently on a starvation diet when it comes to carbon dioxide. He points out that many farmers today have to pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to encourage the plants to grow.

Years ago basic high school biology taught us that plants breath in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. The climate zealots want us to believe that we must reduce carbon dioxide by abandoning our use of fossil fuels like oil and coal. Logically, that means reducing carbon dioxide will ultimately reduce the levels of oxygen as plants begin to die.

If carbon dioxide levels were at historically high levels then the climate change folks would have a valid concern, but both Plimer and Moore dispute that underlying premise. Also, if greenhouse gasses were at historically high levels plants would be thriving without the addition of carbon dioxide as posited by Moore. Zealots ignore these serious challenges to their scientific facts.

Political talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin both pointed out this week that the programs promoted by the climate change lobby fall heaviest on the poor. Patrick Moore also has made the point that the solutions proposed by the climate change zealots hit the poor harder than the rich and powerful. Their programs result in higher energy costs, higher food costs and fewer job opportunities.

The reality is we all want a cleaner environment. We dont want polluted air or lead in the water supply. Levin says people who are better off financially are more likely to support real solutions to cleaning up our environment.

Quite frankly it is insulting when liberals accuse conservatives of destroying the planet for our children and grand children while they saddle our progeny with a debt they cannot possibly pay.

President Trump got it right when he stood up to the pressure and withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate change accord. Unfortunately he did not do it because the entire underlying global warming/climate change agenda is nothing more than an fraud perpetrated by liberal elites who want to steal your freedom.

Free, educated and industrious people can find new creative solutions to the problems that we all face. Our founding fathers understood that government rarely does. Have government solutions gotten any smarter since they wrote the constitution?

See the original post:

Cracks appearing in the tyranny of global oppression - Quad City Herald (blog)

President Donald Trump honored Saudi Arabia with his first overseas visit. After once accusing Saudi Arabia of blowing up the World Trade Center, he arrived in Riyadh bearing gifts: $110 billion in arms sales, enhanced aid for Riyadhs brutal war in Yemen, and increased political support for the royal regime.

The U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia never reflected shared values. The royals run what is essentially a totalitarian state, respecting neither political nor religious liberty. The regime exports its brutal values, subsidizing intolerant Islamist teachings worldwide and intervening militarily in its neighbors.

Nevertheless, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia long was home to the worlds greatest oil reserves, so Washington enthusiastically embraced the regime. Despite previously criticizing the Saudis for relying on America for their defense, President Trump obsequiously addressed the monarchy. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared that President Trump and members of his cabinet agreed that the U.S.-Saudi partnership should be taken to new heights.

The two countries should cooperate when their interests coincide. But that doesnt justify making Riyadh a defense ward of America. Especially when at the KSAs behest the U.S. is helping kill innocent civilians in neighboring Yemen, who have done nothing against America. So far Washington has supported Riyadhs war with some $20 billion in arms and about 2000 air refueling operations, as well as targeting information.

U.S. intervention is making Americans less safe. Thomas Juneau of the University of Ottawa observed that the conflict: is at its root a civil war, driven by local competition for power, and not a regional, sectarian or proxy war. But Riyadhs aggressive war turned a local conflict into a regional sectarian struggle, drove Yemenis toward Iran, and encouraged a revival of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, which now controls an estimated third of the country. Riyadhs aggression also is morally appalling, helping kill innocents for no good geopolitical reason.

Yet the Trump administration is considering backing a plan by the United Arab Emirates to retake the Yemeni port of Hodeida. Seizing and securing the port would be more difficult than suggestedthe conflict so far has highlighted the ineffectiveness of Saudi forces. Moreover, humanitarian analysts warn that the operation could result in a humanitarian catastrophe since most of Yemens humanitarian aid goes through Hodeida. Jeremy Konyndyk, formerly at USAID, warned that this operation would take a country thats been on a knifes edge of famine for the past two years and tip it over.

Expanding Washingtons involvement also would increase Americas stake in the conflict without much improving the likelihood of a positive outcome. A top administration official told the Washington Post that ending present restrictions might be seen as a green light for direct involvement in a major war We cant judge yet what the results will be. The consequences almost certainly would be disastrous. Of course, the Saudi royals are pleased and gave President Trumpwho once accused a Saudi prince of trying to control U.S. politicians with daddys moneyan extravagant welcome.

Yemen is an ancient land at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The Yemeni people never welcomed outside rule and made any would-be conqueror pay a price. Two states emerged when independence was achieved during the 1960s. They suffered internal conflict, fought each other, and suffered from foreign intervention, including from Saudi Arabia. The two Yemens eventually joined in 1990, but the reunited country spent most of its recent history in conflict and war. At one point Riyadh, now loudly denouncing Iranian meddling, backed southern secessionists.

Until recently Americas main security concern was the rise of AQAP, perhaps the terrorist groups most active affiliate. To suppress this force the U.S. relied on long-ruling Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was ousted in 2012. The ensuing national dialogue failed to deliver a political solution. He then united with the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (Supporters of God), a quasi-Shia political movement which battled him when he was in power.

Together in September 2014 they ousted his successor, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, viewed as friendly to neighboring Saudi Arabia. This game of musical chairs in Sanaa was of little interest to Washington, but the KSA wanted pliant leadership in Yemen. In March 2015 Riyadh, backed by nine Arab nations, intervened in the name of confronting Iran. Yousef al-Otaiba, UAEs ambassador to the U.S., declared: Iran must not be allowed to create a Hezbollah-like proxy in Yemen through the Houthis.

But area specialists uniformly dismiss such self-serving claims. The religious identification between Iran and the Houthis always was limited. The latter are Zaydis, a liberal, Shia-related sect, which some observers say is best treated as a tribal militia. In some areas Zaydis appear closer to Sunnis than Shiites.

The relationship between Iran and Houthis always has been loose at best. Noted Adam Baron of the European Council on Foreign Relations: Its not as if the Houthis were created by Iran, and further, its not as if the Houthis are being controlled by Iran. This is a group that is rooted in local Yemeni issues. Juneau said simply: the war in Yemen is driven by local grievances and competition for power among Yemeni actors. Yezid Sayigh, of Beiruts Carnegie Middle East Center, criticized propaganda about Iranian expansionism in Yemen.

Houthis revolted against the Yemeni government, then headed by Saleh, in 2004; in 2011 they joined demonstrations that led to Salehs resignation the following year. But then Houthis joined with Saleh to confront his successor, Hadi, leading to the latters resignation in late 2014.

Iran had little to do with these events. Saleh wanted to retake control and Houthis wanted more influence, while Hadi wanted to retain control. This kind of local dispute fueled decades of conflict in Yemen. U.S. intelligence believes that Tehran counselled against the Houthis Sanaa takeover.

While Houthis accepted Irans aid, the UN figures that Tehran began transferring weapons to the Houthis in 2009, back when they were fighting then-President Saleh, now their uneasy ally. Since then most of their weapons came from the Yemens already abundant supplies and military units which had remained loyal to Saleh.

Saudi Arabias aggression left them with little choice but to look to Tehran for additional assistance. Noted Kevin L. Schwartz of the Library of Congress: Only after the onset of the Saudi-led campaign did the arming of the Houthi rebels by Iran increase. And the latter has mainly involved training and ground weapons, along with modest missile deliveries. Such efforts pale in comparison to Saudi Arabias extensive air war.

Houthis have not turned decision-making over to Iran. Gabriele von Bruck at Londons School of Oriental and African Studies concluded I dont think the Iranians have influence in their decision-making. Its not a relationship like that between Iran and Hezbollah. Obama NSC spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said two years ago: It remains our assessment that Iran does not exert command and control over the Houthis in Yemen.

Contrary to the infamous claim of an Iranian parliamentarian, Tehran does not control Sanaa (nor, in fact, Baghdad, Beirut, and Damascus, the other three capitals mentioned). Instead, noted Juneau, Tehran has come to recognize that a minor investment in Yemen can yield limited but interesting returns, most obviously forcing the Saudi royals to spend much more for little benefit.

Why should America get involved? Former Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the shipment of Iranian weapons to Yemen was not just a threat to Saudi Arabia, it is a threat to the region, [and] it is a threat to the United States. But Houthis struck beyond Yemens borders only in response to Saudi aggression backed by America. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis complained of Iranian-supplied missiles being fired by the Houthis into Saudi Arabia, but they commenced such actions after Riyadh attacked and killed Yemenis. Saudis sowed the wind by internationalizing the conflict; now they are reaping the whirlwind as Houthi forces attempt to take the battle back to Saudi Arabia.

That is not to say the Houthis are tolerant liberals who like the U.S. But their theology is far more moderate than the Wahhabist teachings funded by the Saudi royals around the world, including in America. Religious minorities do much better in Houthi-dominated areas than in territory controlled by the Hadi-Saudi alliance. This should surprise no one, given Saudi Arabias refusal to allow members of any religious minority to practice their faith.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration made America an active combatant in Yemens civil war. The reason, apparently, was to reassure Riyadh, which was angry that Washington was not doing its bidding in Syria (ousting Bashar al-Assad) and Iran (confronting rather than negotiating with Tehran).

The Saudis have gotten bogged down in the conflict and make little effort to avoid civilian casualties, incriminating the U.S. Shortly before leaving office the Obama administration cut off some weapon shipments to Riyadh. But the Trump administration reversed course, adopting a subservient posture toward the royals. This is an awful policy for several reasons.

First, Washington is rewarding a totalitarian dictatorship for its repression. That Riyadh wants a puppet neighbor is unsurprising. But it isnt Americas responsibility to give one to the Saudi royals.

Second, the conflict has diverted Saudi attention from the most destabilizing and dangerous force in the Mideast, the Islamic State. Riyadh is entitled to choose its own priorities, but Washington should not underwrite counterproductive Saudi efforts. After a Houthi missile attack on a U.S. warship Trump officials expressed concern about navigational freedom, especially in the Bab-el-Mandeb waterway. But Yemenis apparently attacked an American vessel because Washington was helping Saudis kill Yemenis. Before that Houthis never targeted Americans.

Third, the UN human rights coordinator called Yemen the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. Houthis have interfered with the delivery of humanitarian aid, but Saudis and their coalition partners have caused far more death and destruction. More than 10,000 civilians have been killed and 40,000 wounded. Saudi airstrikes, described as indiscriminate or disproportionate by Human Rights Watch, caused at least two-thirds of infrastructure damage and three-quarters of the deaths.

Nearly 19 million people, more than 80 percent of the population, need humanitarian aid. More than ten million have acute need for assistance. About 13 million lack access to clean water. Some 60 percent of Yemens people, or 17 million, are in crisis or emergency situations. The UN World Food Programme warned that the country is on the brink of full-scale famine, with seven million people severely food insecure. Some four million people already are acutely malnourished and 3.2 million have been displaced within the country. Health services have collapsed as the need for care has mushroomed.

Fourth, Hadis restoration would not offer political stability. His support was limited even before Riyadhs intervention, coming more from the West than his own people; backing a brutal foreign attack on his nation has won him no friends. Indeed, warned Zimmerman, The hodgepodge coalition against the al-Houthi-Saleh faction fractures rapidly once the question of power is on the table. None of the main component forces supports Hadi for president and few would support the return of the Yemeni central state as it was. Theres also a separate southern secessionist movement which would try to defenestrate Hadi if he was restored.

Fifth, support for KSA brutality endangers Americans by creating and empowering another adversaries. Washington has turned itself into an enemy of the Yemeni people. U.S. policymakers expressed shock when Houthi forces apparently shot a missile at an American naval vessel, but America is a de facto belligerent and U.S. warships therefore are a legitimate target. The only surprise is that Houthis did not strike sooner.

Internationalizing the war also internationalized the weapons. Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan complained of equipment which Yemeni forces didnt previously possess: there was no explosive boat that existed in the Yemeni inventory. That was before Saudi Arabia turned a civil war into an international sectarian conflict. Moreover, there should be no surprise, let alone shock, if angry Yemenis turn to terrorism. Fear of that possibility may explain the administrations attempt to ban visitors from that nation.

Sixth, the Saudi war effort aided the rise of the Islamic State and Salafi militias. AQAP also is on the rise. The Crisis Group recently warned that the organization is stronger than it has ever been. Noted a recent report from the State Department, AQAP and the Islamic State have exploited the political and security vacuum left by the conflict between the Yemeni government and Houthi-led opposition. AQAP has been significantly expanding its presence in the southern and eastern governorates while ISIL has gained a foothold in the country. The Crisis Group explained that al-Qaeda is thriving in an environment of state collapse, growing sectarianism, shifting alliances, security vacuums and a burgeoning war economy.

AQAPs rise threatens the U.S. Argued former Pentagon official Andrew Exum, Yemens campaign has distracted both the United States and its key partnersnamely the Emiratesfrom the fight against AQAP, one of the few al-Qaeda franchises with the demonstrated will and capability to strike the United States. Even before, Americas allies had shown little interest in battling al-Qaeda. Journalist Laura Kasinof observed that Hadi, lacking internal support, cozied up to the Islamists before his ouster. Zimmerman reported that his regime tacitly cooperated with AQAP in some regions. Moreover, The Saudi-led coalition tolerates AQAPs presence on the battlefield, so long as the group fights against the al-Houthi-Saleh forces.

The Pentagon has felt it necessary to intervene more directly against AQAP, with drone attacks, airstrikes, and special operations forces raids, with costly and controversial results. More strikes are likely, as the president relaxes White House oversight of the war effort. To the extent the organization gains resources and followers, it might succeed in its efforts to hit the American homeland. If so, the Obama and Trump administrations will share the blame.

Candidate Donald Trump was highly critical of President Barack Obamas foreign policy. Why, then, is President Trump doubling down on an unnecessary Middle Eastern war on behalf of an authoritarian regime guilty of promoting Islamic radicalism? Why is he subordinating fundamental American interests and values to those of a country which has provided more terrorists who attacked Americans than any other and done more to finance international terrorism than any other? Why is he entangling the U.S. in another distant, irrelevant, and unwinnable Mideast conflict after criticizing U.S. intervention in Iraq and Libya?

Americans have good reason to engage the KSA, despite its behavior. However, the Trump administration should not genuflect toward Riyadh. Washington should not sacrifice U.S. interests to benefit the Saudi royals. American officials should not enable the killingmurder, reallyof people who have never harmed this nation.

Unfortunately, the administration appears fixated on Iran. Yet, observed Mustafa Alani, director of Dubais Gulf Research Center: It is a myth that Iran is strong. Tehran is at best a modest regional power, lagging well behind Saudi Arabia. President Trump complained in January that Iran is going to have Yemen, along with Iraq and Syria: Theyre going to have everything. But Washington gave, if thats the right word, Iraq to Tehran through its foolish invasion and Syria contains little to possess.

Moreover, nothing in Sanaas history suggests that any Yemeni faction would sacrifice their countrys autonomy. Said Zimmerman: The al-Houthi leadership retains its independence from Iran and has pushed back on Tehrans statements and offers repeatedly. Von Bruck argued that The Houthis want Yemen to be independent, thats the key idea, they dont want to be controlled by Saudi or the Americans, and they certainly dont want to replace the Saudis with the Iranians.

Ironically, in Yemen Tehran is only doing what Saudi Arabia and far more distant America are doing, actively intervening with military force to promote its interests. Iran has as much as Saudi Arabia and far more than America at stake in the Yemen war. Imagine Washingtons reaction if Iran fomented civil war in Mexico, attempting to overthrow a government aligned with the U.S.

Ultimately, a political settlement is necessary, one which puts the interests of the Yemeni people before that of either the Saudi royals or Iranian mullahs. Alas, so far the UN negotiating effort has excluded a role for the Houthis and thereby ignores the fundamental grievances and local conflicts that generated the war in the first place, noted Zimmerman. Such an effort wont result in peace or stability. All foreign parties should step back. Added Zimmerman: Sound American strategy would reach out to the al-Houthis along with other sub-state actors in Yemen, seek common ground with them, and work to facilitate a meaningful resolution of the conflictincluding the underlying popular grievance that are driving it.

Riyadhs policy is at a dead-end. Saudi Arabia offered to make peace with Iran, if Tehran essentially surrendered all of its interests. The totalitarian monarchy in Riyadh proclaimed its support for Yemens elected government, headed by a man with minimal public support. After two years of embarrassing military failure, the deputy crown prince proclaimed that time is in our favor.

Instead of doing the monarchys bidding, the Trump administration should remember that the U.S., not Saudi Arabia, is the superpower, and Washingtons obligation is to the American people, not Saudi Arabias royals. Indeed, President Trump recently reiterated his criticism of Riyadh: Frankly, Saudi Arabia has not treated us fairly, because we are losing a tremendous amount of money in defending Saudi Arabia.

But the problem with the bilateral relationship runs far deeper: America is losing is moral soul by aiding Riyadh in a brutal, aggressive war against an impoverished neighbor. Nothing warrants supporting the promiscuous killing of civilians who have never threatened America. Escalation only guarantees greater failure.

The Yemen war is a disaster. Noted Perry Cammack of the Carnegie Endowment, By catering to Saudi Arabia in Yemen, the United States has empowered AQAP, strengthened Iranian influence in Yemen, undermined Saudi security, brought Yemen closer to the brink of collapse, and visited more death, destruction, and displacement on the Yemeni population. Washington should end this conflict.

Start your workday the right way with the news that matters most.

Continue reading here:

Saudi Royals Play Donald Trump: Win Support for Oppression and War - HuffPost

Says GoI created political vacuum by failing youth reach out Farooq told Modi to talk to Pak, Hurriyat; stop arrests and pellet gun use

Opposition National Conference Working President and former chief minister, Omar Abdullah Tuesday said the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) misled people about the return of power projects, revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and safeguarding of Article 370. They misled people saying they would ensure the return of power projects to the State, revocation of AFSPA, and safeguarding of Article 370 and promised employment to the unemployed but failed, Omar said addressing Youth National Conference (YNC) activists and office bearers at NCs Nawai Subha headquarters in in Srinagar. He said it was astonishing too see that while the government talks a lot about its Agenda of Alliance, the common minimum programme of the PDP and its alliance partner Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it had made no progress in its implementation in three years. Questioning PDPs intent, the former CM quoted the Union Power Minister as saying clearly that GoI did not wish to return any power project to the State. He said the confrontational approach and PDP-led governments oppressive policy was choking Kashmiri youth and held Government of India (GoI) responsible for creating political vacuum by failing to reach out to them. Unfortunately New Delhi failed to reach out and build bridges of reconciliation and peace with our youth, creating political vacuum, Omar said. He said Kashmiri youth were picking guns and stones due to the due to the policies of the present government and oppression meted out to them. I have been in politics for past 20 years now but never did I see a student of Womens College, M A Road, throwing stones and kicking police vehicles, the former CM said. It all happened due to the atrocities committed on the students in Government Degree College Pulwama. He said there was no place from north Kashmir to south Kashmir where government had not closed down schools as students were angry because their loved ones had been hit by pellets or meted with repression. If the government does not stop its oppressive tactics, it will be swept aside by the movement of the youth, Omar said. Stressing that the problem for the people of Kashmir was that the incumbent CM was in complete knowhow of what was happening on the ground, he said but Mehbooba chooses not to do anything for them as she was only executing GoIs agenda. That agenda was decided by the Muftis in Amit Shahs home, the NC Working President said. Talking about the meeting of his father and NC President, Farooq Abdullah with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the he said the PM had invited the three-time CM and sought suggestions on how the situation could be improved in the State. Farooq sahab clearly told him that GoI needed to engage in a process of dialogue on Kashmir by engaging with both Pakistan as well as the Hurriyat besides ending the spate of arrests and use of pellet guns and other oppressive tactics, Omar said. He said Mehbooba Mufti had learnt a lesson at SKICC when women, she had promised jobs, turned hostile at the event after coming to know that they were only being used as an audience. BLIND, DEAF AND DUMB GOVT Speaking on the occasion, NC General Secretary and senior leader, Ali Muhammad Sagar termed the Mehbooba Mufti led government as blind, deaf and dumb. He said the government was conducting experimentation on Kashmiri youth by using Kashmir as a lab for its repressive policies. Sagar said NC does not want or never demanded toppling of Mehbooba-led government but always played the role of good opposition for the benefit of the people. NC Provisional President, Kashmir, Nasir Aslam Wani said the government had failed on all front but its performance on human rights front had been pathetic. Earlier, addressing the youth convention, YNC Provincial President, Salman Ali Sagar said YNC would continue its outreach programmes across the length and width of Kashmir. Salman said he was encouraged by the overwhelming response of the youth to the partys political mission and programmes and praised Omar Abdullahs leadership for empowering youth to be a part of change. YNC Senior Vice Presidents Imran Nabi Dar and Younis Mubarak Gul also addressed the youth convention. Various party leaders and office bearers including Muhammad Sayeed Akhoon, Showkat Ahmed Mir, Mushtaq Ahmed Guru, Iqbal Qasba also attended the convention besides YNC leaders Mudassir Shahmiri, Ahsan Pardesi, Muhammad Saleem Akhoon, Nilofer Masood, Salman Mattoo, Irfan Zehgeer, Mushtaq Mir, Abid Wani, Abdul Hameed, Javaid Bhat and Asif Zargar.

Originally posted here:

PDP misled people on power projects, AFSPA, Art 370: Omar - Rising Kashmir Daily English Newspaper (press release)

Israels right-wing governments bear the greatest guilt for the last half-century of oppressing the Palestinians but the divided and ineffectual opposition has played its part, too, says Alon Ben-Meir.

By Alon Ben-Meir

On June 5, Israel reaches the grim milestone of 50 years of occupation of the West Bank. Many Israelis have become complacent and succumbed to the governments argument that the continuing occupation is necessary to safeguard Israels national security.

Others are lamenting the day, as they view the occupation not only as a gross violation of Palestinian human rights, but a real menace to Israels democratic nature and Jewish national character.

Whereas right-wing Israeli governments have maintained the occupation by any means available, including the use of force, the Israeli opposition parties from the left and center have failed miserably over many years to advance a unified political platform to end the occupation and resolve the conflict based on a two-state solution.

With every passing day, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish a Palestinian state with a contiguous land mass, which is a result of legalizing illegal settlements and building new and expanding existing ones. This settlement activity has changed the demographic composition of Israeli Jews and Palestinians inside the West Bank.

Should this trend continue for another ten years, it is estimated that the number of Jews living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will grow from the current 650,000 to one million, creating irreversible facts on the ground that will render the two-state solution inviolable.

Successive right-wing Israeli governments, especially the current one led by Benjamin Netanyahu, have never committed to a two-state solution. Instead, they have determined to manage the occupation by the use of force and intimidation while forcing the Palestinians to live in self-governing cantons and allowing them to manage their own internal affairs as long as they do not pose a security threat.

This dangerous development was largely made possible by two factors: first is the Israeli political system, which encourages the proliferation of parties with various political orientations. On average, there are 12-15 political parties that garner the minimum threshold of 3.25 percent of the votes to be elected. As a result, every Israeli government since the inception of the state is a coalition government consisting of several parties, which together enjoy the backing of a majority in the Knesset. The second is the fact that past and current opposition parties from the center and left have been unwilling to form a coalition government with a united platform to end the occupation.

One of the main reasons behind this discord between the parties is not as much their ideological difference but the blind personal ambition of party leaders including Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid, Isaac Herzog of the Zionist Union (along with Tzipi Livni), and others to become prime minister, as they view themselves as the most qualified to lead the country.

Thus, the political field was left open for Netanyahu and his cohorts to expand the settlements, forcefully claiming that the Jews have a historic and biblical right to the entire Land of Israel that God bequeathed to them, and that Israel has every right to build anywhere in Judea and Samaria. Although Netanyahu continues to assert that he supports a two-state solution, he never provided a convincing argument as to how he would square the creation of a Palestinian state with Israels claims to the same land and its continued building of settlements where the Palestinians are supposed to establish their own state.

To explain the rationale behind this contradiction, however, he argues that Israels concerns over security and the Palestinians long-term objective to destroy the state compels Israel to maintain its control over the entire territory by whatever intrusive security measures necessary. Moreover, several members of the Netanyahu government openly call for the annexation of much of the West Bank, as from their perspective there must never be a Palestinian state.

Pariah State

The dire consequences of continuing the occupation are extremely damaging to Israels character and national security. Other than the intense and growing opposition of the international community, Israels loss of its moral compass and continued resistance to the creation of a Palestinian state will be to its detriment. Israel is increasingly becoming a pariah state, deprived of peace with the Arab world and gradually losing its very reason to exist as a Jewish state that ironically Netanyahu and the extreme right insist on characterizing it as such.

Finally, the continuing occupation will inevitably intensify the conflict, which will become ever more ferocious as the Palestinians prospect of establishing a state of their own fades away.

Israels future as a democratic and Jewish state rests on the shoulders of the opposition parties. They must think of what will happen if the current or future right-of-center governments continue with the present policy and maintain the occupation for another 10 years or more.

They must remember that the fate of the country is in their hands. They must set their personal ambitions aside and put the future security and wellbeing of the state first. They must produce a unified political program to end the occupation and explain to the public the disastrous consequences Israel will face unless the occupation comes to an end.

As a single party with unity of purpose, they can successfully challenge the Netanyahu government in the next election. They should learn from 70 years of experience that no political party has been able to garner a majority of the electorate to form a government on its own, but together they can mobilize the public behind the noble cause of unshackling Israel from the self-degrading occupation.

If they fail, they too will be blamed for having betrayed the nation and sacrificed a millennium-old dream of a Jewish state a state recognized not only because of its unprecedented achievements, but for its high moral standing and the realization that its future as an independent, free, and secure state depends on allowing the Palestinians to enjoy the same rights.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. alon@alonben-meir.com Web: http://www.alonben-meir.com

Read this article:

A Half-Century of Oppression - Consortium News

Carrie Heath 6:14 p.m. ET June 4, 2017

Do you know what those long, rectangular buildings are that still dot the countryside in villages and on once-busy corners? They are Grange buildings, the shuttered remnants of rural progressive politics.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Grange was a political force to be reckoned with, giving voice to rural farmers, looking out for the little guy in an age of robber barons and conspicuous consumption. The Grange was one of the first American political organizations to give women equal standing. They fought against corruption in government and for greater participation from everyday people in the form of initiatives like recall, referendum and direct election of senators.

These were radically progressive ideas at the time. That progressive spirit lives on today in groups, such as Indivisible. I am proud to have a long family history of involvement in the Grange, and I am proud to be a founding member of our local Indivisible group. Like those old Grangers, we emphasize educating our members about current issues in politics, helping them get their voices heard by our representatives, and fighting for policies that reflect progressive values.

We use the inalienable rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government that are enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution to meet these goals. It is true that our founders constructed the Constitution in order to protect our inalienable rights from government oppression. So why are some Americans so quick today to try to oppress anyone who disagrees with them?

We are not paid protestors hellbent on demonizing America or destroying civility. Like President Theodore Roosevelt, we want an America that offers a square deal to all of her citizens, not a sweetheart deal to just the fabulously wealthy.

We are not liberal snowflakes who will melt away at the first sign of opposition. We are as tough as those old farmers at their Grange meetings. We are progressives. We are patriots. We are Indivisible.

Carrie Heath is chair of Tioga County Indivisible.

Read or Share this story: http://stargaz.tt/2sFn35X

Excerpt from:

YOUR OPINION: Spirit of local political groups lives on - Elmira Star-Gazette

Government-sanctioned mass killings in Gambella in Ethiopia by South Sudanese forces, which decimated the Anuak Tribe in January last year, is a clear example of the second wave of atrocities of the maleficient rulers towards the forgotten people of the African Horn.

Armed with modern weapons, the South Sudanese Nuers settled as refugees and took pride in forcibly and permanently disarming any Anuak civilian who dared to rise up. This region has come to prominence with various calls for the international community to take action again the genocidal acts of the Ethiopian government against its own people.

It is expected that crimes against peoples can be dealt with by fair law enforcement, and administered by fair judicial systems. But in Ethiopia, the judiciary lacks independence in any politically related cases.

Ethiopian courts refuse to investigate incidents of alleged torture, information dissemination is hindered with false media reports, and international agencies are blocked from investigating and detailing government oppression of civilians.

Government officials and party loyalists obtain preferential access to jobs, land and finances. The corruption of this Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) government, over which the Tigrayan People's Liberation Frontis the main component, has not been curtailed over its years in power. Rather it has bulldozed through the human rights of the people who slave away for subsistence.

In 2003, protests by the Amhara, the Oromia and the Gambella peoples aimed to stop native lands from being taken over. With their arms raised to signify peaceful protest, they were violently repressed.

Whole tribes in large parts of Ethiopia have faced destruction at the hands of a government entrusted to protect them. The nations wealth has been looted amid a bleak future of greater poverty and economic starvation for already suffering peoples. How much longer can people be subjected to the personal greed of the EPRDF in collaboration with the Gulf state countries?

The pride and life of Ethiopia must be preserved. The international community must take notice of the atrocities in Ethiopia and label them for what they are: genocide.

Unfortunately, for its own cynical interests, the US government has supported the EPRDF regime. When then-president Barack Obama visited Ethiopia last year, he congratulated the government on its re-election while it jails civil rights activists.

Ethiopia needs a combined effort by international agencies to investigate these genocidal acts, and hold the ruling party accountable and responsible. Bona-fide democratic processes must return.

See the rest here:

World must oppose Ethiopian government-sanctioned mass killings - Green Left Weekly

More than 10 major museums, including the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and Madrids ReinaSofa, took home art from this years ArteBA fairand its all thanks to a little-known museum acquisitions program that is perhaps the most ambitious of its kind.

The program, supported by donations from Argentinian businesses and individual supporters, offers up to $10,000 each to participating museums to acquire work from the Buenos Aires art fair. This year, the Dallas Museum of Art bought a drawing by the Buenos Aires-based artist Horacio Zabala, while the Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum at Michigan State University chose a work by David Lamelas.

The ArteBA fair, whose 26th edition took place last weekend, has been making a push since 2013 to promote the countrys artists abroad through the initiative, with no smaller a goal than securing Argentine artists status in art history. Though ArteBAs program is not the only one of its kind, it does have an uncommonly extensive roster of participating museumsand an uncommonly deep bench of supporters, rather than the more typical backing of a single foundation.

The program coincides with a concerted effort by museums throughout the Western world to bolster their holdings of art from outside of Europe and North America. At ArteBA in 2015, New Yorks Guggenheim Museum acquired Asamble (Assemble), a 2015 performance work by Amalia Pica (born in 1978 in Neuqun). The piece has since been staged in London and in New York.

Amalia Pica, Asamble (2015). Courtesy Guggenheim Museum.

AlthoughArgentina has given birth to major 20th-century artists like Len Ferrari, Lucio Fontana, and Liliana Porter, efforts to get the countrys contemporary artists on curators and collectors radars are necessary because of its history of relative isolation. Buenos Aires is a long way from many of the worlds art capitals, and its economy has suffered due to rampant inflation and oppressive political regimes.

National and local politicians in recent years have risen to the challenge, partly by providing financial support for Argentinian galleries to participate in international art fairs. They are also investing additional money in bringing the international art world to Argentina. Last year, the government of Buenos Aires teamed up with the massive Art Basel fair to become the inaugural site of theArt Basel Cities initiative.

This year, the Dallas Museum of Art used the fairs acquisitions program to fill in a gap in its holdings. Anna Katherine Brodbeck, the museums assistant curator of contemporary art, picked out a drawing by Horacio Zabala (born in Buenos Aires in 1943 and still living in the city), on offer from Henrique Faria Gallery of New York and Buenos Aires.

Zabala came of age during the beginning of the so-called dirty wars with the installment of a military government, Brodbeck said. He was dealing with government censorship and oppression in a conceptual vein.

Davis Lamelas, Bueno Aires No Existe / Buenos Aires NExiste Pas (2011). Courtesy ArteBA.

Carla Acevedo Yates, assistant curator at the Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, chose a work by David Lamelas, Buenos Aires no Existe, Buenos Aires Nexiste Pas(2011), also from Henrique Faria.

The title of the work quotes the first line of a letter written by Marcel Duchamp to his brother while the artist was spending time in the city. The acquisition comes at an opportune moment: Yates is organizing an exhibition of Lamelass work at the Broad Art Museum next June. Our museum is just five years old, Acevedo Yates said, so were just building our strategy to collect contemporary art.

More here:

How One Art Fair Is Getting Argentinian Artists Into Museum Collections Around the World - artnet News

When a beacon of liberty was cruelly snuffed out

BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

The presses of the Northern Star newspaper, through which Presbyterians in Belfast spread a gospel of progressive politics, were silenced for good 220 years ago. Kenneth L Dawson, the author of a forthcoming biography of the paper's founder, Samuel Neilson, explains why the city became a cauldron of radicalism.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/when-a-beacon-of-liberty-was-cruelly-snuffed-out-35783275.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/article35783274.ece/60a78/AUTOCROP/h342/2017-06-03_lif_31720358_I7.JPG

The presses of the Northern Star newspaper, through which Presbyterians in Belfast spread a gospel of progressive politics, were silenced for good 220 years ago. Kenneth L Dawson, the author of a forthcoming biography of the paper's founder, Samuel Neilson, explains why the city became a cauldron of radicalism.

Two hundred and twenty years ago, members of the Monaghan Militia attacked the Belfast premises of the Northern Star newspaper in Wilson's Court (one of the entries connecting High Street to Ann Street), smashed its presses and threw the type and machines into the courtyard below.

This violent act marked the end of a remarkable publication, which offered a criticism of government policy and served as an agent of politicisation during a decade that culminated with the paroxysm of the 1798 Rebellion and its most immediate consequence, the Union between Britain and Ireland.

The Belfast News-Letter, which had been established by the Joy family in 1737, had enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the town and across the province, save for the brief lifespan of the reformist Belfast Mercury in the 1780s.

The News-Letter was itself a moderate and progressive newspaper, but the political excitement caused by the American and French revolutions, and the increasingly audible calls for concessions to Ireland's beleaguered Catholic majority in an age of enlightenment, created the opportunity for a bold new alternative.

During 1791, plans for a second newspaper were being prepared and finalised. Chief among the organisers were men who would also form a new political association in Belfast, the Society of United Irishmen, the objectives of which would be to promote a fundamental reform of the blatantly unrepresentative Irish parliament in Dublin, the abolition of sectarian divisions and the replacement of the terms Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter with the common name of Irishman.

These men - William Magee, William Tennent, Robert Caldwell, John and Henry Haslett, Gilbert McIlveen, Thomas Milliken, William and Robert Simms, John Tisdall, William McCleery, Thomas McCabe and Samuel Neilson - most of them Presbyterian, would transform the life of the town by publishing the Northern Star, a twice-weekly newspaper which called for change, mocked the rulers of the country and endorsed the armies of revolutionary France, even after Britain went to war against the French in early-1793.

The proprietors of the new paper had written to men of influence across the province of Ulster in the autumn of 1791 to canvass support for the enterprise. While some respondents questioned the need for a second newspaper, others were enthusiastic and the plans took shape with the acquisition of the printing presses and premises.

The leading figure in the scheme was Samuel Neilson, whose textile business in Waring Street had allowed him to accumulate a large personal fortune. A leading member of the reformist First Volunteer Company in Belfast, Neilson's energies were also expended on the formation of the United Irishmen and the development of a radical political vision.

In the prospectus for the newspaper, Neilson declared the Northern Star, which would guide reformers like a political compass during these turbulent times, would appeal for support on the grounds of "spirit, impartiality and independence". Neilson became the editor and lead proprietor.

Neilson cheekily advertised the new publication in Henry Joy's News-Letter in late 1791 "with a view to the better dissemination of useful intelligence". Priced at two pence, the Northern Star would be published on Wednesdays and Saturdays (although these days would change in the light of increasing rivalry between the two newspapers) and would soon outsell its more established competitor, with as many as 4,000 readers being exposed to its political and satirical content.

Opportunities were created for public readings, so that illiterate workers and farmers could also be exposed to the radical message. The Protestant Ascendancy, which dominated Irish politics through the parliament in Dublin, was lampooned ruthlessly and the claims for equality of Presbyterians and Catholics promoted.

The aristocracy was attacked in Neilson's editorials, which criticised the ruling class for spending its time on "idle gratifications and despicable pursuits, when the hereditary Legislators of a country shew no respect for public opinion". After the sale of the News-Letter in late 1794, it adopted a more conservative position. As competition and tension increased, the two rival newspapers suffered attacks upon their distribution and delivery networks, with paperboys and agents being stopped and copies of newspapers stolen or destroyed.

With the outbreak of war between Britain and France in February 1793, the pro-French position of the Northern Star became the object of government oppression. In April, a party of soldiers attacked a number of houses and businesses associated with the radical cause, including the office of the Star. The proprietors of the newspaper would be charged on two occasions with publishing advertisements and political commentaries that were deemed to be seditious.

While these actions appeared to intimidate the owners for a time, the Star continued to print both allegations of injustice and accounts of aggressive tactics and bias against the magistrates, aristocracy and military. The emergence of the Orange Order in the middle of the 1790s provided the Northern Star with a new target.

In late 1796, for example, it published a letter from a reader in the district of Tullylish, who alleged an atrocity carried out on the family of a James McArdel by "vile wretches who call themselves Orangemen". Further examples of excess, such as the forced dispersal of a wake in Newry by the military and the drunken behaviour of militia regiments in parts of Armagh and Tyrone, were published, although little reference was made to the equally provocative attacks carried out by the Defender allies of the United Irishmen in south Down, Tyrone and Armagh.

As part of the government's campaign against the developing militancy of the United Irishmen, Neilson was arrested in September 1796, alongside other leading radicals such as Thomas Russell, Henry Haslett and Charles Teeling. Over the next few months, other employees of the Northern Star (such as the compositor Samuel Kennedy, Thomas Storey, William Kean and William Templeton) were arrested and confined.

The editorial duties fell upon Robert and William Simms until they, too, were incarcerated shortly after a second attack on the offices of the Star in early-February 1797. This was a result of the publication of a public address to the electors of Carrickfergus by the firebrand former MP Arthur O'Connor, wherein he declared himself a republican. O'Connor posed a question about the legitimacy of British policy in Ireland: "Could French invaders do worse than establish a system of corruption and unfairness as exists in Ireland already?" Coming so soon after an attempted French invasion in Co Cork just weeks before, O'Connor's outspokenness - and the Northern Star's willingness to publish his address - prompted the authorities to order Colonel Lucius Barber of the Royal Artillery to arrest the Simms and take steps to prevent future publication.

By the end of the month, the Northern Star was again being printed, with a new editor, Thomas Andrew Corbet, replacing Robert and William Simms. However, things were not running smoothly for the troubled newspaper. Mounting debts, the arrests of its employees and the resorting to an inferior brand of paper combined to undermine the newspaper's quality.

Corbet was forced to print that the Star would no longer be delivered to anyone who had not paid in advance. Increasingly exasperated, he informed his readers that "The plunder of the office - the consequent derangement of the Printing Materials - the imprisonment of ALL the proprietors and the inexperience of the Printer, will plead a powerful apology with a generous public, for any inaccuracies, mistakes or delays that may unavoidably occur in the management of the business".

With problems mounting, the newspaper would run into more trouble in May 1797. General Gerard Lake, the commander-in-chief of the Crown forces in the province of Ulster, was convinced that the Northern Star would have to be muzzled if the authorities wanted to maintain control of the district.

He wrote to Henry Pelham, the Chief Secretary, that the newspaper would need to be forcibly put out of business: "Surely the Northern Star should be stopp'd, the mischief that it does is beyond all imagination. May I be allowed to seize and burn the whole apparatus?" Lake's wishes would be carried out soon enough.

After four members of the Monaghan Militia were executed at the military camp at Blaris Moor, near Lisburn, in May 1797 for encouraging soldiers to take the United Irishmen's oath, other men of the same regiment attempted to place an advertisement in the Northern Star proclaiming their loyalty to the Crown. When the Star refused to print the wording of the advert, because it sullied the reputation of Belfast, members of the regiment went on the rampage in the town, forcing the newspaper to close once and for all.

The presses were destroyed and the office ransacked before the troops were recalled by the regiment's commander, Colonel Charles Leslie of Glaslough. Shortly afterwards, members of the artillery arrived to finish the job. Samuel Neilson's newspaper would never again be published.

The demise of the Northern Star deprived the United Irishmen of its most important propaganda tool in Ulster and beyond. From its editorial debut in January 1792, the newspaper had communicated the news of the developing revolution in France, the campaigns for the abolition of slavery abroad and the ideas of thinkers such as Thomas Paine. But the Star also provided an outlet for the pens of radicals closer to home. Thomas Russell, Rev James Porter (the outspoken Presbyterian minister in Greyabbey) and the lawyer William Sampson had all contributed delicious satirical pieces for publication such as The Lion of Old England, Billy Bluff and Squire Firebrand and The Trial of Hurdy Gurdy, allowing readers to make fun of the aristocracy and the legal system.

The presses of the Northern Star also provided encouragement for an Irish cultural revival, publishing the magazine Bolg an tSolair, which provided a useful resource for students of the Gaelic tradition at a time when Patrick Lynch of Loughinisland was making a living as a teacher of Irish in Belfast.

Before the age of a genuinely free Press, Samuel Neilson's Northern Star was a beacon of liberty, which encouraged discussion and promoted knowledge at a time of exciting political change in Europe. Its remarkable story presents us with an interesting sidelight on a truly momentous decade, during which Belfast was a hub of political debate and intellectual diversity.

Two hundred and twenty years ago, the presses through which Belfast Presbyterians set out a template for political change and encouraged widespread political discourse were silenced.

It is a part of our past that deserves to be acknowledged.

Belfast Telegraph

Excerpt from:

When a beacon of liberty was cruelly snuffed out - Belfast Telegraph

WORKERS of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idi-Araba, have appealed to the Federal Government to intervene in the poor management of the tertiary health institution.

The workers made the call on Friday in Lagos at an all workers congress jointly organised by unions in the institution.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the unions included the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU), National Association of Nigeria Nurses and Midwives (NANNM) and Association of Resident Doctors (ARD), amongst others.

Also at the meeting were some state and national executives of the various unions to demonstrate support for their members in LUTH.

Some leaders of the unions who spoke at the forum said that the workers were tired of the management style in the institution and urged government to urgently intervene to avert a labour crisis.

Mrs Yemisi Adelaja, Chairman, NANNM, LUTH branch, said that the congress was to reaffirm all their agitations that had been made known to the government.

Government should please answer us, we are ready to work but with the plight we are facing in LUTH, it has become difficult.

Without enough materials to work and the hostile environment, workers are saying, we are tired.

The relationship with the management is not cordial that is why we are seeking governments intervention for LUTH to regain its past glory, she said.

Also, Mr Johnson Adetokunbo, Chairman, SSANU, LUTH chapter, appealed to the Federal Government to address issues of victimisation and oppression by the management of the tertiary hospital.

Adetokunbo said that workers were tired of the uncompromising and suppressive attitude of the present management on the health workers.

We are saying no more to suppression and victimisation of workers, which has made the environment unconducive for us to work in.

We are not demanding for anything other than for this foremost institution to meet up with standards that can be comparable to any hospital around the world.

Professionals in other countries are doing excellently well because they are provided a conducive environment and their welfare is being put into consideration.

Any worker that is not happy cannot give out his or her best. This is the reason we are saying no to these suppression, oppression and victimisation of labour leaders, he said.

Speaking in the same vein, the ARD President, Dr Adebayo Sekumade, called for governments intervention in restructuring the institution, stating that it was in a state of decay.

We are crying out to the government to come and intervene in this issue that has been going on in LUTH; we are tired of the decay that is happening here.

We are saying that LUTH should not be allowed to collapse because if there is no immediate intervention, we are headed for a total collapse.

LUTH is serving thousands of Nigerians and this is why the government should take necessary actions by creating solutions that will meet the demands of LUTH workers, he said.

Abuja Chamber kicks as Senate proposes N5 fuel levy

Police arrest 4 suspects over illegal rogue websites

The rest is here:

LUTH workers call for FG's intervention to arrest decay in institution - NIGERIAN TRIBUNE (press release) (blog)

Bill Donohue's Open Letter to Justin Trudeau: Please Apologize to Canadian Victims Now CNSNews.com Your interest in having Pope Francis apologize for the Catholic Church's mistreatment of indigenous peoples is commendable, but it would take on greater meaning if you were to offer a sincere apology for the Canadian government's oppression of Indians, ...

Read the original:

Bill Donohue's Open Letter to Justin Trudeau: Please Apologize to Canadian Victims Now - CNSNews.com