Residents of the Panjshir province in Afghanistan took to the streets Sunday after a young civilian was shot to death by Taliban forces. A number of women participated in the protests as they continued on to Monday. The protestors and the family of the deceased young man have urged the Taliban to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
The young man’s mother stated in a video that her son was a civilian with no ties to the former government’s military. Another video posted on social media showed a group of women protesting alongside the men, one of whom was giving a speech to a gathering of the other women. In her speech, the woman said that although the Taliban announced a general amnesty, no one in Panjshir or any other province was safe from Taliban.
There have been several reports in the last five months of the Taliban arresting and killing young men. Additionally, several reports regarding illegal searches, arrests and other killings by the Taliban have surfaced from UN agencies, Human Rights Watch, and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. The Taliban is yet to provide a convincing response to the allegations in these reports.
As to this specific killing in Panjshir province, the Taliban stated that an investigation has been launched, but I am skeptical that these words will lead us anywhere. The Taliban has made a lot of similar commitments in the past but they are yet to take any action against their own.
Tuesday, December 28, 2021
Griffiths confirmed that the reports of the killings of at least 35 civilians, including at least one child, were credible. The victims were allegedly forced from their vehicles, killed, and then burned. Two humanitarian workers from Save the Children were also caught up in the incident while returning from a nearby community and remain missing.
Myanmar is presently under the control of the military junta, which overthrew the democratically elected government of former leader Aung San Suu Kyi by a coup d’état in February 2021. Human Rights Watch claims that the military and police authorities in Myanmar have killed over 1,300 people and detained 10,000 more since the coup.
Griffiths condemned the incident and all other attacks on civilians in the country, “which are prohibited under international humanitarian law.” He asked the authorities in Myanmar to immediately commence a thorough and transparent investigation into the incident and take all measures to protect civilians.
Myanmar state media reported that the Myanmar army had shot and killed an unspecified number of “terrorists with weapons” who were in vehicles and had not stopped for the military. State media did not mention anything about civilian deaths.
Both the UN and Save the Children have expressed their commitment to continue providing help in the country.
THE UK GOVERNMENT has announced a new consultation on its ‘Climate Compatibility Checkpoint’ which will assess the impact of future offshore oil and gas developments on the climate crisis.
Friends of the Earth warns the new mechanism is unfit for purpose, because it will fail to stop new climate-wrecking projects being approved.
Under the plans launched on 20 December 2021, only new licensing rounds for offshore oil and gas will be assessed using the checkpoint. However, projects that have so far been licensed but not yet approved for development will not be considered. This goes against the checkpoint’s aim of ensuring the UK complies with global efforts to curb climate breakdown.
In October, Friends of the Earth revealed that 30 licensed offshore projects were expected to receive a decision on development consent before 2025. Collectively, these developments are projected to emit around a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent if given the green light. However, as part of the new process outlined by the government today, they do not qualify for assessment. This is in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence that no new oil and gas developments can be approved if global heating is to be limited to 1.5 degrees.
Reacting to the announcement, Danny Gross, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The idea that a new oil or gas project can ever be ‘climate compatible’ is pure fantasy. Scientists have told us repeatedly that approving new developments is inconsistent with limiting global heating to 1.5. Yet our leaders continue to say one thing and do another, with puffed-up announcements that offer little on close inspection.
“If this new checkpoint leaves the door open to future oil and gas licenses, the UK will fall catastrophically behind on climate and importantly, phasing out fossil fuels. Considering the government holds the COP presidency until late next year, the coming months are ripe with opportunity for the UK to set a good example. This approach is half-baked and undermines the UK’s climate credibility.”
By introducing the new checkpoint, the UK remains ineligible to join a new coalition called the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) as a full member. Launched at last month’s climate talks, the coalition includes Ireland and Wales as members. To join as a full member, the UK would be required to make a commitment to end all new licensing rounds, as well as phase out oil and gas production in line with the Paris Agreement.
The government is also consulting on whether to include a test to assess the ‘end-use’ emissions caused by potential new sites. ‘End-use’ refers to the emissions created when the oil and gas is burned. It is vital that the government includes this test as part of the checkpoint.
The consultation on the Climate Compatibility Checkpoint is scheduled to last until 28 February 2022.
* Read and respond to the Consultation here.
* Source: Friends of the Earth
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY must hold Israel to account for its 54-year occupation of Palestine, a UN human rights expert said on 23 December 2021, five years after the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an end to all settlement activities in Palestinian territories.
“On the fifth anniversary of the adoption of Resolution 2334 by the United Nations Security Council, the international community has to take its own words and its own laws seriously,” said Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.
“Without decisive international intervention to impose accountability upon an unaccountable occupation, there is no hope that the Palestinian right to self-determination and an end to the conflict will be realized anytime in the foreseeable future”, Lynk said.
Resolution 2334, adopted by the Security Council on 23 December 2016, stated that Israeli settlements constitute “a flagrant violation under international law” and said that all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, must “immediately and completely cease.”
The resolution said the expansion of settlements threatens the viability of a two-State solution and international law must govern the occupation and the relations between Israel and the Palestinians. It also called on States to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories Israel has occupied since 1967.
“If this resolution had been actually enforced by the international community, and obeyed by Israel, we would most likely be on the verge of a just and lasting peace”, the Special Rapporteur said. “Instead, Israel is in defiance of the resolution, its occupation is more entrenched than ever, the violence it employs against the Palestinians to sustain the occupation is rising, and the international community has no strategy to end the world’s longest military occupation.”
The Special Rapporteur noted that “in the 20 reports delivered to the Security Council since the Resolution was adopted, the Secretary-General or his representative have stated on each occasion that Israel has not complied with any of the directions of the Security Council,” Lynk said. “Is it not clear by now that the Israeli political leadership has no interest, and no incentive, to end the occupation?”
“One statistic above all illustrates the remarkable unwillingness of the international community to enforce its own directions respecting the Israeli occupation”, the UN expert said. “In 2016, when Resolution 2334 was adopted, there were an estimated 400,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and 218,000 in East Jerusalem. Five years later, there are 475,000 settlers in the West Bank and 230,000 in East Jerusalem, an increase of 12 per cent. This dynamic reality on the ground is racing far ahead of the international community’s tepid criticism of Israel’s unlawful conduct.”
The Special Rapporteur called upon the international community to develop a rights-based approach to Middle East peace-making, and to employ the plentiful tools of accountability measures to bring Israel back into compliance with international law.
“Only an approach based on accountability, equality and full rights for all can create the possibility of a prosperous and shared future for Palestinians and Israelis alike.”
28 December 2021
Konstantin Kosachev, Russian diplomat
Kommersant
Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev said that Russia does not intend to initiate a military operation against Ukraine, but has the right to promptly use its armed forces to protect Russian citizens abroad in the event of an attack on them as Interfax reported.
"No, and again no, Russia is not hatching plans of its own free will to carry out a military operation against Ukraine," Kosachev said.
In his opinion, there is no point in conducting "some kind of proactive military operation against Ukraine."
“Russia has never attacked anyone first. I think that this will not happen in the future,” the senator said.
Related: Level of threat increased: Ukraine’s Foreign Minister about risk of full-scale Russian invasion
At the same time, he noted, Russia sees how the situation around Donbas is escalating, "how Ukraine is being pushed to try to solve the problems of the South-East by military means."
According to him, one of the grounds on which the Russian Armed Forces can be operatively used abroad is the "protection of Russian citizens" outside its territory in the event of an armed attack on them.
On December 25, more than 10,000 Russian troops were returning to their permanent bases after month-long drills near Ukraine.
At the same time, Bloomberg reported that Russia keeps on amassing the military forces next to the Ukrainian border. According to this data, in November, the Russian command brought tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft defense units to the regions adjacent to the border with Ukraine.
by Sami Hamdi | Dec 28, 2021
With soaring oil prices, rapprochement with European capitals, and the regional diplomatic tide turning in his favor, an emboldened MbS is increasingly confident he can force Biden to acknowledge him.
Gasoline prices displayed at a station in Huntingdon Valley, PA, Nov. 17, 2021. (AP Photo Matt Rourke)
When it became clear that Trump would not win a second term, there was deep consternation in Riyadh. His successor Joe Biden had been vocal in his criticism of Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MbS) and had vowed to take a tougher stance on his human rights abuses. There were also promises that a CIA report on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi would be released.
Such was the discomfort in Riyadh that MbS decided to swiftly end the blockade on Qatar that had been imposed in 2017 and drag his bewildered allies in Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and Manama into a reconciliation process with Doha. Qatar’s Emir Tamim was welcomed in Saudi Arabia’s Al-Ula with pomp and exuberance as MbS sought to temper Qatar’s relentless media coverage of his transgressions which could further exacerbate tensions with Biden.
Joe Biden had been vocal in his criticism of MbS and had vowed to take a tougher stance on his human rights abuses.
Saudi officials also put out exaggerated statements of praise for the US President as Riyadh braced for a difficult period in bilateral relations. But Biden went on to humiliate MbS regardless by releasing a damning CIA report that concluded the Crown Prince had ordered Khashoggi’s capture and murder. He then announced that he would only communicate with King Salman as the head of state, and not the Crown Prince, even though the latter is the de facto ruler.
Biden’s disdain for MbS was so pronounced that even US policy on Yemen has centered on pressuring Riyadh instead of the Houthis who toppled the internationally recognized government in their seventh armed attempt at seizing the country by force.
Biden announced an end to US support for Saudi Arabia’s military campaign. Worse for Riyadh was the withdrawal of US anti-missile installations that was then compounded by a US reluctance to deliver what the Saudis insisted were much-needed Patriot missile defense systems to counter the Houthis’ relentless targeting of key facilities within Saudi territory.
Biden has also steamrolled Riyadh in his pursuit of a new nuclear deal with Iran. Despite protestations that a deal would entrench Iran’s proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, the Biden administration has insisted that allies must fall in line. Not even Tel Aviv has been able to dissuade Biden from his course. Riyadh has therefore found itself begrudgingly forced to engage in talks with Tehran knowing full well that the Iranians will cede nothing.
The deterioration in relations between Washington and Riyadh was so evident that an article entitled: “Saudi-US Relations: Divorce or Reconciliation?” was published in the kingdom’s largest domestic newspaper on September 12. The column argued that Washington was misguided in believing that it could deprioritize its relations with the kingdom and rely instead on smaller Gulf states to facilitate US interests.
Biden’s behavior has infuriated and frustrated Riyadh even as European capitals are believed to have privately expressed interest in the Crown Prince’s reforms and his Public Investment Fund. However, they have been hesitant to proceed due to reputational issues and decided to wait until the public scrutiny eases.
The view in Riyadh is that the longer Biden continues to express scorn and disrespect, the longer it will take for a constructive environment that is conducive for European capitals to move publicly.
Yet, MbS has been unable to push back against Biden due to the absence of any leverage. Instead, Riyadh has had to settle for an awkward policy of appeasement, carefully ensuring that it is not seen to be hampering Biden’s aims in the region.
Washington still needs Riyadh, and the latter remains indispensable however much Biden might wish otherwise.
That has all changed recently with the dramatic surge in oil prices. As COVID restrictions have eased globally, oil demand has soared. For the US, this means gas prices at the pump have increased around 40% since Joe Biden’s inauguration. Suddenly, his administration begins to reckon with a jarring reality: Washington still needs Riyadh, and the latter remains indispensable however much Biden might wish otherwise.
The shift in the Biden administration’s attitudes became more evident when Biden sent his National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to Riyadh in September. In October, Biden’s Climate Adviser John Kerry publicly praised MbS’s hosting of a Climate Change summit after personally meeting with the Crown Prince.
Yet, these visits appeared to do little to abate the disgruntlement and anger in Riyadh at Biden’s cold shoulder. An emboldened MbS refused to boost production in order to bring down oil prices. Biden’s frustration with MbS’s stubbornness was clear when he remarked at the G20 summit in Rome that: “The idea that Russia and Saudi Arabia and other major producers are not going to pump more oil so people can have gasoline to get to and from work, for example, is not right.”
Biden is aware of what MbS wants in exchange for concessions on oil production. In late October, Biden stated frankly in a townhall meeting that “there are a lot of Middle Eastern folks who want to talk to me… I’m not sure I’m going to talk to them.” Yet, in the same statement, Biden also acknowledged that negotiations were ongoing on the issues of oil prices and production output, thereby implicitly confirming the US President’s active attempts to convince the Crown Prince to raise production.
Biden appears adamant not to communicate directly with MbS as he is wary of alienating his voter base and his party.
Biden appears adamant that he does not want to communicate directly with MbS as he is wary of alienating many in his voter base and his own party. Indeed, the Democrats feel strongly about US relations with human rights abusers and are keen not to draw any comparisons between their party and the former Trump administration.
Biden’s decision not to sanction MbS after the release of the CIA report that indicted the Crown Prince in the murder of Khashoggi was evidence of Biden’s attempt to tread the fine line between maintaining a working relationship with US allies while upholding the image of the US as a defender of human rights.
Such is Biden’s insistence on not being seen to publicly associate with MbS that in late November, he announced that the US would release some of its domestic oil reserves into the market. In other words, Biden would rather tap into US reserves than yield to MbS’ demand for a direct conversation. However, the impact of these reserves on oil prices has been negligible and emphasizes just how important MbS remains to the oil markets and, for the time being, to the US economy.
From MbS’s perspective, Biden is clearly buckling as he continues to send high-level delegations to Riyadh that are pleading for Saudi assistance on oil prices and output. More importantly, Biden’s own Western allies are less inclined to follow his lead on isolating MbS.
The UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson sent his Foreign Secretary Liz Truss to Riyadh to convey UK sentiments that they were prepared to engage with the Crown Prince on bilateral issues relating to investments and security.
French President Emmanuel Macron became the first Western Head of State since the Khashoggi murder to visit MbS personally in Riyadh on a state visit as he sought to capitalize on regional discontent with Washington to advance French interests.
A beleaguered Turkish President Erdogan is chasing reconciliation and exerting strenuous efforts to woo a cold Riyadh into a rapprochement that might help enhance market sentiment towards Turkey. Ties with Oman are improving rapidly while Qatar appears very receptive to expanding ties.
Lebanon’s minister for media George Kardahi, who criticized Saudi Arabia’s conduct in the war in Yemen, has been forced to resign and MbS has succeeded in rallying Gulf states to his side on the issue.
MbS’ stubbornness is not solely due to a desire to spite Biden for his open antagonism.
Yet, MbS’ stubbornness is not solely due to a desire to spite Biden for his open antagonism. There is also a sense in Riyadh that the kingdom has been forced far too many times over the last decade to sacrifice its economic and oil interests for the sake of an insincere ally in Washington. US attempts to advance its shale oil industry in the past, and its propensity to take advantage of OPEC production cuts by pumping more of its own oil to incrementally acquire more market share have incensed OPEC states.
Moreover, there are legitimate economic arguments for Saudi Arabia to resist the pressure from Biden. Riyadh is seeking to rapidly diversify its economy by introducing a number of mega projects that require significant financing. With the stuttering in foreign direct investment caused predominantly by reputational damage and exacerbated by Biden himself, the rise in oil price provides much-needed relief to the kingdom’s treasury and restores to some extent a financial buffer that has been battered over the past decade by low oil prices.
With the windfall from the surge in oil prices, there is the potential to cushion the more painful aspects of diversification that are already causing concern among ordinary Saudis, and to soften the blow from the emergency measures taken in 2020 that included large amounts of borrowing and tax hikes to counter the crash in oil price.
Still, this does not mean MbS is averse to increasing production to ease Biden’s economic woes. However, the Crown Prince’s condition is clear. MbS wants Biden to publicly acknowledge and recognize him and speak to him personally for the world to see. If the history of US pragmatism suggests anything, it is that this could well happen soon regardless of how Biden might feel about it. The US President may soon conclude that elections are inevitably won over the economy, and never over foreign policy.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sami Hamdi is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Interest, an experienced foreign policy adviser, and seasoned consultant who has advised governments and global companies on the geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. @SALHACHIMI
Opinion
by CJ Werleman | Nov 17, 2021
For years the Saudi government has tried without luck to lure an international golf star to whitewash its human rights violations. It has now landed Greg Norman, also known as the Great White Shark.
Greg Norman, of Australia, at the PNC Championship golf tournament on Dec. 20, 2020, in Orlando, Fla. Norman is heading up a Saudi-backed company that plans 10 new tournaments on the Asian Tour to attract top players. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack, File)
When Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud handed his then 30-year-old son Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) the day-to-day rule of the country in 2015, the young ruler hired global polling firms to survey Americans and Europeans about their perceptions of Saudi Arabia, according to the authors of Blood and Oil: Mohammed bin Salman’s Ruthless Quest for Global Power.
Unsurprisingly, the country’s human rights abuses of political opponents, women, and religious and sexual minorities ranked at the top of the list, a track record Amnesty International describes as “heinous.”
To change these perceptions, or rather to divert global attention away from its appalling human rights record and toward the country’s burgeoning non-oil related industries, particularly tourism and technology, MbS implemented a raft of national rebranding initiatives, including the hosting of major sporting events, in particular, professional golf’s Asian Tour.
For years, the Saudi government has failed in its quest to sign a global name to act as front man for its international golfing tournaments.
For years, the Saudi government has tried to lure marquee professional golfers to whitewash its abuse and mistreatment of critics, political prisoners, religious and sexual minorities, and women. But for years, the Saudi government has failed in its quest to sign a global name to act as front man for its international golfing tournaments.
[Controversial Saudi-led Takeover of Newcastle United Finally Completed]
[The Magpie Prince: Why Does MbS Want to Buy Newcastle United?]
“There’s a morality to it,” said golfing superstar Rory McIlroy, a four-time major championship winner, in reference to the kingdom’s human rights violations regarding his decision to reject a $2.5 million offer to play in the Saudi International two years ago. Tiger Woods also snubbed a record $3.3 million to play in the country a year later, citing the grisly murder and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.
Now, Saudi perseverance has finally paid off with LIV Golf Investments, a subsidiary of Saudi government-run Private Investment Fund (PIF), naming former world number one golf champion Greg Norman, aka the Great White Shark, as its new CEO and front man for the recently announced ten-tournament series on the Asian Tour, starting next year.
Norman described the $200 million in prize money over the next ten years as “only the beginning,” amid credible rumors he will also become the commissioner of a new Saudi-funded breakaway golf league.
When Golf Digest asked Norman if he had “any concerns as to where the money is coming from, and specifically the Saudi Arabian connection,” he said that while PIF is the majority investor, “they’re very autonomous…and passionate about the game of golf.”
This, of course, is total nonsense.
MbS is not only the chairman of PIF, but he is also the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, making PIF the total opposite of “autonomous.”
MbS is not only the chairman of PIF, but he is also the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, making PIF the total opposite of “autonomous.” It operates at the direction and whims of MbS, the man who ordered the killing of Khashoggi, along with the perpetual jailing and torturing of those who critique him.
None of this perturbs Norman, however, who dismissed human rights concerns in the kingdom by absurdly pointing out that he has been “going to Saudi Arabia for three years” and made his decision only after he “knew what was happening in the country.”
In other words, Norman claims to know more about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia than Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI), which earlier this year ranked the country as “one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights” because of its poor record on torture, execution, extrajudicial killing, disappearance, arbitrary arrest, and the death penalty.
“The data collected by [HRMI] perfectly illustrates the deteriorating human rights situation in Saudi Arabia,” said Julia Legner, head of advocacy at London-based NGO Al-Qst, in a recent interview.
“Ever since Mohammed bin Salman became crown prince in 2017, he has centralized state power and tightened his grip on the most fundamental rights, with the largest crackdown on freedom of expression in the country’s history [and] wide-scale prosecution of human rights defenders.”
Norman claims that he has visited Saudi Arabia several times during the past three years to play golf and design golf courses, and as he observes, “You walk into a restaurant and there are women. They’re not wearing burqas – they’re out playing golf.”
Norman’s statements are extremely insensitive to the many Saudi citizens who have fought tirelessly for justice and equality under the country’s repressive rule, which is why Amnesty International’s UK chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, did not hold back in condemning Norman’s selfish decision and reckless comments.
“Golfers tempted to play in these tournaments ought to take the time to consider the dynamics of sportswashing.”
“Whether or not this is the harbinger of a future Saudi-backed Golf Super League, it’s yet another example of Saudi Arabia spraying its money around in an attempt to sportswash its appalling human rights record,” said Deshmukh. “Golfers tempted to play in these tournaments ought to take the time to consider the dynamics of sportswashing and how they might break its spell by speaking out about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.”
But Norman does not care. Moreover, his callous indifference towards the marginalized and downtrodden does not surprise long time followers of the Australian golfer. Former Australian Rugby Union player Peter Fitzsimmons described the Great White Shark as not only the “world’s number one narcissist” but also his own “biggest fan,” pointing out how the golfer recently encouraged his fans to post a 1,000 word essay on his website, describing their love for him.
After all, this is a man who spends his days boasting about his yachts, private jets, and access to US Presidents, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, while posting semi-naked pictures of himself on Instagram.
Norman’s glorification of self is why he is incapable of understanding or sympathizing with the suffering and misery of others, explaining his willingness to whitewash and misrepresent the crimes of one of the world’s worst human rights violators in return for money his already overflowing bank accounts do not need. In other words, greed over principles is unquestionably what Norman stands for.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CJ Werleman is a journalist, published author, political commentator, analyst on conflict and terrorism, and activist who has dedicated his career to exposing discrimination and injustices against Muslim communities around the world. @cjwerleman
Opinion
by CJ Werleman | Dec 16, 2021
Columnist CJ Werleman discusses the difficulties pro-Palestinian journalists and activists face when they are falsely labeled “anti-Semitic,” and explains why he intends to fight back.
Activists react outside a meeting of the Labour National Executive Committee in London, September 4, 2018. (Credit Stefan Rousseau/PA via AP)
Having devoted the past 12 years of my career to exposing and countering Islamophobia, an effort that has included the publication of hundreds of articles and podcast episodes, it’s reasonable to conclude that I have a sharp eye for how racist bigotry looks, sounds, and feels.
More than that, I was once a bigot, having expressed a crude form of online racism toward Muslims for four years after witnessing a twin suicide bombing carried out by an al-Qaida affiliate in Indonesia in 2005. I have written and spoken about the period in which I lost my moral bearings too many times to count.
My journalism serves to warn others from taking a similar mistaken path, and along the way, I have exposed human rights violations against persecuted Muslim communities in China, Myanmar, Kashmir, India, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Israel, and Palestine.
My work has made me a target of governments that persecute Muslim minorities, along with special interest groups that do their bidding.
My work has made me a target of governments that persecute Muslim minorities, along with special interest groups that do their bidding. China’s foreign secretary has accused me of peddling “groundless anti-China propaganda.” A powerful businessman in the United Arab Emirates encouraged me to “commit suicide.” The Indian government is investigating me under a draconian anti-terror law, and in February 2016, when covering a Netanyahu speech in Tel Aviv, I was removed and told by Israel’s Shin Bet (Israel’s FBI) that I had been banned from reentering the country.
I’m old enough to accept that this comes with the territory, and I view these threats and responses as evidence that my punches are landing where metaphorical upper cuts and left hooks are most needed.
That said, there is one line of attack I’m unwilling to accept as part-and-parcel of the job, and it’s one that’s routinely thrown at those who dare to criticize the state of Israel: being falsely labeled an anti-Semite, a charge that was hurled at me most recently by the right-wing, US-based publication Twitchy on November 24.
“Look, we get that journalist and ‘activist against Islamophobia’ CJ Werleman hates Jews and Israel, but we figured that even dedicated anti-Semites still understood that the Taliban is bad,” reads the Twitchy article. This was in response to a tweet I posted that day that was meant to be a back-handed compliment directed at the Taliban for promising to protect the rights of Hindus, Sikhs, and Shia Muslims.
[EU-Funded Report on Palestinian Textbooks Refutes Israeli Claims of Antisemitism]
[Israel Holds No Space for Palestinian Rights Organizations]
In no way, could my tweet or anything I have ever said or written previously be accurately construed as hatred of the Jewish people, and I make this solemn and unambiguous declaration:
I, CJ Werleman, have never uttered or written a single word or sentence that could be accurately misconstrued as anti-Semitism or hatred towards Judaism or the Jewish people!
I have strongly condemned Israel’s violations of international and human rights law,
I have, however, strongly condemned Israel’s violations of international and human rights law, and what I see as the racist, ethnonationalist movement of Zionism.
This reality has not stopped pro-Israel groups from cynically and menacingly trying to make Zionism indistinguishable from the Jewish people, despite Zionism being rejected by some orthodox rabbis and an increasing number of Jewish Americans.
Pro-Israel groups have weaponized charges of anti-Semitism to delegitimize and silence pro-Palestinian activists and human rights defenders. This is highly effective because it harms reputations and causes emotional distress to the intended targets, including me.
I can live with being falsely and absurdly smeared a “terrorist sympathizer” or “Hamas defender” by pro-Israel publications, including Australia’s national broadsheet newspaper The Australian, but I will not tolerate being labeled an anti-Semite when most of my emotional, professional, and spiritual energy is spent combatting racism and bigotry in all its forms.
So, for the first time, I have sought legal counsel to explore my avenues for striking back. What I discovered is just how much pro-Israel groups and publications hold the upper hand in defaming their targets with bogus charges of anti-Semitism.
Given the baselessness of Twitchy’s accusation against me, and the sheer size of its parent company, the Nasdaq-listed Salem Media Group, my potential libel case could be “actionable and warrant damages,” according to Australian lawyer Moustafa Awad.
But the path to exacting said “damages” from the company is no easy journey, particularly for a journalist like me who lives paycheck to paycheck. A case like this would likely run up legal costs in excess of $200,000 – resources I do not possess.
The second challenge is the U.S. legal system, which grants extraordinary protection to publications under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and tends to support the premise that mere criticism of Israel renders an individual an anti-Semite by default.
Critics of Saudi Arabia are not labeled “Islamophobic,” so why should those who question Israeli governance be smeared as anti-Semitic?
Criticism of the U.S. government is not conflated with anti-Christianity, and critics of Saudi Arabia are not labeled “Islamophobic,” so why should those who question Israeli governance be smeared as anti-Semitic?
Awad said I have “no chance of vindicating these types of [defamation] allegations” in the United States, but he suggested I might have a stronger case in Australia, where a recent libel settlement untangled criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.
“The core of your case will be allegations that you are an “anti-Semite” and “Jew hater,” Awad said. “The current stance in Australia is that those allegations are actionable and warrant damages.”
Earlier this year, former Australian parliamentarian Melissa Parke successfully settled her libel case against Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council Executive Director Colin Rubenstein.
Ms. Parke, who not only worked with the United Nations as a lawyer from 1999 until her move into politics but also oversaw humanitarian efforts in Gaza and Beirut, was slandered by Rubenstein as an “anti-Semite” after she condemned the Israeli military for abusing a pregnant Palestinian woman at a checkpoint.
As part of the settlement, Rubenstein stated that he had not intended to attack Parke personally and that he regretted that his comments caused her distress. The Rupert Murdoch-owned Herald Sun, meanwhile, issued a formal apology to Parke last year over the same matter.
“Her settlement was a great win for the pro-Palestinian camp against pro-Israel groups,” Awad said.
Yet, this outcome represents an all-too-rare victory in the effort to protect political leaders, journalists, and activists against scurrilous and damaging accusations of anti-Semitism from pro-Israel groups and publications.
Ultimately, while anti-Semitism is a real and pernicious form of racism, Parke’s settlement demonstrates that condemnation of Israel’s human rights violations against the Palestinians does not make one an anti-Semite.
In response to similar libelous statements by Twitchy about me, I am pursuing all my legal options. Enough is enough!
Spy sector, a company that cooperates with the CIA; Where did Kurz find a new job?
The mysterious company Palantir, founded by entrepreneur Peter Thiel with the support of the CIA, is the new job of former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.
SOURCE: JUTARNJI LIST
Just to recall, Kurz resigned in October this year under growing pressure from the corruption scandal.
Now a former leader of the Austrian People's Party (OVP), he plans to move to the United States, where he will work as a manager for a controversial company, a frequent target of civil liberties and human rights activists.
The company was founded in 2003 by Thiel with a group of other technology investors. Thiel, who was also one of the co-founders of PayPal, claimed that Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) would use software similar to PayPal's fraud detection systems to "reduce terrorism while protecting civil liberties".
But the company has already attracted attention with its choice of names and investors.
Palantir - the magic ball from "The Lord of the Rings"
Palantir is the name of the magic ball from "The Lord of the Rings", a magical object that allows those who use it to get in touch with everyone else who also owns it and give them an insight into the past, present and future. But in the same story, the Palantirs were corrupted by the presence of the evil lord of darkness Sauron, after he too came into possession of one of the magic balls.
Even before they were corrupted, Palantirs were of dubious use: they could only be used by those with strong willpower, and they would be unreliable advisers to everyone - not knowing whether they represented the present or the future, showing their scenes out of context or hiding key information needed to understand what is being seen. With a very unusual choice of name, which evokes more negative than positive connotations, the company began another controversial move - it received a $ 2 million investment from the non-profit investment company In-K-Tel - one of the CIA-owned companies is to provide the spy agency with state-of-the-art technology to support its activities.
The company has grown slowly, largely thanks to contracts with government agencies. In April 2010, it teamed up with Thomson Reuters, owner of the world's leading news agency, to sell its quantitative analysis software tool.
Biden's praise
In June of that year, then-Vice President of the United States Joe Biden indirectly praised that company for the role of its software in combating fraud in government subsidies and announced that the software would be used in combating fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.
Until 2013, the company had long-term contracts with at least 12 U.S. government agencies - including the CIA, National Security, National Security Agency (NSA), FBI, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Marines, Air Force, Command Special forces, the U.S. Military Academy, the Joint Organization for Overcoming Improvised Threats, the Committee on Accountability and Transparency of Reconstruction, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The company has also been given a lucrative and responsible job of overseeing Iran’s nuclear deal. For the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Palantir was tasked with overseeing Iran's adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that led to the lifting of sanctions on Tehran in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear program.
On good terms with Trump
With the election of Republican President Donald Trump, Thiel became the only head of the company from Silicon Valley who remained on good terms with the authorities and became an advisor to the president.
Last year, Palantir also started working for the British public health system in combating coronavirus pandemic. But the company has become increasingly controversial. Back in 2014, it came under media scrutiny for its cooperation with the American Immigration and Customs Service (ICE). Although leading people claimed to cooperate with ICE agents only in detecting criminals, an investigation by the non-profit media Intercept found that for ICE Palantir software is crucial in the deportation of all immigrants.
The company was also under investigation by the British Parliament in 2018, when it was condemned by former Cambridge analysts leader Christopher Wiley, who said that the two companies held meetings and that Palantir used data illegally collected in the Cambridge analytics scandal.
"Maven Project"
The company also found itself in the media due to its readiness to cooperate with the Pentagon in the "Maven Project". It is a secret program for the development of artificial intelligence, which was originally implemented by Google, but the company left the project after a mass protest of its own workers.
It is a technology that could eventually lead to autonomous armed robots - drones and other aircraft that could fire without human orders. Shortly after Google left Maven in 2018, Palantir took over Google's role in developing technologies that critics believe are combat artificial intelligence.
"Our company was founded in Silicon Valley," said Palantir CEO Alex Karp when he announced a public offering of shares last year. "But we seem to share less and less value with the rest of the technology sector. We have chosen our side and we know that our partners appreciate our commitment," he added.
The company went public last year, where the price of its shares jumped from $ 7.25 to more than $ 10 overnight, and today they are selling at $ 18.9, bringing the company's market value to nearly $ 38 billion dollars.
Kurz part of management team
The Austrian Kronen Zeitung writes that Kurz will receive an annual salary of around half a million euros for the currently unknown managerial position, and that he will probably start working in February next year. Kurz is not the only member of the Austrian political elite who started working for a company present in 150 countries.
Former business director of the Austrian Social Democrats (SPO), Laura Rudash, paved the way for him. She left politics in 2015 at the age of 33 and found a job in Palantir. After becoming the youngest chancellor in Austrian history, Sebastian Kurz is only 35 years old today and hopes for a new career outside politics, if accusations of corruption do not keep him in the country in the end.
A National Network of Election Deniers will Oversee the 2024 Election
COUNTERPUNCH
DECEMBER 28, 2021
Photograph Source: Chad Davis – CC BY 2.0
Followers of Donald Trump are methodically placing election deniers, those who believe Biden stole the election through fraudulent voting, in crucial state positions who could legally overturn a popular vote if a Trumper candidate does not win the next presidential election.
The liberal press has covered this effort with Barton Gellman’s article in the Atlantic Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun, leading the charge. But as Gellman immediately notes, Trump’s attempt wouldn’t be an armed uprising.
Nevertheless, violence like the January 6 offense on the Capitol could be repeated in the future by right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers, 1st Amendment Praetorian and the Proud Boys. There is no other word than “violence” to describe what happened. At a congressional hearing last week, four officers testified before congress that crowds of people, many wielding weapons, attacked and threatened them. Over one hundred were seriously wounded in protecting our nation’s Capitol.
Reporters from CNBC revealed that an indictment in a Washington federal court described a “conspiracy among at least 18 Oath Keepers in which members of the Oath Keepers planned to move together in coordination with regular communication to storm the United States Capitol.” Another subpoena said that at least 34 people affiliated with the Proud Boys had been indicted by the Justice Department in connection with the riot.
And, the 1st Amendment Praetorian and its chairman, Robert Patrick Lewis, tweeted on the day of the attack on the Capitol that “Today is the day the true battles begin.”
Aside from the threat of violent force to alter the results of a 2024 election, the more substantial threat rests in Trumper Republicans controlling state positions that typically perform perfunctory roles in executing procedures that should be nonpartisan, like counting votes. By resurrecting the vague and rarely used Independent Legislature Doctrine (ILD), Republican-controlled state legislatures could substitute Trump electoral votes for Biden or another Democrat should one win that state’s popular vote. Four Supreme Court Justices have indicated that they consider the ILD as a legitimate doctrine.
However, they can’t use this Doctrine without some justifiable rationale. The cornerstone of a legislator using the Doctrine is that our democracy is about to see a second presidential election stolen. Trumpers are becoming public officials who are willing to believe that there could be significant voter fraud in 2024, regardless of any evidence. That is a hurdle Trump was unable to get past last time.
He failed to convince his Vice President Pence and the majority of the Republicans in Congress of massive voter fraud. It didn’t help him that every court and state election official upheld Biden‘s victory. However, Trump’s repeated insistence that there was massive fraud has been widely accepted by the public.
According to a November 1 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, Trump convinced 68 percent of all Republicans that the election had been stolen from him. A belief stronger than what the Southern Confederacy held regarding Abraham Lincoln’s election as president. They did not challenge the legitimacy of Lincoln’s victory even though he wasn’t on the ballot in any Southern state.
The enduring anger from Trump being a victim in the last election is reminiscent of the South’s belief that they were forced to fight the Northern non-slave states from destroying their culture. Therefore, they had a right as sovereign states to leave the Union and, by violence if necessary, to preserve their freedom from Yankee domination.
A similar belief can be seen in a recent PRRI poll that found 12 percent of Americans believing both that the election had been stolen from Trump and that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” In other words, to save their country from liberal democrats.
That fear is fanned today by right-wing broadcasters, some of whom follow the QAnon conspiracy that if Democrats continue to run the country, they will allow rampant child pedophilia. Embracing extreme beliefs is not new in our history. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as president, many Southern politicians saw that as an act of war. They predicted Union armies would seize their slaves and force white women to marry black men.
Former Trump presidential advisor Steve Bannon is one of the more popular right-wing broadcasters with over a hundred thousand listeners. The day before Trumpites stormed the Capitol on January 6, he told his listeners that “All hell will break loose tomorrow. It’s them against us. Who can impose their will on the other side?” Congress wants to know what Bannon communicated with Trump, as the mass rally on the National Mall turned into a march on to the Capitol to stop confirming the election results.
A September ProPublica investigation detailed how Bannon’s continuing radio broadcasts encourage election deniers to challenge the 2024 election by becoming election poll ballot counters and precinct officers. According to Bannon, President Trump lost because the Republican Party sold him out. As a result, Bannon has pushed a “precinct strategy” for taking over various counties’ Republican Party leadership.
Following his broadcasts, thousands flooded into local county Republican meetings to replace established Republican Party leaders with new Trump-supporting members. ProPublica contacted GOP leaders in 65 key counties, and 41 reported an unusual increase in signups after hearing Bannon say, “This is your call to action.” There has been no similar increase in Democratic Party precinct officers who vote for local party leadership.
These lowly positions play a critical role in getting out the vote because they go door to door, distribute literature, and talk to residents to vote for their party’s candidates. As a result, more precinct officers increase voter turnout for their party’s candidate. But even more importantly, in some states, they help pick poll workers, and in others, they help determine members of boards that oversee elections. The new Republican recruits for these positions are not like the traditional conservatives who ran the party. Instead, these folks are fired up and often embrace unproven conspiracies espoused by far-right groups.
The New York Times has highlighted instances where election deniers are running and winning critical election oversight positions that the parties have largely ignored in the past. The Times provided an example of a pastor who attended the January 6 rally who said he attended because he was “standing for the truth to be heard” about the stolen election. He returned to his conservative Pennsylvania township, ran, and won the office that administers polling on Election Day. The Times concluded that “Until this year, races for administrative positions like a judge of elections were non-competitive to the point of being more or less volunteer opportunities.”
Meanwhile, according to Gellman’s article in the Atlantic, officeholders receive death threats and harassment from Trump supporters. As a result, nonpartisan voting administrators are being driven to contemplate retirement. Gellman sites Vernetta Keith Nuriddin, 52, who left the Fulton County, Georgia, election board because she had been bombarded with threatening emails from Trump supporters, one of which read, “You guys need to be publicly executed … on pay per view.” She knew colleagues on at least four county election boards who resigned in 2021 or chose not to renew their positions. Are these isolated incidents or a part of a wave to sweep public officials out of office who are not willing to fight for the Trump version of reality?
There has been no evident effort by Democrats to track to what extent Republicans are putting election deniers in crucial positions to supervise election counts. Perhaps Democrats, and liberals in general, believe that our democracy will survive, while Republicans and right-wing adherents see our democracy being threatened by liberal Democrats and Socialists. An October poll found that 71 percent of Republicans believe democracy is facing a “major threat,” as compared to just 35 percent of Democrats.
The Republican Party, since Trump knocked out all the establishment Republican candidates in 2016 to become the party’s presidential candidate, is becoming dominated by a Manichean zeitgeist that the US is now in a struggle between the good and the evil. And they clearly see liberalism and liberal democracy as evil.
The role of the Republicans is to save our nation from the Democrats’ inability or unwillingness to protect our nation’s three most essential freedoms. These are defined as protecting human life from abortion, protecting our freedom to defend ourselves from stopping the government from controlling our access to guns, and defending our borders from an invasion of foreigners who do not think, act or look like us.
Republicans have held these views for a long time, but with Donald Trump, they found someone willing to throw out liberal democracy altogether because it is corrupt by attacking all three of these freedoms.
There is some irony in that Trump acts as a revolutionary in tearing down our government. But rather than leading a violent overthrow (which lingers in the background as a possibility), he is astutely attacking democracy’s governing norms. The most critical norm is that our democracy works. By arguing that the last election was a fraud, without any evidence, Trump directly undermines the founder’s belief that the peaceful transfer of power from one national leader to another was their most outstanding achievement. Moreover, America was exceptional in being a democracy ruled by-laws, while other nations were ruled by a single monarch ordained by that nation’s dominant religion.
Trumpers could shape elections rules based on their beliefs instead of performing their duties based on evidence. That hyper-partisan approach will continue to fragment our nation. Consider that the federal government’s legitimacy already appears to be crumbling. According to the Grinnell College National Poll taken in October 2021, there is a grand canyon size gap between Democrats and Republicans in trusting election results. Only 38 percent of those leaning to and being Republicans have “Very or Somewhat Confidence in votes being counted correctly in the next election in 2022.” Meanwhile, those who lean to or are Democrats score 82 percent on that question.
Autocrats in other countries, past and present, have used the anger of the many to consolidate power in the hands of the few. This transfer has occurred because a hollowed-out shell of a democracy could not stop it. In his extensive Atlantic piece, Gellman concludes that Donald Trump came closer than anyone thought he could to toppling a free election a year ago. Yet, he is preparing in plain view to do it again. Unfortunately, Gellman misses the damage currently underway to our national perception of democracy, which has always been widely supported but shallow in understanding.
If that damage is lasting, it is not just the election results of 2022 or 2024 at risk but perhaps most importantly of what occurs in 2028. What happens if a Trumper candidate wins in 2024 but refuses to concede defeat in 2028? A replay of January 6, 2020 would be likely, but not necessarily with a storming of the Capitol. The vice president at that time may have no qualms as to which votes to count. A legal challenge to that power grab would be decided by a Supreme Court dominated by right-wing justices who have strongly supported the three significant freedoms previously described that Trumpers have championed.
The solution is not in providing more social welfare programs, as much as they are needed, but in addressing the importance that we survive as a secular democracy, not as an autocratic theocracy. The path forward must be a nonpartisan clarion call for all citizens to unite around conserving the rules and norms of democratic behavior, which protect the freedom of everyone to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Nick Licata is author of Becoming A Citizen Activist, and has served 5 terms on the Seattle City Council, named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation, and is founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials.