Friday, August 14, 2020

Trump promotes false conspiracy claiming Kamala Harris ineligible for White House
A CONSPIRACY LAUNCHED BY HIS OWN CAMPAIGN

By Aamer Madhani, Sara Burnett Amanda Seitz And Jill Colvin The Associated Press
Posted August 13, 2020 

U.S. President Donald Trump said he would have to look into claims that Sen. Kamala Harris, who is the 2020 Democratic vice-presidential nominee as Joe Biden's running mate, may not be eligible to run for office after Newsweek published an opinion article questioning her citizenship WRITTEN BY A TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER!!!

President Donald Trump on Thursday gave credence to a false and racist conspiracy about Kamala Harris‘ eligibility to be vice-president, fueling an online misinformation campaign that parallels the one he used to power his rise into politics.

Asked about the matter at the White House, Trump told reporters he had “heard” rumours that Harris, a Black woman and U.S.-born citizen whose parents were immigrants, does not meet the requirement to serve in the White House. The president said he considered the rumours “very serious.”

The conspiracy is false. Harris, who was tapped this week by Joe Biden to serve as his running mate on the Democratic ticket, was born in Oakland, California, and is eligible to be president under the constitutional requirements. The question is not even considered complex, according to constitution lawyers.

“Full stop, end of story, period, exclamation point,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

Trump built his political career on questioning a political opponent’s legitimacy. He was a high-profile force behind the so-called “birther movement” — the lie that questioned whether President Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president, was eligible to serve. Only after mounting pressure during his 2016 campaign did Trump disavow the claims.

Trump comments about Harris on Thursday landed in a blizzard of other untrue, racist or sexist claims unleashed across social media and conservative websites after Biden picked Harris, the first Black woman and the first Asian American woman on a major party ticket. The misinformation campaign is built on falsehoods that have circulating less noticeably for months, propelled by Trump supporters, and now the president himself.


“I have no idea if that’s right,” said Trump, who said he had read a column on the subject earlier Thursday. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice-president.

Trump made the comments in answer to a reporter’s question and appeared to be referencing an op-ed written by John Eastman, a conservative attorney AND A TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER!!! who argues that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant citizenship to all people born in the U.S.

The president’s reelection campaign’s senior lawyer, Jenna Ellis, shared the controversial column on Thursday morning, hours before Trump was asked about it at a White House news conference.

Trump noted that the column was written by a “very highly qualified and very talented lawyer.”

Harris’ mother was born in India and her father was born in Jamaica.

But question of her parents’ birthplace is irrelevant, said Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

“No, there’s no question about it,” he said. “It’s been recognized since the people drafted it back in the 39th Congress that (the 14th) amendment that would cover people not just born to American citizens but born on American soil.”

Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Ahrens said the national party has no plans to challenge Harris’ eligibility for the Democratic ticket.

Eastman, the former dean of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, where he is a professor, is also a senior fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute. According to his bio on the institute’s website, he also served from 1996 to 1997 as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and serves as chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions.


He also ran in the Republican primary to serve as California’s attorney general in 2010. Eastman was defeated by a candidate who went on to lose to Harris.



Trump says he was ‘surprised’ that Biden picked Kamala Harris as running-mate

SUCH A BULLSHIT MOVE WORTHY OF WORLD WEEKLY NEWS

Newsweek, which published the controversial Eastman op-ed questioning Harris’ birthright qualification, defended the piece in their own op-ed Thursday, arguing that Eastman “was focusing on a long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate about the precise meaning of the phrase `subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment,” and not trying to “ignite a racist conspiracy theory around Kamala Harris’ candidacy.”

“His essay has no connection whatsoever to so-called `birther-ism,’ the racist 2008 conspiracy theory aimed at delegitimizing then-candidate Barack Obama by claiming, baselessly, that he was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya,” they wrote. “We share our readers’ revulsion at those vile lies.”

Other false and misleading rhetoric quickly emerged this week.

Conservative commentator Candace Owens posted a false attack on her Facebook page, claiming Harris had only started identifying as Black in the run-up to the presidential election. Until then, Owens wrote, Harris had solely described herself as Indian American.

Within 24 hours, nearly 200,000 users had liked the post — raking in more attention than Biden’s own Facebook post announcing his pick.

Donald Trump fuels 'birther' conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris

The US president repeats a discredited conspiracy theory which questions Kamala Harris's eligibility to serve in the White House.


WHEN IS HE GOING TO CLAIM THAT SHE IS ACTUALLY AN ANCIENT ALIEN REPTILE IN DISGUISE


Friday 14 August 2020

Trump questions Harris's eligibility to run for VP

US President Donald Trump has fuelled a discredited conspiracy theory about Joe Biden's Democratic running mate Kamala Harris which suggested she may not be eligible to serve in the White House.

Born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother in Oakland, California, in 1964, Ms Harris would be the first black and Asian American vice president if Mr Biden wins the November election.

Mr Trump - who for years led the false so-called "birther" movement which cast doubt on former president Barack Obama's US citizenship and eligibility to serve - told reporters he had "heard" that she "doesn't qualify".


Kamala Harris takes aim at Trump

He was responding to a question about an article in Newsweek by John Eastman, a conservative law professor, who questioned Ms Harris's eligibility under the US Constitution because both of her parents are immigrants - a theory that critics have branded "racist".

The president said at a news briefing: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.

"I have no idea if that's right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president."

He added: "But that's a very serious... you're saying that, they're saying that she doesn't qualify because she wasn't born in this country."

The reporter replied that Ms Harris was born in the US, but the claims suggest her parents may not have been legal permanent residents at that time.

Earlier on Thursday, Jenna Ellis, one of Mr Trump's senior legal advisers, reposted a tweet from the head of conservative group Judicial Watch, which questioned whether Ms Harris was "ineligible to be vice president under the US Constitution's 'Citizenship Clause'".

Biden picks Kamala Harris as running mate

The US Constitution rules an American leader must be a natural-born citizen - which constitutional experts say makes the 55-year-old Californian senator eligible.

In his essay, Prof Eastman points to Article II of the constitution, saying: "No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of President."

His argument hinges on the idea that Ms Harris may not have been subject to "complete" US jurisdiction if her parents were, for example, on student visas at the time of their daughter's birth.

Constitutional law experts swiftly shut down the conspiracy theory, noting that the constitution is clear.

Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Centre who specialises in constitutional law, told the website FactCheck.org: "To serve as president, one must be at least 35 years old, have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and be a 'natural born Citizen' (Article II, sec. 1 of the Constitution). Additionally, one cannot have already been president for more than a term and a half (22nd Amendment)."

He also called the conspiracy theory "racist nonsense".

Meghan McCain, the daughter of former Republican candidate John McCain, tweeted: "This is a gross, dark trend in American politics about birth qualification which is all clear and obvious. Stop."

John McCain faced questions about his eligibility to serve as president, given he was born on a US naval base in Panama.

Donald Trump's campaign lawyer promotes 'birther' conspiracy theory that Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be VP because her parents were immigrants

The Trump campaign's Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis pushed a so-called 'birther' narrative Thursday about Kamala Harris 

Ellis told ABC News it was an 'open question' whether Harris was eligible to serve as vice president 

The top Trump adviser retweeted a controversial op-ed about Harris' eligibility penned by a law professor who, like Harris, ran for California attorney general 

The editorial argued that she might not be eligible because her parents weren't American citizens when she was born in Oakland, California in 1964 

A prominent legal scholar called it 'racist nonsense,' as Harris is the first black woman to appear on a major party's presidential ticket 


President Donald Trump had pushed a similar theory about the country's first black president, President Barack Obama, floating that he wasn't born in Hawaii 


By NIKKI SCHWAB, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED 13 August 2020

The Trump campaign's Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis pushed a so-called 'birther' narrative Thursday that Kamala Harris isn't eligible to be vice president because her parents weren't citizens when she was born in Oakland, California.

'It's an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible,' Ellis told ABC News.

Ellis' views on the issue came to light after she retweeted a link to a 'birther' op-ed published on Newsweek's website Wednesday written by right-wing law professor John C. Eastman.

President Donald Trump's (left) campaign adviser Jenna Ellis (right) retweeted an op-ed questioning Kamala Harris' eligibility to serve as vice president and then backed up her move by saying it's an 'open question'

A Newsweek op-ed argued that Kamala Harris (pictured) may not be eligible to be vice president because her parents weren't U.S. citizens when she was born in California in 1964. One prominent law professor called the editorial 'racist nonsense'

Jenna Ellis serves as a senior legal adviser to the Trump campaign. A Trump campaign spokesman has yet to respond to DailyMail.com's request for comment on whether the campaign stands by her questioning of Harris' eligibility


ABC News first reported Jenna Ellis' comments on Kamala Harris' eligibility to serve as vice president after Ellis retweeted the 'birther' op-ed. She told reporter Will Steakin that, 'It's an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible'


Kamala Harris is pictured with her mother Shyamala Gopalan (left), who was born in India, and her father Donald Harris (right), who was born in Jamaica

A Trump campaign spokesman has yet to respond to DailyMail.com's inquiry on whether the campaign stands by her statement.

Eastman pointed to how Article 2 of the Constitution says only a 'natural born citizen' can serve as vice president and president, but suggests there's some interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause that could exclude someone in Harris' situation.

He also argued that while the modern view of citizenship includes every person born on American soil, that belief started after Harris was born in 1964. 'Indeed, the Supreme Court has that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen,' he also wrote.

Eastman had run as a Republican in 2010 for California attorney general, but lost his primary. Harris ultimately won the position as a Democrat.

Eastman's op-ed received tremendous backlash, with many pointing out that it echoed the conspiracy theory pushed by President Donald Trump and others during President Barack Obama's tenure.

Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Eastman's interpretation of eligibility as 'racist nonsense,' in a FactCheck.org post on the controversy.

Businessman Trump was one of the most prominent voices to push the 'birther' conspiracy about Obama, doing so in early April 2011.

Trump, who was mulling taking on Obama in the 2012 election, made a number of bogus claims including that Obama's 'certificate of live birth' was not an actual 'birth certificate.'

The president was trying to push the racist narrative that Obama was born in Africa, where his black father was from.

Obama countered at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in late April by jokingly showing the audience his 'official birth video' - the opening scenes of Disney's 'The Lion King.'

But days earlier, in a move that showed Obama took the political threat seriously, the White House released the president's long form birth certificate.

It wasn't until Trump was running in 2016 that he admitted that Obama was born in the United States - though he also claimed, falsely, that it was Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign that started the 'birther' conspiracy theory to begin with.

Harris is the second person of color to appear on a major party's presidential ballot and the second Democratic politician in recent years that Republicans have tried to suggest was born outside the U.S.

HOW THE PHRASE 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' KEEPS SPARKING 'BIRTHER' MOVEMENTS

The Constitution spells out who is eligible for the presidency in Clause 5 of Article 2: 'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.'

And the 12th Amendment extends those qualifications to the vice-president.

Left unexplained is what 'natural born citizen' means - and the phrase is defined in no other piece of legislation.

But the 14th Amendment of 1868 is also in the Constitution - and defines who is a citizen.

It says: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'

In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude children of non-citizen immigrants.

But that decision was in an arcane question - about whether the 14th Amendment only guaranteed rights to people who were U.S. citizens, and didn't cover anyone who was only granted 'citizenship of the state' by an individual U.S. state - in other words, were free to live and work there.

The majority opinion includes a note that 'the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to 'exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.'

Two years later the high court ruled that immigrants can only have automatic citizenship for their children when they – the adults – owe 'allegiance' to the U.S. and not to a foreign nation.

The concept of allegiance means little today but most people at the time were born in monarchies with limited rights and were subjects, not citizens - and until you became an American citizen, you were still owing allegiance to that monarch, it was argued. 'Allegiance' to a foreign monarch and being subject to American 'jurisdiction' were not compatible, the justices ruled.

But then in 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that a specific Chinese immigrant's child was a citizen of the United States, citing the 14th Amendment's text.

In the case, about Wing Kim Arg, the justices ruled that 'a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China' was automatically a citizen.

That ruling has been the bedrock of birthright citizenship - known as jus soli - and has led to the other opinions about the amendment being seen as being superseded - although they have never formally been overturned.

The dissenters - or in cruder terms, the losers - said the 14th Amendment and those who passed it intended citizenship to be only for those not claimed by any foreign power in any form, so natural-born citizenship was hereditary - a concept known as jus sanguinis.

Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman born in New York to one U.S. citizen father but brought up abroad was eligible to run for president - she did not - but has never explicitly ruled on whether someone born to one or two non-citizens can.

The fact that scores of millions of Americans have been considered citizens by the federal government in exactly those circumstances would seem to suggest how the justices would rule.

But it leaves Kamala Harris 'birthers' a very narrow opportunity to argue that the Supreme Court has never ruled clearly that being born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents makes you 'natural born' - as opposed to simply a citizen.

One - in a Newsweek op-ed - claimed that because Mexican guest-workers' American-born children had been deported in the 1920s, 1940s, and 1950s - the idea of 'birthright citizenship' for all really dates from after Harris' birth.

He also claimed that it was unclear exactly what Harris' parents' legal status was and that if they did not have green cards, that might disqualify her too.

Harris, however, is not the first candidate to face questions over eligibility thanks to her parents.

Obama - as well as the bogus claim he was not born in the United States - faced ultra-fringe birther questions because his father was a Kenyan; and the oldest example was Chester Arthur, whose mother alone was American and who also faced questions over a rumor he was born in Canada, not Vermont.

Unhelpfully for birthers, none of those who faced these questions were successfully disqualified by any court - in fact, no challenge of the kind has ever succeeded.

Perhaps even more unhelpfully, the Newsweek op-ed writer, law professor John Eastman, previously campaigned for Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to one U.S. citizen parent and a Cuban father, suggesting his claim that Harris might not be eligible was more politically expedient that constitutionally sound. 



DEBUNKING FALSE STORIES
Kamala Harris Is Eligible to Serve as President

By Bala Thenappan

Posted on August 11, 2020

Quick Take

Kamala Harris, former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate, is eligible to serve as U.S. president, contrary to the false claims of viral posts on Facebook. Her mother is from India and her father from Jamaica — but Harris was born in Oakland, California.
Full Story

Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, announced on Twitter on Aug. 11 that his vice presidential running mate is California Sen. Kamala Harris.

But multiple posts on Facebook falsely claim that — in the event Biden is unable to serve out his term –Harris is ineligible to serve as president because she’s an “anchor baby” whose parents are immigrants.

Days before Biden had even announced his choice of running mate, the posts said: “Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his VP.” The posts go on to claim, “If crazy Joe cannot serve his full term, Kamala cannot by constitutional law become President. She is an anchor baby, mother is from India, father is Jamaican, and neither were american citizens at time of her birth. That means the Presidency would fall on Speaker of the house. Recently Nancy Pelosi stated that she was next in line to become President. THAT in itself is reason to vote her out in November. Democrats have worked the whole scenario out and I believe that is why they chose Kamala Harris.”

In an email to FactCheck.Org, Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in constitutional law, described the Facebook posts as “racist nonsense.” 

Chafetz explained: “To serve as president, one must be at least 35 years old, have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and be a ‘natural born Citizen’ (Article II, sec. 1 of the Constitution). Additionally, one cannot have already been president for more than a term and a half (22nd Amendment).” 

As we’ve reported before, Harris, whose mother is from India and whose father is from Jamaica, was born in Oakland, California, which makes her a natural born U.S. citizen and eligible to serve as president. She was born Oct. 20, 1964, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. 

Chafetz added that the fact that Harris’s parents are immigrants is “wholly irrelevant.” 

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.
Sources

“Biden’s VP Pick: Who is the Front Runner Kamala Harris?” BBC. 11 Aug 2020. 

“Biden Picks Kamala Harris as His Running Mate.” Bloomberg News. 11 Aug 2020.

Cadelago, Christopher. “Biden picks Kamala Harris as VP nominee.” Politico. 11 Aug 2020.

Chafetz, Josh. Professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center. Email to FactCheck.org. 11 Aug 2020.

Detrow, Scott. “Kamala Harris Is Seen As the Clear Front-Runner to Be Joe Biden’s Running Mate.” NPR. 22 Jun 2020. 

Fichera, Angelo. “Meme Uses Deception to Accuse Harris of ‘Lies.’” FactCheck.Org. 5 Jul 2019.

U.S. Constitution. Article II. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Accessed 11 Aug 2020.

Categories
Debunking False Stories
Tags
2020 Election
People
Kamala Harris



SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/us-election-donald-trump-suggests.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/aoc-tears-into-trump-over-white.html 


Search Results

President Trump's 2020 campaign dropped an ad called "Phony" within minutes of Sen. Kamala Harris's ...
3 days ago - Uploaded by The Hill
The Trump campaign responds to Kamala Harris' VP nomination; Fox News' ... Fox News @ Night: http ...
3 days ago - Uploaded by Fox News
Kamala Harris to be his running mate. #FoxNews Subscribe ... ... Fox News @ Night: http://video.foxnews.com ...
3 days ago - Uploaded by Fox News

President Trump on the announcement of Phony Kamala Harris as Joe ... Your browser does not currently ...
3 days ago - Uploaded by Donald J Trump
Kamala Harris hitting the 2020 campaign trail and the Trump campaign ... Fallon: https://www.nbc.com/the ...
2 days ago - Uploaded by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
Kamala Harris "extraordinarily nasty" for her grilling of Brett Kavanaugh -- when she pressed Kavanaugh on ...
2 days ago - Uploaded by TYT Investigates
With Harris as Joe Biden's 'political living will,' he is surrendering control of our nation to the radical mob ...
3 days ago - Uploaded by Donald J Trump
Kamala Harris, saying former Vice President Joe Biden's vice ... Your browser does not currently recognize ...
2 days ago - Uploaded by ABC News



Israel-UAE deal: How the Middle East reacted
While Bahrain and Egypt praised the historic deal Turkey and Iran condemned the move


Palestinians take part in a protest against the UAE decision to normalise relations with Israel in the city of Nablus (Reuters)


By MEE staff Published date: 14 August 2020

US President Donald Trump on Thursday proudly announced a historic peace deal between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Trump also said Israel would pause plans to annex parts of the West Bank but critics of the deal fear Tel Aviv will renege on this part of the deal.

The peace deal paves the way for normalisation of relations between the two countries and makes the UAE the third country in the Arab world to normalise relations with Israel.

Here's a rundown of how countries across the Middle East and North Africa reacted to the latest announcement:

Bahrain

Bahrain praised the normalisation of ties between Israel and the UAE and welcomed the move, according to the Bahrain News Agency.

Commenting on the deal, a Bahraini spokesperson said: "The kingdom welcomes the diplomatic efforts made by the United Arab Emirates. This historic step will contribute to strengthening stability and peace in the region."

Egypt

Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi praised the efforts and said he hoped the deal to halt Israel's annexation would bring "peace" to the Middle East.

"I appreciate the efforts of the architects of this agreement for the prosperity and stability of our region," Sisi said in a tweet. 

Iran

Iran dubbed the Israel-UAE deal as an act of "strategic stupidity" and warned Abu Dhabi to accept any consequences of the historic agreement.

"This is an act of strategic stupidity from Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv which will undoubtedly strengthen the resistance axis in the region," the Iranian foreign ministry said on Thursday.

"The oppressed people of Palestine and all the free nations of the world will never forgive the normalising of relations with the criminal Israeli occupation regime and the complicity in its crimes." 

Jordan

Jordan did not welcome or condemn the deal but said its impact will depend on Israel's actions.

Reacting to the decision, Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi said that "the impact of the deal on peace efforts is linked to the actions Israel will take".

He added: "[Jordan backs] any real effort that contributes to achieving comprehensive and just peace that ends Israeli occupation and meets the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."

Oman

Oman has welcomed the agreement in an official statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A ministry spokesperson expressed "the Sultanate’s support for the decision by the United Arab Emirates regarding relations with Israel within the framework of its historic joint declaration with the United States and Israel."
#عاجل

ناطق رسمي باسم وزارة الخارجية يعرب عن تأييد السلطنة قرار دولة #الإمارات العربية المتحدة بشأن العلاقات مع إسرائيل في إطار الإعلان التاريخي المشترك بينها وبين الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل. pic.twitter.com/ZEcq2dPEoN— وكالة الأنباء العمانية (@OmanNewsAgency) August 14, 2020

Palestinian Authority

The Palestinian Authority announced the "immediate" recall of its ambassador to the United Arab Emirates in protest over the country's normalisation deal.

"At the request of President Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian foreign ministry has decided to immediately recall its ambassador to the United Arab Emirates," Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki said in a statement to AFP. 

Turkey

Ankara condemned the deal on Friday and described the deal as a betrayal of the Palestinian people.

"While betraying the Palestinian cause to serve its narrow interests, the UAE is trying to present this as a kind of act of self-sacrifice for Palestine," the Turkish foreign ministry said.

"History and the conscience of the people living in the region will not forget and never forgive this hypocritical behaviour."




Associated Press 
Published: 08.14.20 

Iran and Turkey lashed out at their regional rival the United Arab Emirates on Friday over its decision to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel, accusing it of betraying the Palestinian cause, even as much of the international community welcomed the move.

Iran's Foreign Ministry called the U.S.-brokered deal a "dagger that was unjustly struck by the UAE in the backs of the Palestinian people and all Muslims." Turkey said the peoples of the region "will never forget and will never forgive this hypocritical behavior" by the UAE.


A Palestinian woman walks past a mural against Israel's plan to extend its sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip July 14, 2020
(Photo: Reuters)

The UAE, which has never fought Israel and has quietly been improving ties for years, said the agreement put a hold on Israel's plans to unilaterally annex parts of the West Bank, which the Palestinians view as the heartland of a future state.

But the Turkish Foreign Ministry said the UAE had no authority to negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians or "to make concessions on matters vital to Palestine."
The agreement would make the UAE the first Gulf Arab state - and the third Arab country, after Egypt and Jordan - to have full diplomatic ties with Israel. The Palestinians say the deal amounts to "treason" and have called on Arab and Muslim countries to oppose it.


Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
(Photo: AP)
The historic deal delivered a key foreign policy victory for U.S. President Donald Trump as he seeks re-election and reflected the changing Middle East in which shared concerns about archenemy Iran have largely overtaken traditional Arab support for the Palestinians. Trump has predicted that other countries in the region will follow the UAE's lead.
Israel, the UAE and other Gulf countries that view Iran as a regional menace have been cultivating closer ties in recent years. Turkey has had diplomatic relations with Israel for decades, but under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has positioned itself as a champion of the Palestinians. Turkey and the UAE support rival camps in the conflict in Libya.
Germany's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas welcomed both the agreement and the decision to suspend annexation and called to congratulate his Israeli counterpart Gabi Ashkenazi on "this historic step."


German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Israeli counterpart Gabi Ashkenazi
(Photo: AFP)
"We stand by our position that only a negotiated two-state solution can bring lasting peace to the Middle East," Maas said in a statement. "Together with our European partners and the region we have campaigned intensively in past months against an annexation and for the resumption of direct negotiations."
China also said it welcomes "any measure that helps in easing tensions between Middle Eastern countries and promotes regional peace and stability."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said Beijing will "continue to firmly support the Palestinian people's just cause of restoring their legitimate national rights and building national independence."

SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/dont-be-hoodwinked-by-trumps-uae-israel.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/mbz-uae-strongman-behind-historic-deal.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/uae-excusing-and-accepting-israels.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/backgrounder-uae-efforts-to-normalise.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/opinion-israel-uae-deal-means-goodbye.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/rashid-khalidi-israel-uae-deal-to.html

BACKGROUNDER
UAE efforts to normalise Israel's apartheid should never be tolerated

As Arab states push for normalisation with Israel, Palestinians must continue fighting for freedom and equality

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (illustration by Mohamad Elaasar/MEE)

Today, as Palestinians, we are facing a systematic campaign to liquidate our cause - the most recent manifestation being the sweeping land theft that Israel is planning to carry out by annexing 30 percent of the occupied West Bank.

Intensifying aggression against Palestinians in the targeted areas through home demolitions, burning of agricultural lands, settler attacks and land confiscation mark the final stages of Israel’s settler-colonial project to ethnically cleanse the land and prepare it for annexation.

Israel’s planned annexation has met widespread condemnation, from United Nations experts demanding effective measures against Israel’s “21st-century apartheid” to the Palestinian Authority opting to freeze all relations, including security coordination, with Israel.
Arab backlash

Amid this backdrop, Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador to the US, took the unprecedented step of writing an article titled “It’s either annexation or normalisation” in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, violating the longstanding Palestinian and Arab consensus against normalisation with the Israeli regime.

The article was purportedly written to sway the Israeli public against annexation. But did Otaiba really believe that the next day, Israelis would take to the streets to demand their government stop the annexation process? Unlikely. So what was the real purpose of this article?


The article appears to be part of a concerted effort to protect the growing, but still precarious, normalisation project of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and a number of other Arab Gulf states

Addressing the Israeli regime as an “opportunity, not an enemy”, Otaiba appears to be concerned that the annexation will generate Palestinian resistance and lead to an Arab backlash against normalisation with Israel. This would destroy the UAE’s long-term efforts, documented by the Intercept a few years ago, to build an anti-Iran alliance with Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Otaiba’s article was reportedly written with the support of individuals close to the Israeli government, including Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban. Considering Otaiba’s “almost constant phone and email contact” with Jared Kushner, it likely also had the blessing of the Trump administration.

The article appears to be part of a concerted effort to protect the growing, but still precarious, normalisation project of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and a number of other Arab Gulf states, which stands in flagrant opposition to the historic principles of the Arab League and many Arab states.
Three-tiered system of oppression

Israel was established in 1948 by forcibly evicting the overwhelming majority of Palestinians from their homeland. The Israeli state continues to uproot, dispossess and evict Palestinians, and to appropriate their land.

Israel is based on a three-tiered system of oppression: settler-colonialism, apartheid and occupation. Palestinians reject any treatment of such a regime as a “normal” state with whom relations and collaboration can be established. For the UAE ambassador, however, Israel is “an opportunity” - not a state that practices colonisation and apartheid, and places itself above international law.

A man walks by Israel’s separation wall on 1 February (AFP)

Otaiba describes the UAE as providing “engagement and conflict reduction” in the region.

It is worth asking: which peace is the UAE supporting? Is it the “peace” in Yemen, where the UAE is heavily involved in the destruction, fragmentation and impoverishment of the country? Or is it in Libya, where the UAE has supported militias and fuelled the war and militarisation that has devastated the country?

In terms of the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine, the UAE has led efforts to normalise apartheid. Otaiba’s offer of normalisation if Israel halts its annexation project bypasses the fact that the imminent de jure annexation comes on top of the continued oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people. He offers a carrot that Israel is already eating, as both countries have already normalised in various ways.

In February, the UAE aided Israeli efforts to whitewash its violations of Palestinian rights when it warmly welcomed an Israeli team to join a UAE cycling tour. Last year, Israel accepted Dubai’s invitation to attend Expo 2020.

Other Gulf countries have also strengthened ties with Israel, including Bahrain, which hosted an economic conference tied to the US “peace plan” in June 2019, and Oman, which welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018.
Normalising apartheid

Otaiba’s article and the politics it represents warrant outrage and opposition. Normalising apartheid can never be tolerated.

Israeli annexation: If Abbas is serious this time, Palestinians should support the PA's responseRead More »

Yet, as Palestinians, we trust that the values of freedom, justice and equality will finally prevail over the alliance of regimes fuelling wars, racism and human rights violations. We believe in the power of the people globally, from the Arab streets to the US, the heart of the empire.

Today, amid growing demonstrations in the US and other parts of the world, rulers who trample human rights are standing on shaky ground. People in the Arab world and globally understand the value of our joint struggle.

The Otaibas of this world, more than anything, give us one message: Palestine is a litmus test for human rights in the modern era, and together, we can effectively defend human dignity and self-determination.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

  

Jamal Juma' was born in Jerusalem and attended Birzeit University, where he became politically active. Since the first Intifada, he has focused on grassroots activism. Juma' is since 2002 the coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign and since 2012 the coordinator of the Land Defense Coalition, a network of Palestinian grassroots movements. He has been invited to address numerous civil society and UN conferences, where he has spoken on the issue of Palestine and the Apartheid Wall. His articles and interviews are widely disseminated and translated into several languages.


SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/dont-be-hoodwinked-by-trumps-uae-israel.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/mbz-uae-strongman-behind-historic-deal.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/uae-excusing-and-accepting-israels.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/backgrounder-uae-efforts-to-normalise.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/israel-uae-deal-how-middle-east-reacted.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/opinion-israel-uae-deal-means-goodbye.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/rashid-khalidi-israel-uae-deal-to.html
UAE 'excusing and accepting' Israel's occupation, say Palestinian Americans
Palestinian Americans immediately rejected the UAE's plans to normalise ties with Israel, but were largely unsurprised by the move

Demonstrators call for an independent Palestinian state during a protest held outside the White House in Washington, DC on 4 March (AFP/File photo)

By Sheren Khalel in Washington Published date: 13 August 2020

Disappointed but not surprised seems to be the general feeling among Palestinian Americans following the United Arab Emirates' announcement to normalise ties with Israel.

The UAE on Thursday revealed that it will formally normalise relations in exchange for Israel's promise to halt its plans to annex large swaths of the occupied West Bank.

UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash went so far as to call the deal a "death blow" to the annexation of Palestinian lands.

But Palestinian Americans were quick to object to the framing of the deal as tit-for-tat, pointing out that Abu Dhabi has been quietly warming ties with Israel for years.


'When you normalise relationships with Israel or any Zionist organisation - and normalisation means interaction without centering the Palestinian problem - then you are basically excusing and accepting everything that Israel has done to us for the past 72 years'

- Amer Zahr, President of New Generation for Palestine

"The fact that the UAE is championing that it was able to get Israel to sort of promise not to formally annex is really empty, and frankly shameful. They should know better, but they're doing this for their own benefit," said Amer Zahr, law professor and president of New Generation for Palestine.

The Palestinian-American community has also largely asserted that regardless of Israel's official position, it has for decades assumed de facto annexation over the West Bank through its occupation and continuous expansion of illegal settlements.

Zahr told Middle East Eye that the real danger in this formal normalisation is that "it legitimises everything that Israel has done to [Palestinians] for the past 72 years".

"It makes it seem like our dispossession, our exile and our disenfranchisement are things now to be accepted, and when this is done by Arab countries it's even more damaging. This is a victory for Israel. It's not a victory for Arabs or a victory for the United Arab Emirates. Israel is the only one that gains when it's able to use agreements like this as propaganda," Zahr said.

"Make no mistake, Israel will be the one to use this agreement to conduct more atrocities against Palestinians, not less," he added, rejecting any notion that frames the agreement as a step towards peace.

Noura Erakat, Palestinian-American human rights attorney and professor at Rutgers University, said she was mostly insulted by the UAE's assertion that its move had done anything to help the Palestinian people.

"Despite how unsurprising it is that the UAE normalized relations with Israel, it is as disappointing as ever to witness the failure of Arab nationalism and the endorsement/surrender to a colonial future," Erakat said on Twitter.

"The greatest insult is that the UAE frames this as way to 'stop' annexation and support Palestinians. Spare us this suffocating discourse," she continued.
'Merely making that friendship public'

Omar Baddar, former deputy director of the Arab American Institute (AAI), said that it was important to keep in mind that "there is nothing 'historic' or 'groundbreaking'" about Thursday's announcement in terms of what has actually been taking place between the two countries.

"Israel and the UAE have been strong allies under the table for many years," Baddar said in a series of posts. "This is merely making that friendship public."

The UAE and Israel: More than a marriage of convenience
Read More »

Since 2015, Israel has had formal representation at the International Renewable Energy Agency based in Abu Dhabi, with Israeli officials visiting the Gulf state frequently.

Previously banned, in November the UAE announced that it planned to open up tourism to Israeli citizens.

Business ties have also been growing between the two countries. Last month, two Israeli defence behemoths signed a landmark agreement with an Emirati tech firm specialising in artificial intelligence, which was widely seen as a sign of growing ties between their countries. The deal was part of a growing partnership to tackle the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The Palestinian Authority has rejected the UAE's attempt to send humanitarian aid via Israel to the occupied West Bank, refusing in May and again in June to accept large shipments of coronavirus medical equipment and supplies from Abu Dhabi over their arrival in Tel Aviv as opposed to Jordan.

'Extremely unpopular in the region'

Tensions with Iran, a shared enemy, have also emboldened the relationship between the UAE and Israel, as the two countries hold a loose alliance with the United States and Saudi Arabia against the Islamic Republic.

6) Some Arab governments see "the Palestinian cause" as a burden, feigning concern for their human rights while secretly working with Israel on "more important" partnerships: economic, intelligence, undermining Iran's influences in the region...etc.— Omar Baddar (@OmarBaddar) August 13, 2020

Zahr said he would not be surprised if the UAE became just one of many Arab nations to formally normalise relations with Israel as a way to curry favour with the United States.

"While we hold a strong pride in our Arab culture and a strong bond with our Arab brothers and sisters on the ground that live in various Arab societies, we stopped looking to Arab governments for our salvation long ago… We'll be disappointed and frustrated and maybe even angry, but not surprised," Zahr said.

Baddar agreed, but pointed out that while Middle Eastern governments may be coming around to accepting Israel into the diplomatic fold, he did not believe that the hearts and minds of the populous in any given Arab country had been won over by Israel.

"The claim that the UAE deal is responsible for halting Israel's annexation announcement is merely a PR stunt for the UAE government, which knows full well that normalization with Israel WHILE Israel continues to brutalize Palestinians is extremely unpopular in the region," Baddar said.

"Israel may be able to normalize [with] these dictatorial governments [without] treating Palestinians like human beings who deserve basic rights, but Israel will never be truly accepted by the PEOPLE of the region so long as Palestinians live without freedom under the boot of occupation," he said.
'An opportunity to re-educate'

Yousef Munayyer, former executive director at the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), said that he thought the timing of the move was a political scheme to rally support for US President Donald Trump as a way to frame the president as a successful peacemaker.

"There is no doubt this Israel/UAE announcement was choreographed with Trump's election in mind," Munayyer said on Twitter, adding that he would not be surprised if other countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia had similar announcements "already programmed for September and October".

"And, since Dem leadership is so old school in its political instincts it will find itself forced to congratulate Trump on his 'historic achievements'," Munayyer continued.



Chair @RepEliotEngel: I welcome the announcement that the United Arab Emirates and Israel are normalizing relations... I hope that this new breakthrough will give courage to other countries... and motivate Palestinians to give peace a chance.https://t.co/81HMSdyNXj— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) August 13, 2020

Zahr echoed Munayyer's sentiment, telling MEE that he fully expected the Democratic leadership to rally behind the announcement.

"Unfortunately, this move will be celebrated by all factions in American politics, not just Trump," Zahr said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the Biden ticket puts out something praising this move as well."
'Don't work with Anti-Defamation League,' progressive groups urgeRead More »

Zahr told MEE that the best thing the Palestinian-American community can do now is to use this as an opportunity to re-educate people on why anti-occupation activists are against normalisation, even in terms of smaller group organising.

"The reason that we don't want American organisations to sit down with Zionist organisations and sort of talk with them while ignoring the Palestinian problem, and thereby legitimising them, is the same reason we don't want Arab governments to create these sorts of agreements with Israel," Zahr said.

"When you normalise relationships with Israel or any Zionist organisation - and normalisation means interaction without centering the Palestinian problem - then you are basically excusing and accepting everything that Israel has done to us for the past 72 years, which means: the theft of our land; the exile of our people; five million refugees wandering around the world; millions of stateless people; the abrogation of rights for Palestinians that live in Gaza and the West Bank.

"It means you are accepting the status quo. That's why we are always against normalisation, so I think this is at least an opportunity to re-educate people on that and to be very clear that we are against this kind of thing, but again while we might be angry and frustrated, I don't think any Palestinian is surprised given the current political climate and make up of the Arab world".


SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/dont-be-hoodwinked-by-trumps-uae-israel.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/mbz-uae-strongman-behind-historic-deal.html


https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/backgrounder-uae-efforts-to-normalise.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/israel-uae-deal-how-middle-east-reacted.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/opinion-israel-uae-deal-means-goodbye.html