DARNELLA FRAZIER, THE TEENAGER WHO FILMED GEORGE FLOYD’S MURDER, GETS A 2021 PULITZER PRIZE SPECIAL CITATION

by Andrea Blackstone

June 12, 2021

The Pulitzer Prize Board awarded a 2021 Pulitzer Prize Special Citation to Darnella Frazier for exhibited courage to record the famous video of George Floyd’s murder. Image- Twitter

The Pulitzer Prize Board awarded a 2021 Pulitzer Prize Special Citation to Darnella Frazier—the teenager who exhibited the courage to record a video of George Floyd’s murder on her cellphone. The announcement mentioned that the video spawned worldwide police brutality protests and highlighted the critical role that citizen journalists have in the search for both truth and justice.

Now This captured footage of how recording the video led to the next chapter of both protests and trauma for Frazier, after the teenager shared the disturbing footage online. The footage, which included Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck as Floyd kept saying that he could not breathe, was chilling and revealing. Those words continue to shape the course of police officer’s duties, while citizens examine who is seeking to truly serve and protect them when emergencies arise.

ABC News mentioned that Frazier was also tasked with testifying in Chauvin’s trial. The former Minneapolis police officer was found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murde, and second-degree manslaughter in the death of Floyd.

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and his defense attorney Eric Nelson attend closing arguments during Chauvin’s trial for second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd with his defense attorney Eric Nelson in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. April 19, 2021 in a still image from video. Pool via REUTERS

“He was in pain,” Frazier said while testifying in April, according to ABC News. “It seemed like, he knew … he knew it was over for him. He was terrified. He was suffering. This was a cry for help.”

Within the bittersweet celebration of why Frazier is being recognized, the teenager is receiving some support as news of her 2021 Pulitzer Prize Special Citation crawls around the internet. Frazier has been both praised and criticized for filming the iconic video that drew attention to social justice. Hopefully, the world will let her indulge in this noteworthy recognition. When many did nothing about injustice, one brave teenager who was walking to the store when she witnessed what happened to Floyd, stood up. She quickly took action as a citizen journalist by using a cell phone. Then, her heroic act helped to ignite a worldwide social justice movement.

Sustainable Peace Must End Israeli Apartheid. Anything Else Is Just a Ceasefire.

Palestinian protesters run to take cover during a protest against the expanding of Jewish settlements and the Israeli annexation plan in the village of Beita, south of the West Bank city of Nablus, on June 8, 2021.

NIDAL ESHTAYEH / XINHUA VIA GETTY IMAGES

After four elections in less than two years, Benjamin Netanyahu’s record 12-year rule comes officially to an end on Sunday. The government to replace him consists of a coalition of eight parties from across Israel’s political spectrum and will be led by the ultranationalist Naftali Bennett who will serve for the first two years.

Indeed, indicative of the direction of Israeli politics and society over the course of the last 15 years or so, the end of the corrupt and much-maligned Netanyahu reign may be no reason for celebration, as it will be replaced not simply by a coalition government built around numerous structural contradictions, but by one that may potentially prove to be far more reactionary and dangerous.

The situation is grave for Palestinians, who only a few weeks ago experienced under Netanyahu’s orders yet another massive assault on Gaza, which ended in the death of more than 200 people including dozens of children, and widespread damage to the enclave’s infrastructure. The person to replace Netanyahu as prime minister is a religious extremist who has been a vocal advocate of Israeli settlements and a fervent opponent of a Palestinian state.

The dawn of the new era in Israeli politics starts with the latest cycle of violence against the Palestinians, which seems to have been directly related to the reality of domestic Israeli politics in general and the policy of ethnic cleansing in particular. This is the view of Richard Falk, one of the world’s most insightful and cited scholars of international affairs over the course of the last half century, as made clear in the exclusive interview below for Truthout. Falk is professor emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global Law at Queen Mary University of London, former United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, and author of more than fifty books and thousands of essays in global politics and international law.

C.J. Polychroniou: Richard, the latest Israeli attack, which caused massive destruction in the Gaza Strip, ended with a ceasefire after growing U.S. and international pressure after 11 days. In your view, what factors or parties reignited the violence?

Richard Falk: This latest upsurge of violence in the relations between Israel and Palestine seems to arise from a combination of circumstances…. It is clear that Israel’s usual claim of a right to defend itself is far from the whole story, especially when its behavior seemed designed to provoke Hamas to act in response. In light of this, we should investigate why Israel wanted to launch a major military operation against Gaza at this time when the situation seemed quiet.

The easiest answer to the question — to save Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s skin. It seems that the precarious political position and legal vulnerability of the Israeli leader, is the best back story, but far from a complete picture. It helps account for the seemingly reckless Israeli provocations that preceded the flurry of rockets from Hamas and affiliates. Netanyahu had failed three times to form a government and was facing an opposition coalition that was effectively poised to displace him as leader. If displaced as prime minister, Netanyahu would have to face substantial criminal charges for fraud, bribery and breach of public trust in Israeli courts, which could result in a jail sentence.

Why would a wily leader and ardent nationalist play roulette with the well-being of Israel? The answer seems to involve the character of the man rather than an astute policy calculation…. To the extent the Netanyahu approach was knowledge-based, it reflected the reasonable belief that Israelis put aside differences and give their total allegiance to the head of state during a wartime interlude. Netanyahu had every reason to believe that in this situation, as so often in the past, Israelis would rally around the flag, and be thankful for his leadership in a security crisis.If displaced as prime minister, Netanyahu would have to face substantial criminal charges for fraud, bribery and breach of public trust in Israeli courts, which could result in a jail sentence.

There is no doubt that Israeli behavior preceding the rockets was so inflammatory that we must assume it was intended to be highly provocative. First came high-profile evictions of six Palestinian families from their Sheikh Jarrah homes on flimsy legal grounds, with a prospect of more evictions to follow. These court rulings enraged the Palestinians. It reinforced their sense of continuing victimization taking the form of insecurity as to Palestinian residence rights in East Jerusalem, perceived as ethnic cleansing. This reawakened the memories of the 700,000 or more Palestinians who fled or were forced across the borders of what became Israel to Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank (until 1967 under Jordanian administration) in the 1948 War, becoming refugees, and never thereafter allowed to return to their homes or homeland, which was and is their right under international law.

This process of coercive demographic rebalancing was integral to the essential racial and idealistic character of the Zionist movement, which sought to establish not only a Jewish state but a democracy that could qualify for political legitimacy by Western criteria. To achieve this goal, however, depended on implementing policies ensuring and maintaining a secure Jewish-majority population, [policies] which were themselves denial of fundamental human rights. These controversial Sheikh Jarrah evictions were continuing this Judaizing of East Jerusalem after more than 70 years since Israel was founded. In other words, what Israeli Jews treated as a demographic imperative that was almost synonymous with maintaining a Jewish state for the Palestinians had the character of a continuous process of ethnic cleansing, which meant second-class citizenship and living with perpetual insecurity.

Days before the rockets were launched, there was further provocation that took the form of unregulated marches by right-wing Jewish settlers through Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem carrying posters and shouting, “Death to the Arabs,” coupled with random acts of violence against Palestinians and their property. Such events reinforced the impression that the Palestinians in Israel were acutely insecure and vulnerable to thuggish manifestations of settler racism and would not be protected by the Israeli state. This pattern exhibited the jagged edges of Israel’s distinctive version of apartheid.

Likely, the most provocative of all these events … were the several intrusions at al-Aqsa compound and mosque by Israeli security forces in a manner that obstructed Muslim worship during the last days of Ramadan. As well, Muslims were prevented from coming to al-Aqsa from the West Bank during this period. These encroachments on freedom of religion again seemed designed to provoke Palestinian reactions of resistance by harshly discriminatory practices of Israeli interpretations of “law and order.”

Against this background, Palestinian protests mounted, and Hamas undoubtedly felt challenged to maintain its claim as the inspirational leader of Palestinian resistance. Because of the limited options available to Hamas, resistance took the characteristic form of firing hundreds of primitive rockets, many falling harmlessly or intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. The rockets were indiscriminate and inflicted some Israeli casualties, minor damage to towns in southern Israel. Such a tactic violates international humanitarian law, and is undoubtedly very frightening to the Israeli civilian population.

It should be appreciated that Israel’s violations far outweighed the violations of the Palestinians in several crucial respects: the death and destruction caused by the two sides; the refusal of Israel to uphold its legal obligations as the occupying power toward the civilian occupied Palestinian people who were already long subjugated by an unlawful blockade (in place since 2007) responsible for unemployment levels over 50 percent and dependence on humanitarian aid by over 80 percent of the Gazan population. Israel also ignored its specific duty outlined in Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect the civilian population during a time of “contagious disease or epidemic,” and instead subjected Palestinians to what has been described as “medical apartheid,” which was most evident on the West Bank where all Jewish settlers were vaccinated while almost no Palestinians received even a first dose.

The Arab world condemned the latest Israeli assault, but took no action. My question about this is twofold: First, to what extent did the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, precipitate the renewal of violence? And, second, what’s behind the cozy relationship between Israel and Arab countries, particularly Gulf states?

With respect to the Abraham Accords, I am not aware of any concrete indications of a link, although some circumstantial evidence suggests its plausibility. On the Israeli side, the Accords seem to have given Israel greater confidence that they could make life even more miserable for the Palestinian people without having to fear adverse repercussions from their Arab neighbors. Without Trump in the White House, the right wing in Israel seemed to believe that their expansionist goals, including annexationist hopes for most of the West Bank, would have to be achieved unilaterally without diplomatic cover from the United States, and that meant intensifying their already bellicose reputation.

On the Palestinian side, opposite forces seemed at play. A sense that Netanyahu and the settlers were exerting increasing pressure to make the Palestinians believe that their struggle was futile, a lost cause, with the goal of making them agree to whatever “peace arrangement” was put forward by Israel (what I call “the Daniel Pipes” scenario, squeezing the Palestinians so hard that they give up). More assertively interpreted, the rockets expressed a resolve not to be ethnically cleansed from their homes nor silenced and intimidated by the settlers nor by those who would interfere with their religious practices. It may have also been intended as a warning to the Palestinian Authority not to accept some arrangement that validated this coercive Israeli approach to “peace.” These direct encounters originating in Jerusalem were dealt with harshly by the Israeli government, prompting Hamas to act in solidarity, which meant sending rockets, the only weapon in their arsenal capable of sending a message to Israel….

Also at play undoubtedly was the challenge posed by the Accords to Palestinian steadfastness or sumud — a Palestinian show of resistance, even with the full awareness that the rockets would bring a massive Israel Defense Forces (IDF) military operation as in the past, and with it, death, displacement and destruction in Gaza. It was the Palestinian way of saying that our struggle goes on regardless of the costs, and even in the face of this symbolic abandonment by our Arab brothers and sisters, or at least their regimes, which in any event had long been more a matter of words than deeds. This abandonment had been previously expressed substantively by these Arab governments, especially the Gulf monarchies, which were never comfortable with Palestinian or Islamic movements from below in their region, especially in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution when political Islam showed its willingness and ability to challenge the control of the established order (as confirmed by their counter-revolutionary support for the Sisi coup in 2013 against Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt).

As far as the motivations behind Arab elite willingness to ignore the pro-Palestinian sentiments of their own populations and become parties to the Abraham Accords, three factors are explanatory: First, the governments involved were given transactional rewards by the Trump diplomatic offensive in the form of weapons, economic inducements, delisting as a terrorist government and support for political claims; secondly, applying especially to the Gulf monarchies, seeking a common front with Israel in opposing and destabilizing Iran, not only in relation to its nuclear program but with respect to its political solidarity relationships in the region, which included Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen; and thirdly, by seeming to take political risks at home to support U.S. pro-Israeli objectives in the region so as to gain leverage in Washington as a dependable ally.

Israeli police have arrested thousands of people over the last couple of weeks in Israeli Arab communities as part of a “law and order” operation. What is Israel really hoping to achieve with such actions against Palestinian protesters who, incidentally, happen to be Israeli citizens?

Jewish supremacy is the core of the Zionist project as it has played out in Israel, which has in turn generated racial policies and practices that are increasingly perceived as a form of apartheid. The government must convince the “dominant race” that it can maintain the racial hierarchy. This means that any show of resistance by the subjugated race must be disproportionately punished, with the hope of deterring future defiance by the downtrodden.The mass arrests of Palestinian protesters were the method relied upon to reestablish the appearance of stable control of the asymmetric relations between Jews and Palestinians.

In the past 20 years, Gaza and its people had borne the brunt of this Israeli need to exhibit its political resolve and ability to crush any challenge, however indirect, to the policies and practices of apartheid. This was the first time that communal violence in towns where Palestinians and Jews cohabited arose within Israel at a time coinciding with an IDF military operation in Gaza. It was a new internal threat to the apartheid regime, but posed a different kind of challenge as Israel didn’t want to devastate towns within Israel, calling for an appropriate challenge. The mass arrests of Palestinian protesters were the method relied upon to reestablish the appearance of stable control of the asymmetric relations between Jews and Palestinians.

Palestinians have been facing a severe leadership crisis for many years now, but solidarity with the Palestinian people has shifted massively on a global scale. Are there hopeful prospects for Palestinian unity? And is the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement an effective way to challenge Israeli oppression without hurting the victims themselves?

As indicated earlier, deficiencies of Palestinian leadership have weakened the Palestinian movement for self-determination. In part, this reflects Israel’s overall approach … as it has pursued for many years “a politics of fragmentation,” including at the leadership level. Such fragmentation includes its occupation administration on the West Bank with more than 700 checkpoints, making internal travel incredibly difficult for Palestinians, as well as administering the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in different ways that make Palestinian interaction difficult and unity hard to maintain. Of course, there’s the toxic split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. As well, Israeli denial to Palestinians of any right of return has kept the refugee status of millions of Palestinians static, untenable and precarious. Refugee demands for return create tensions with Palestinians living under occupation, many of whom believe the formula “land for peace” is the best deal that they can hope for. Further, they realize that Israel might agree to end the occupation but it would never assent to upholding the repatriation rights of the refugees, which is seen as a deal-breaker. Only a strong leader with support from all of these constituencies could provide the Palestinian people with authentic leadership capable of representing both Palestinians living under occupation and in refugee camps. Israel remains determined at this point not to let this happen, and feels strong and secure enough to refuse meaningful Palestinian statehood as well as to deny refugee rights.

The Palestinians have discredited themselves to some extent by not putting aside their differences so as to establish a common front to achieve their primary goal of self-determination. The top echelons of the Palestinian Authority live a comfortable life, rumors of corruption abound, and one senses a willingness to lie low until they can make some sort of deal that hides their political defeat. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader who is internationally recognized as representing the Palestinian people, has not held promised elections since 2005, and recently canceled elections scheduled for this year on the alleged grounds that Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem would not be allowed to vote. Critics insist that elections were canceled because Hamas was seen as the sure winner.

Hamas, although mischaracterized in the U.S. and Israel, has governed harshly in Gaza, making many Palestinians fear its leadership. Yet as Sandy Tolan and other researchers have made clear, Hamas was induced by Washington to pursue its goals by political means and compete electorally, but it was not supposed to win as it did in Gaza in 2006. When it won, it made diplomatic overtures to Washington and Tel Aviv, offering a long-term ceasefire, up to 50 years, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 “green line” borders, but these were rebuffed, and Hamas was returned to its “terrorist” box, and the people of Gaza were blamed for their victory in the elections.

The Palestinians have never set forth their own [collective] vision of peace, probably because it would reveal sharp differences between those willing to settle for some version of partition and those who seek a unified Palestine with a secular constitution assuring equality of rights. As matters now stand, a sustainable peace presupposes the prior dismantling of apartheid structures and the renunciation of Zionist foundational claims of Jewish supremacy. Without such steps, any agreed outcome would end up as a “ceasefire.” It is instructive to study the fall of apartheid in South Africa, and its aftermath, that failed to fulfill all of the hopes of South Africans or result in economic and social retaliation that the whites feared. Both races benefited from the transition. A bloody armed struggle was averted and so was a vindictive sequel to apartheid.A sustainable peace presupposes the prior dismantling of apartheid structures and the renunciation of Zionist foundational claims of Jewish supremacy. Without such steps, any agreed outcome would end up as a “ceasefire.”

The South African narrative is also important for illustrating its “impossible” unfolding: internal resistance, strongly reinforced by a global civil society anti-apartheid campaign supported by the UN and highlighted by BDS pressures, releasing Nelson Mandela from 27 years confinement in prison despite his life sentence so that he could negotiate the transition to constitutional multi-racial democracy and become the natural choice of the population to be the first president of the new South Africa. It all sounds plausible 25 years after the fact, but before these dramatic events, it seemed “impossible,” a dream too good to come true….

A final observation. The South African apartheid leadership did not awake one morning and become aware that their regime was immoral and illegal. It decided through backroom debate and reflection that it was better off taking the risks of constitutional democracy than go on living as a pariah state waiting for the day when the roof would collapse. In other words, the white leadership made a rational public policy decision, the contemplation of which was kept as a closely guarded state secret until a consensus reached, and the extraordinary events started happening to the great surprise of the world.

One final question. What are your thoughts on Israel’s new government? What can one expect from it in general, and will it be able to skirt the Palestinian issue?

The coalition that has managed to prevail, and for the moment, the political impasse in Israel by taking over the Israeli government is not united on policy or belief. Its only unifying principle is a deep hostility to Netanyahu’s personality and character. For that reason, the diversity of its composition makes it fragile with respect to sharp departures from Likud consensus on Palestine that has prevailed for the last twelve years in Israel.

At the same time, the dominant elements in the Bennett-Lapid coalition are correctly perceived on Palestinian issues as further to the right on such issues as accelerated ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, expansion of West Bank settlements, annexation of all or most of the West Bank, opposition to any genuine form of Palestinian statehood, and greater severity with respect to the implementation of apartheid policies and practices. Further, it is expected that Naftali Bennett, an exponent of the extreme right-wing settler movement and maximal Zionist goals, will be Israel’s prime minister for the next two years during which he will undoubtedly be tempted to push Israeli policy even further to the right.

It is, of course, possible that Bennett will contain his anti-Palestinian fury so as to hold the coalition together, but it is just as likely that he will be prepared to pay the price of a collapsed coalition by being able to attract support for his program from the Likud members and other rightists outside the coalition who agree with his approach on Palestine and are no longer tied to Netanyahu or preoccupied with having a place in the leadership of the government. It is also possible that Bennett will move more cautiously to avoid weakening American support, which is already weaker than it has been in this century. Bennett is less abrasive in personal style than Netanyahu, which is hardly a notable achievement, but is more of an extreme ideologue and less of an opportunist.

Given this further turn to the right in Israel there is no realistic prospect of any kind of meaningful diplomacy for the foreseeable future. There are, in contrast, real possibilities of stronger global solidarity efforts through the UN and by way of civil society campaign such as BDS, and a stronger public support for Palestinian grievances.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.



Copyright © Truthout. 

C.J. Polychroniou  is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, climate change, the political economy of the United States, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has published scores of books, and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Arabic, Croatian, Dutch, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change, an anthology of interviews with Chomsky originally published at Truthout and collected by Haymarket Books; Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors); and The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change, an anthology of interviews with Chomsky originally published at Truthout and collected by Haymarket Books (scheduled for publication in June 2021).
MORE BY THIS AUTHOR…

Who is Naftali Bennett, Israel's incoming Prime Minister?

Joseph Krauss, Jun 14 2021

Israel swears in new coalition government ending Netanyahu's long rule

Naftali Bennett, a former ally of Netanyahu turned rival, became prime minister after a 60-59 vote

EXPLAINER: Naftali Bennett, who was sworn on Sunday (NZT Monday) as Israel's new prime minister, embodies many of the contradictions that define the 73-year-old nation.

He's a religious Jew who made millions in the mostly secular hi-tech sector; a champion of the settlement movement who lives in a Tel Aviv suburb; a former ally of Benjamin Netanyahu who has partnered with centrist and left-wing parties to end his 12-year rule.

ARIEL SCHALIT/AP
Israel's new prime minister Naftali Bennett embodies many of the contradictions that define the 73-year-old nation.

His ultranationalist Yamina party won just seven seats in the 120-member Knesset in March elections – the fourth such vote in two years. But by refusing to commit to Netanyahu or his opponents, Bennett positioned himself as kingmaker. Even after one member of his religious nationalist party abandoned him to protest the new coalition deal, he ended up with the crown.

Here's a look at Israel's new leader:

An ultranationalist with a moderate coalition

Bennett has long positioned himself to the right of Netanyahu. But he will be severely constrained by his unwieldy coalition, which has only a narrow majority in parliament and includes parties from the right, left and centre.

He is opposed to Palestinian independence and strongly supports Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians and much of the international community see as a major obstacle to peace.

ARIEL SCHALIT/AP
Naftali Bennett represents a third generation of Israeli leaders, after the founders of the state and Netanyahu's generation, which came of age during the country's tense early years marked by repeated wars with Arab states.

Bennett fiercely criticised Netanyahu after the prime minister agreed to slow settlement construction under pressure from former US President Barack Obama, who tried and failed to revive the peace process early in his first term.

He briefly served as head of the West Bank settler’s council, Yesha, before entering the Knesset in 2013. Bennett later served as cabinet minister of diaspora affairs, education and defence in various Netanyahu-led governments.

“He’s a right-wing leader, a security hard-liner, but at the same time very pragmatic," said Yohanan Plesner, head of the Israel Democracy Institute, who has known Bennett for decades and served with him in the military.

He expects Bennett to engage with other factions to find a “common denominator” as he seeks support and legitimacy as a national leader.

Rivalry with Netanyahu

The 49-year-old father of four shares Netanyahu's hawkish approach to the Middle East conflict, but the two have had tense relations over the years.

Bennett served as Netanyahu's chief of staff for two years, but they parted ways after a mysterious falling out that Israeli media linked to Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, who wields great influence over her husband's inner circle.

ARIEL SCHALIT/AP
Israel's new prime minister Naftali Bennett shakes hands with outgoing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a Knesset session in Jerusalem.

Bennett campaigned as a right-wing stalwart ahead of the March elections and signed a pledge on national TV saying he would never allow Yair Lapid, a centrist and Netanyahu's main rival, to become prime minister.

But when it became clear Netanyahu was unable to form a ruling coalition, that's exactly what Bennett did, agreeing to serve as prime minister for two years before handing power to Lapid, the architect of the new coalition.

ARIEL SCHALIT/AP
Israeli politician Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid party sends greetings during a Knesset session in Jerusalem on Sunday.

Netanyahu's supporters have branded Bennett a traitor, saying he defrauded voters. Bennett has defended his decision as a pragmatic move aimed at unifying the country and avoiding a fifth round of elections.

A Generational shift

Bennett, a father of four and a modern Orthodox Jew, will be Israel's first prime minister who regularly wears a kippa, the skullcap worn by observant Jews. He lives in the upscale Tel Aviv suburb of Raanana, rather than the settlements he champions.

Bennett began life with his American-born parents in Haifa, then bounced with his family between North America and Israel, military service, law school and the private sector. Throughout, he’s curated a persona that’s at once modern, religious and nationalist.

After serving in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, Bennett went to law school at Hebrew University. In 1999, he co-founded Cyota, an anti-fraud software company that was sold in 2005 to US-based RSA Security for US$145 million (NZ$203 million).

Bennett has said the bitter experience of Israel’s 2006 war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah drove him to politics. The month-long war ended inconclusively, and Israel’s military and political leadership at the time was widely criticised as bungling the campaign.

ARIEL SCHALIT/AP
Bennett (right) is opposed to Palestinian independence and strongly supports Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians and much of the international community see as a major obstacle to peace.

Bennett represents a third generation of Israeli leaders, after the founders of the state and Netanyahu's generation, which came of age during the country's tense early years marked by repeated wars with Arab states.

“He's Israel 3.0,” Anshel Pfeffer, a columnist for Israel's left-leaning Haaretz newspaper, wrote in a recent profile of Bennett.

“A Jewish nationalist but not really dogmatic. A bit religious, but certainly not devout. A military man who prefers the comforts of civilian urban life and a high-tech entrepreneur who isn’t looking to make any more millions. A supporter of the Greater Land of Israel but not a settler. And he may well not be a lifelong politician either.”


AP

Biden's Approach To Immigration A Welcome Change, But Still Fundamentally Flawed

A lot has happened on immigration since Biden took office, but the administration's actions have been far from groundbreaking so far.

• Arizona Mirror, News Partner

Posted Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 4:00 am MT|Updated Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 7:03 am MT

A group of members with the Arizona Dream Act Coalition holds a banner that says, “Stop Deportations. Immigration Reform Now” in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021. (Photo courtesy of Karina Ruiz)

By James E. Garcia, Arizona Mirror

Vice President Kamala Harris's whirlwind swing recently through Guatemala and Mexico will do little to quell concerns in the short run about the latest surge of undocumented immigrants crossing our southern border, but it's as good an occasion as any to take a measure of President Joe Biden's emerging immigration doctrine.

A lot has happened on immigration since Biden took office, but the administration's actions so far have been less about breaking new ground than trying to repair the enormous damage done by Donald Trump, the single most anti-immigrant president in modern history.

Trump's attitude toward pretty much any immigrant who didn't spring from "good" Nordic stock — he always seemed especially keen on immigrants from Norway — is that they had to be kept out of our country at all costs, unless they worked at one of his resorts. "If you're a good worker, papers don't matter," a former Trump employee once told Rolling Stone magazine.

The biggest difference between Trump's immigration agenda and Biden's is that the former president used immigration policy as a cudgel designed to punish the world's "huddled masses," while the Biden White House has assumed an arguably more compassionate and pragmatic stance.

Since taking office, Biden's policy shifts have included:

• An end to Trump's "remain in Mexico" order that forced refugees seeking asylum to stay in Mexico as they awaited their day in federal immigration court, even if it meant they were forced to live in squalid camps or on the streets, often at great personal risk. "The U.S.-based rights group Human Rights First has documented at least 1,544 acts of murder, rape, torture and kidnapping" of refugees ordered to remain in Mexico under the Trump-era policy, according to Al Jazeera.
• An end to a family separation policy that commanded federal agents to snatch thousands of children from their parents as part of a barbaric strategy by the Trump administration to deter immigrant families from crossing the border undocumented. Tragically, more than 2,100 migrant children still have not been reunited with their parents, largely because Trump authorities did such a hamfisted job of tracking the parents' and children's whereabouts. In many instances, parents were deported with no plan by the U.S. about how to eventually reconnect them with their children.
• A halt to construction of Trump's "big, beautiful border wall," which I liken more to a montrously stupid boondoggle due to its ridiculous cost and because it was doomed to fail. As has often been said, build a 20-foot wall and human smugglers will build a 21-foot ladder.
• A decisive move by the White House to protect "Dreamers," the hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents in recent decades. For his part, Trump tried everything to boot Dreamers out of the country, even though many Dreamers know little or nothing about their countries of origin and three-quarters of Americans polled say we should let them stay and earn U.S. citizenship.

While Biden has made a marked shift away from Trump's broadly punitive and often downright cruel policies, the new president's approach is hardly a wide open welcome mat. Some 500,000 immigrants have been deported since Biden took office, according to a recent New York Times analysis.

Some critics blame the ongoing wave deportations in part on Biden's continued enforcement of a provision in U.S. health law (Title 42) Trump implemented early in the pandemic which instructs federal immigration agents to deport migrants to stop the spread of COVID-19. (This, even though Americans throughout most of 2020 were among the most contagious people on the planet.) Unlike Trump, Biden is at least letting unaccompanied children who arrive in search of asylum remain in the U.S., at least until they have their day in court.

Harris's trip to Central America and Mexico, meanwhile, was meant to send a message the White House understands that people wouldn't be risking their lives to get to the U.S. if things weren't so bad at home.

The ultimate goal, which Harris admits would take years to achieve, is to boost the economies and stem the violence enough in countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico so that people there won't want to leave. (Incidentally, Pew Research Center reports that fewer undocumented immigrants are arriving from Mexico, while more are coming from Central America and Asia these days.)

The Biden-Harris approach actually makes sense. But the fundamental flaw in that argument is that it ignores immigration's 800-pound gorilla: the complex, evolving nature of the U.S. job market and our country's wider demographics.

The truth is that most of the world's migrants don't come to America yearning for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but because they want a better standard of living, which basically means getting a better education and job than they left behind.

While Biden's approach to immigration is starkly more humane than Trump's, its shortcoming — which dates back at least a century in U.S. immigration policy — is that it treats the issue mainly as a law enforcement problem instead of a human rights and labor issue.

If we are, as we claim, the greatest democracy history has ever known, and if we expect, as we do, to remain the wealthiest nation on earth, we're going to need more workers and we're going to have to pay them a livable wage.

The underlying problem that usually gets drowned in the immigration debate is this: The U.S. population is growing proportionally older by the day. In 2050, nearly one in four Americans will be 65 and older, as compared to 1950 when just 8 percent of Americans fit that demographic.

Simply stated, America must grow its pool of young workers to help support its increasingly aging population. This looming worker shortage, some say it already exists, is also plaguing other leading world economies, including Japan, England, Germany and China, which recently announced couples there would now be allowed to have up to three children.

So, how do we grow a younger workforce?

Well, until human cloning becomes easy as making cell phones, there's only two ways to do that. You either have more babies, which most Americans don't want to do because it cramps their middle-class lifestyles, or you boost immigration, which most Americans don't want to do because too many American politicians have convinced them immigrants are more of a threat than benefit to our nation. In a recent poll, only about one-third of those surveyed said they thought the U.S. should boost immigration levels.

The solution to this quandary?

We must change our country's attitude toward immigrants and welcome more of them in, and we need to start doing both of those things as soon as possible or else our economy will falter.

---

The Arizona Mirror, an independent, nonprofit news organization, amplifies the voices of Arizonans whose stories are unheard; shines a light on the relationships between people, power and policy, holds public officials accountable; and provides a platform for progressive opinions. Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and a coalition of donors and readers.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Sounds The Alarm On Joe Biden's Justice Department

GETTYIMAGES | HANDOUT

Tyler MacDonald
THE INQUISTER

JUNE 13,2021

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday and sounded the alarm on President Joe Biden's Department of Justice.

As reported by Breitbart, anchor Dana Bash noted that Biden's DOJ is under fire for issuing gag orders against journalists and companies defending anti-LGBTQ laws.

Ocasio-Cortez responded by underlining that Biden's Justice Department also recently decided that it would "essentially" advance the second-class citizenship of Puerto Ricans.

"So I think the actions of Biden’s DOJ has been extremely concerning, and it’s not just on the actions on gag orders, which is also extremely concerning, but across the board."

Biden's Comments Conflict With DOJ

As reported by NBC News, Biden announced last week that his DOJ would defend the law the prevents Peurto Rico residents from gaining federal benefits for low-income disabled people. However, he claimed that this position runs contrary to his own values.

"As I have stated, I believe that Puerto Rico residents should be able to receive SSI benefits, just like their fellow Americans in all 50 states and Washington D.C.:"

Biden argued for the amendment of the Social Security Act, which he noted is the federal statute that the DOJ is defending as constitutional.

Critics Say The Statute Is Unconstitutional

Critics suggest that the statute is unconstitutional due to it effectively designating Peurto Ricans as second-class citizens.

Hermann Ferré, a lawyer for a U.S. citizen who lost Supplemental Security Income payments when he moved to Puerto Rico, commented on the legislation.

"While we are gratified the president has called attention to the importance of the case, we don’t see how it’s possible to defend a statutory scheme that, as the president rightly acknowledges, treats Puerto Rico residents as 'second-class citizens,'" he said.

"Such treatment is, by definition, unconstitutional under equal protection principles."

Ocasio-Cortez Slammed Biden's Immigration Policy

GETTYIMAGES | POOL


Ocasio-Cortez also recently took aim at Biden's immigration policy.

As The Inquisitr reported, the congresswoman made the remarks during an appearance on MSNBC's All In.

"This is about the Biden administration’s immigration policy writ large is not working. It’s wrong, and it’s inhumane."

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the issue began with the establishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security under the George W. Bush administration.

Both government factions were created after the September 11 attacks and are frequently criticized by progressives.

Ocasio-Cortez Previously Praised Biden

Despite Ocasio-Cortez's recent criticism of Biden, she previously praised the Democratic president for his work in the White House.

Per The Guardian, she said in April that Biden "exceeded" progressive expectations during a virtual town hall meeting.

The remark came after Biden passed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus and rescue package without any Republican support.

Still, The Guardian noted that progressives were not pleased with Biden's nixing of the $15 per hour minimum wage following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian.

 Report Reveals How Israel Targeted Gaza’s Fragile Economy During Bombing Campaign

© AP Photo / Mahmud Hams

  MIDDLE EAST

00:53 GMT 11.06.2021Get short URL

by Morgan Artyukhina

9915

Subscribe

Unemployment in Gaza was already more than 50%, but that is likely to get even worse. According to a new report, Israel’s bombing of the Gaza Strip last month didn’t just target alleged members of Hamas, it also targeted the territory’s already-fragile economy.

When the Israeli Defense Forces bombed and shelled Gaza from May 10 to May 21, they launched more than 1,500 projectiles and destroyed more than 2,000 homes, damaging another 17,000, according to Gaza officials. The bombing killed more than 250 people, including 67 children.

However, they also destroyed commercial buildings like shops, farms, restaurants, and factories. According to a Wednesday report published by Electronic Intifada, Israeli bombing destroyed more than 500 enterprises, including 50 factories.

Muhammad Abu Jayyab, a Gaza-based economist, estimated that economic losses from the 11-day bombing campaign amounted to $350 million.

An industrial area established in 1996 by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the European Union was targeted repeatedly during the strikes, having never been previously attacked. Jaoudat estimated losses in the industrial estate alone were $20-25 million. The site employed 1,500 people.

“Once we learned that the industrial area was being bombed, we called the civil defense to fight the fires. When they arrived, they were targeted, too. Shells were falling right where they worked, which led to more fires and even more damage,” Bajess Jaoudat of the Palestinian Industrial Estate and Free Zone Authority told Electronic Intifada. 

Some other institutions hit by bombing included more than 20 media offices, including al-Jalaa tower, which housed the offices of several international news agencies, including Al Jazeera and the Associated Press. Israel said it bombed the building because it was supposedly being used by Hamas.

Before the war, unemployment was already more than 50% and at times reached more than 80% in Gaza, which has been almost totally cut off from the world since 2006 by an Israeli and Egyptian cordon. More than 2 million people live in Gaza, half of whom are children. Many goods are not allowed to enter or leave, even those used for construction, and food and fuel are rationed by Israeli authorities, only allowing a few hours of electricity each day.

“The bombing of commercial areas is aimed solely at bringing the people in Gaza to their knees and to continue the siege,” said Adib Zineldeen, a shop owner in Al-Rimal district, which was heavily targeted by Israeli bombing. “They targeted the wealthiest residential and commercial areas, which provide livelihoods to thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, who were already making the bare minimum.”

In the wake of the bombing campaign, the US offered as much as $75 million for development and economic assistance to the Palestnians, but pledged that none of it would benefit Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip and which Israel and the US regard as a terrorist organization. In response, Hamas said it would not accept a cent of international aid and would not allow the offer to divide the Palestinian people.

Solidarity efforts by other Muslim nations, such as Qatar and Iran, have been welcomed. Even before the May campaign, Doha had pledged $360 million in aid to Gaza in January. However, last week, Qatari Assistant Minister Lolwah Al-Khater, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry, said Doha had pledged another $500 million for rebuilding and repairing more than 45,000 damaged homes in Gaza, most of which remain unfixed from past bombing campaigns by the Israelis.

So far, Israel has not allowed any of this aid to enter Gaza, and Hamas has pledged that if the aid isn’t released by the end of the week, it will resume rocket attacks on Israel.

During the 11-day war, Hamas fired more than 4,300 rockets into Israel, most of which were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system. However, 13 Israelis, two of whom were children, were killed by the bombardment and more than 200 were injured.

Hamas called the operation “Sword of Jerusalem,” having fired them in response to a number of events targeting Palestinians in Jerusalem, including the imminent eviction of several Palestinian families from the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah after Israeli settlers won a court case, and Israeli police storming Al-Aqsa Mosque during prayers on the last Friday of Ramadan, injuring more than 300 worshippers and 17 police officers.

FILE UNDER CLINTON CONSPIRACY THEORY

Alabama news anchor who broke news of Clinton tarmac meeting dead from apparent suicide at 45


KATE FELDMAN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
JUNE 13, 2021

A TV reporter in Alabama who broke the 2016 meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was found dead from an apparent suicide Saturday morning.

He was 45.

Christopher Sign played college football at the University of Alabama in the 1990s, then joined ABC 33/40, where he worked for 13 years before leaving for a station in Phoenix.

In Arizona, he broke the news of Clinton and Lynch’s meeting, which came amid the investigation into then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. Barely a week after the meeting, Lynch announced that the probe would be closed.

He also won several awards in Phoenix for his coverage of shootings and a deadly tornado.

Sign returned to ABC 33/40 in 2017 as a weeknight anchor after turning down a gig at a national station.

“We have lost a revered colleague who’s indelible imprint will serve forever as a hallmark of decency, honesty and journalist integrity,” network vice president and general manager Eric Land said in a statement.

“We can only hope to carry on his legacy. May his memory be for blessing.”

In 2019, Sign published a book about his scoop, “Secret on the Tarmac,” which he said made targets out of his family.

Sign is survived by his wife, Laura, whom he met at Alabama, and their three sons.

FROM REVOLUTIONARY TO CATHOLIC REACTIONARY AUTHORITARIAN

Nicaragua detains more opposition figures in fresh crackdown


Violence at protests in Nicaragua leaves 2 more dead

Eight killed in Nicaragua protests

Ortega's Nicaraguan govt behind widespread repression, UN says

Nicaragua to expel UN team after critical report

Nicaragua's Ortega agrees to halt violence


Government of President Daniel Ortega arrests four more opposition leaders during the biggest one-day round up so far, in what appears to be widespread detentions of anyone who might challenge his rule.

Nicaragua has detained about 12 opposition figures, including four would-be presidential candidates, eliciting fresh US sanctions against Daniel Ortega allies. (Reuters)

Nicaraguan police have detained four more opposition figures in a roundup ahead of November presidential elections in which four would-be challengers of long-serving leader Daniel Ortega have already been held.

Those arrested on Sunday were top figures of the Unamos opposition party –– its president Suyen Barahona Cuan, vice-president Hugo Torres, ex-guerilla Dora Maria Tellez and Ana Margarita Vigil Guardian, a police statement said on Sunday.

It said the four were being investigated for "acts that undermine independence, sovereignty and self-determination, (and) inciting foreign interference in internal affairs," among other crimes.

Unamos, formerly known as the Sandinista Renewal Movement (MRS), is made up largely of dissidents who split from Ortega's Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) because they disagreed with his leadership.

"It's not just potential candidates any more, it's political leaders," Torres said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press before he himself was arrested. "This is not a transition to dictatorship, it is a dictatorship in every way."

Freezing out challengers

The charges stem from a law initiated by Ortega's government and approved by parliament in December to defend Nicaragua's "sovereignty," which has been criticised by opponents and rights bodies as a means of freezing out challengers.

Among the latest detainees, Tellez, 65, has in recent years been a vocal critic of Ortega, a former comrade-in-arms.

They fought together as guerillas against the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza in the 1970s, and she later served as his health minister in the 1980s, before leaving in 1995 to co-found the MRS.

She was fiercely critical of the Ortega's government clampdown on demonstrations that started in 2018 to demand his resignation, which according to rights groups claimed at least 328 lives.

Ortega governed Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, returned to power in 2007 and has won two successive reelections since then.

Now 75, he is accused by the opposition and NGOs of increasing authoritarianism.

Ortega is widely expected to seek a fourth term in November elections, though he has not said so.

Four would-be presidential candidates detained

Since the beginning of the month, his forces have arrested about a dozen opposition figures, including four would-be presidential candidates, eliciting international condemnation and fresh US sanctions against Ortega allies.

Last month, Nicaragua's legislature appointed a majority of governing party-aligned magistrates to the election body that will oversee the vote.

It has since disqualified two parties from participating.