GEORGIA DEMOCRAT CALLS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AN ‘UNCLE TOM’ UNDESERVING OF STATUE

Darryl Robertson

February 16, 2023

(Image: supremecourt.gov)

Georgia lawmakers want to put a statue of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a Georgia native, at the state capital.

However there is major pushback from a coalition of Democrats that are calling him an “Uncle Tom” who “sold his soul to the slave master.”

According to the Associated Press, the state senate voted 32-20 to have a statue of Thomas. Democrats have pushed back, pushing for a statue of civil rights activist John Lewis

Republican Ben Watson spoke to the AP about Thomas.

“This native son of Georgia deserves a place of honor and recognition on our Capitol grounds, a place where future generations of Georgians can learn valuable lessons from his legacy and gain inspiration and belief that their lofty dreams are obtainable too in America, regardless of the circumstances into which they are born,” Watson said.

Democrats are arguing that Thomas shouldn’t be celebrated because of Anita Hill‘s 1991 testimony that she was sexually harassed by Thomas. She recounted several inappropriate comments Thomas made toward here when they were colleagues. But most of Hill’s claims were disregarded.

“His service is problematic,” Sen. Nan Orrock told the AP. “There’s a cloud over his service…and that cloud continues today.”


“There are citizens, probably members of this body, that take issue with his policies when he was governor or president, but we respect history,” said Sen. Jason Anavitarte, a Republican from Dallas.”

Democrats also pointed out that Thomas urged others to overturn rulings that protected same-sex marriage.

Sen. Emanuel Jones, a Democrat, referred to Thomas as an “Uncle Tom” on the Senate floor.

“When we think of a person in the Black community who is accomplished, but yet whose policies seek to subvert—some would even say suppress—the achievements and accomplishments of people of color, I couldn’t help but think about that term,” Jones said, according to Law and Crime.

Political writer Elie Mystal said Thomas is more complicated than Harriet Beecher Stowe character’s Uncle Tom from her novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

SCOTUS  VS  GOOGLE

An amicus brief calling to preserve Section 230 was paid for by a group with ties to Google.


The group that funded the brief defending the tech giant in Gonzalez v. Google, a nonprofit advocate for startups called Engine, is funded in part by Google. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images


By HAILEY FUCHS and BRENDAN BORDELON
02/17/2023

As Google awaits a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could dramatically upend portions of its business model, a group of prominent online content creators and a nonprofit for authors have rushed to its defense.

In January, a number of prominent internet influencers and the nonprofit Authors Alliance filed an amicus brief defending the tech giant in Gonzalez v. Google. The case, which is slated for oral arguments on Tuesday, could weaken — or even upend — the company’s treasured liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And those same protections, the creators wrote, are vital to them too.

Left unmentioned in the brief was that the parties behind it had direct financial ties to Google. The group that funded the brief, a nonprofit advocate for startups called Engine, is funded in part by Google. And at least one of the content creators who signed on to the amicus brief has said that employees from YouTube, a Google subsidiary, invited them to sign onto the brief. In addition, the firm representing the creators and Authors Alliance — Keker, Van Nest & Peters — represents Google in other litigation.

Google spokespeople did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Authors Alliance referred comment to one of its lawyers, Ben Berkowitz, who maintained that neither the group nor the creators were paid to sign onto the brief. Berkowitz also said that neither Alphabet, nor Google, nor its subsidiaries authored the brief or contributed funding.

“Our firm’s representation of Google in unrelated litigation is public knowledge, and not a conflict,” he stated. “We represented Authors Alliance and a diverse group of individual content creators to express their views to the Supreme Court about the important role Section 230 plays in protecting and promoting diverse and independent content.”

But for Big Tech critics, the intertwining of interests behind the amicus brief is another illustration of how those companies have used their resources to tilt the scales of power. Beyond the millions Google spends on lobbying each quarter and the trade associations that make its case to policymakers on the Hill, the company has pointed its operatives to another target: the Supreme Court.

“These YouTube creators are just a new angle on an old Google tactic: flooding the zone with supporters — who are often funded by Google — to boost its corporate agenda in Washington,” said Katie Paul, director of the Tech Transparency Project. “Whether it’s policy groups, academics, foundations, or YouTube creators, they’re all part of the same Google influence machinery.”

The Tech Transparency Project highlighted the creator initiative in a report, first shared with POLITICO, on Google’s influence operation ahead of the Supreme Court case. TTP has disclosed funding from several groups including the Omidyar Network, which was created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Under Section 230, tech platforms like YouTube are immune from being sued for content posted by their users. Gonzalez v. Google questions whether Section 230 immunity should extend to user-created content that platforms recommend or promote — including via algorithms, which channel the majority of content viewed on YouTube and across the internet. The creators’ brief argues that platforms will be less likely to recommend broad swathes of content if doing so increases the risk of a lawsuit, and that the livelihoods of online creators will suffer as a result

“Major platforms might be less likely to host and promote independent creators’ content,” the brief contends. “New and emerging creators may be unlikely to reach new audiences. And speech generally could be chilled online, hindering Congress’ policy goals of fostering a free and open Internet.”

Among those creators who signed on to the brief were the family video blogger Jeremy Johnston; Mikhail Varshavski, a handsome internet doctor known as Doctor Mike who boasts a YouTube channel with 10.5 million subscribers; and Milad Mirg, an online creator whose posts have “offered behind-the-scenes looks at his fast-food job at Subway.”

The brief also included Jordan Maron, a video game streamer who goes by CaptainSparklez and who operates a YouTube channel with 11.4 million subscribers. In a video posted to his channel before the brief was filed, Maron revealed that he had been brought into “a group call with YouTube employees, other creators, creator-adjacent business people to inform us of what this is and ask if we wanted to be part of something called an amicus brief.” Google Store has previously sponsored Maron, and Google has sponsored videos posted by other creators who signed onto the brief.

The revelation of who paid for the brief came via a footnote, which states that “Engine’s Digital Entrepreneur Project made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation and submission of this brief.” No other person or entity made such a contribution, the footnote explains.

Kate Tummarello, Engine’s executive director, denied that Google had any direct or indirect involvement in funding the brief. She also pushed back on the notion that the call described by Maron was convened by Google subsidiary YouTube to solicit creator signatures.

“My understanding is that YouTube does informational updates on policy topics that impact creators,” Tummarello said. “As part of those conversations, Section 230 was discussed at a high level.” Tummarello said she was also on that call, and that it was she who talked to the YouTube creators to gauge their interest in the amicus brief through Engine’s Digital Entrepreneur Project. She said none of the signers received any compensation, and that Engine “isn’t reliant on or beholden to any funder.”

“Engine has been an advocate on Section 230 for years because we advocate on behalf of startups who rely on [its] framework to host and moderate user-generated content (which we explained in a separate brief we signed),” Tummarello said.

Groups that receive Google funding are not barred from supporting the company before the judiciary. In fact, a number of groups supported by Google have also filed briefs in the case. However, the rules hold that an amicus brief must disclose the people or entity — beyond those on the brief, their members, or their counsel — who contributed money for putting together the brief or its submission.

Besides the creators, nearly seven dozen amicus briefs have been filed on Gonzalez v. Google. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have weighed in, as has the Department of Justice and a slew of internet experts and tech lobbying groups.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments on Tuesday. The case centers around Google and YouTube’s alleged role in the deadly 2015 rampage through Paris by ISIS terrorists. The family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student killed in the attack, sued Google over ISIS recruitment videos that allegedly spread across YouTube and were not immediately removed from the site.

Probe points to Saudi, UAE-backed ‘digital mercenaries’ in virtual attack on Al Jazeera anchor

Asmahan Qarjouli
February 17, 2023

[Twitter/Ghada Oueiss]

The prominent anchor was the target of a hack and leak campaign at the height of a major diplomatic rift in 2017 that shook the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Saudi and Emirati backed “digital mercenaries” may have been behind online attacks on senior Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss, a new Forbidden Stories investigation found.

Published on Thursday, the investigation is part of the non-profit’s six month long “Story Killers” project, which delves into global foreign-funded attacks against journalists.

The project analysed cases of more than 100 journalists from 30 outlets.

In its most recent finding, Forbidden Stories looked into Florida resident Sharon Van Rider, who has been at the forefront of a campaign targeting Oueiss, and found possible foreign backing.

Under FARA, anyone in the US is required to inform the Department of Justice of any move that involves influencing American opinion for a foreign official. Failure to notify legal entities can lead to fines and imprisonments.

The latest investigation echoes findings of a previous probe conducted by Die Zeit, which also found that Van Rider was paid for her pro-Saudi tweets.

The “digital mercenary” had also met with Sattam bin Khalid Al Saud, a Saudi prince, in Dubai in 2019 at the Billionaire Club.

During the same year, she attended another meeting in Miami where Al Saud reportedly paid her approximately $175,000 in cash through an agent, an American closely linked to right-wing circles.

In 2020, Van Rider retweeted a personal photo of Oueiss by hacking her phone. The move prompted thousands of “misogynistic insults” by social media users with Saudi links.

The Forbidden Stories report cited a FBI investigation into Van Rider’s activities that was launched to decipher whether she violated US law.

“In a 2022 deposition before German lawyers, Van Rider said she was paid by an intermediary on behalf of Al Saud to circumvent the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA),” the Forbidden Stories report said.

The meeting with the Saudi prince took place at a time of heightened tensions in the GCC that were a result of an illegal air, land and sea blockade imposed on Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt in 2017.

The blockading quartet at the time waged an all out campaign against Qatar as well as all entities connected to Doha, chief of which was Al Jazeera. The network was listed on a document detailing demands by the quartet to lift the blockade.

Among the claims levelled at Oueiss by Van Rider were ludicrous allegations such as she “sold [herself] to terrorists to get a story”.

Al Jazeera journalist files lawsuit against Saudi, UAE crown princes

“It was weird that an American citizen, who does not speak Arabic…who does not know me… tweets about me day and night,” Oueiss told Forbidden Stories.

The new investigation also found that Van Rider was paid by a Lebanese intermediary who also had ties to Saudi Arabia.

“For me, [Van Rider] was not the real problem. The real problem was people who would pay her to do that, because if it wasn’t her, it would be anyone else,” Oueiss said.

Commenting on the harassment, Marc Owen Jones, an associate professor of Middle East Studies at Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar, said the attacks against Oueiss were “poorly executed”.

“From a disinformation point of view, it’s one thing to use bots and trolls, but if you can organically have Americans absorbing Saudi talking points, then replicating those talking points in their own social media networks, then in theory, those talking points could then go viral amongst the Republican community online,” Jones noted.

In 2020, Oueiss filed a lawsuit against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the UAE’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed for reportedly targeting her in a hack and leak operation.

Oueiss’ lawsuits names Florida-based Sharon Collins and Hussam Al-Jundi, who are accused of publishing “stolen information” from the Al Jazeera anchor’s phone and who the lawyers say “participated in a conspiracy against the journalist”.
‘A new way to kill journalists’

Online attacks against the prominent Al Jazeera anchor intensified after she began reporting on the killing of late Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

“It’s a new way to kill journalists virtually, silencing them. Instead of paying someone to assassinate you physically, you pay someone to assassinate you virtually through social media. You kill the character,” Oueiss said of the online hate campaigns.

“Instead of killing the body you kill the words, you kill the questions,” she added.

According to Forbidden Stories, the 2019 meeting in Dubai also involved a representative for Saud al Qahtani, an MBS aide who allegedly oversaw Khashoggi’s murder. Attendees at the meeting reportedly discussed ways to discredit Oueiss while requesting UAE-based company, DarkMatter, to hack her phone.

Speaking to Forbidden Stories, Karim Michel Sabbagh, then CEO of DarkMatter, dismissed involvement in the hack while Al Saud said the matter was not discussed in the meeting.

Another name that came up in the investigation is Jerry Maher, former presenter for a Saudi TV channel, who transferred at least four $2,500 installments to Van Rider between November 2019 and March 2020.

Maher is also a media advisor to Saudi-Lebanese billionaire Bahaa Hariri, who is also close to the Saudi government. Hariri is the son of late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.

“Al Saud told Forbidden Stories he did not pay Van Rider and said Maher, a friend, did not work for him. Maher said he did not recall the transfers and did not pay Van Rider on behalf of Al Saud,” the report added.

Meanwhile, the prove also pointed to a chilling tweet by Maher published at the height of the Khashoggi murder, in which he said those probing the crime would “burn in hell.”

“In January 2019, in a tweet that gained over a thousand retweets and likes, Maher attacked Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and Washington Post owner, writing, ‘If you make yourself an enemy of Saudi Arabia, you will be destroyed, disparaged and terminated by God’,” the report said.

Notably, Maher, who faced legal consequences in Sweden and reportedly in Lebanon, was a guest on Al Jazeera in 2019 per an invitation by Oueiss herself.

The anchor said Maher had told her backstage that he believed MBS ordered the murder, though he denied making those claims.

“He is capable of being the mouthpiece of a dictatorship. He is capable of doing anything for you if you pay him,” she said.

Another name raised in Van Rider’s deposition was Maria Maalouf, a Washington, DC-based journalist of Lebanese origin. The attacker said Maaloud was part of the so-called “media project” attacking Oueiss.

“Neither Maalouf nor Prolific Solutions appear in the US government’s FARA registry, suggesting a possible violation of federal laws,” the report said.

Israeli delegation expelled from African Union summit after showing up uninvited

Asmahan Qarjouli
February 19, 2023

[Screenshot from video]

The move was seen as a major sign of support for Palestine, which has been occupied by Israel for more than five decades.

An Israeli delegation was escorted out of the African Union summit in Ethiopia on Saturday after coming to the event uninvited during an ongoing dispute over its observer status at the bloc.

In a video that went viral on social media, Israeli foreign ministry’s deputy director general for Africa, Sharon Bar-li, was seen being escorted out of the hall by a security guard.

Qatar attended the event and was represented by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sultan bin Saad Al Muraikhi.

An AU official confirmed to AFP that Bar-li was not invited to attend the meeting and a non-transferable invitation was sent to Israel’s ambassador to the African Union, Aleli Admasu.

“It is regrettable that the individual in question would abuse such a courtesy,” the official added.

An AU official has also denied a claim made by an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman over Bar-li being “an accredited observer with an entry tag”.

Israel has levelled allegations against Algeria and South Africa, accusing the two of “acting on behalf of Iran” to dismiss Bar-li and holding the bloc “hostage”.

Algeria and South Africa, both of which have previously suffered from decades of occupation and apartheid, are vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause.

Responding to AFP’s question on whether the two African countries were behind the move, Vincent Magwenya, spokesman for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, said Israeli officials “must substantiate their claim.”

In 2021, Israel was granted observer status in a move that was met with outrage within the AU and globally. In the following year, a debate at the bloc’s summit on whether to completely withdraw Israel’s accreditation was suspended.

However, the matter was reportedly on the agenda for this year’s meeting.

“Until the AU takes a decision on whether to grant Israel observer status, you cannot have the country sitting and observing,” Clayson Monyela, head of public diplomacy in South Africa’s department of international relations, told Reuters.

Qatar slams Israel’s vote to legalise settlement outposts as Palestinian home demolitions increase

Israel holds diplomatic ties with 46 African countries. The Palestinian authority has long called on African leaders to withdraw the occupying state’s accreditation.

Last year, reports pointed to Israeli pressure on African nations to accept its observer status at the 55-member bloc.
A ‘welcome’ move

The move to remove the Israeli diplomat on Saturday was seen as a major sign of support for Palestine, which has been occupied by Israel for more than five decades.

“Welcome move at African Union whose charter is committed to opposing apartheid – and should not include the apartheid state of Israel,” Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said.

In 2021, DAWN had called on the AU to withdraw Israel’s observer status, citing its “gross violations of human rights and ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity”.

Praising the dismissal of Bar-li from the meeting’s venue, Dr. Abdallah Marouf, Professor of Jerusalem Studies, said,”This is how thieves should always be dealt with… Thank you to the honourable people of Africa.”

Echoing the same sentiment, Popular Palestinian activist Abier Khatib said,”Kudos to Algeria and South Africa.”

Palestinians in Jerusalem start civil disobedience against occupation repression

QNA/OCCUPIED JERUSALEMLAST EDITED FEBRUARY 19, 2023 | 

Palestinians in the occupied Jerusalem neighborhoods of Jabal al-Mukaber, Anata, Al-Isawiya, Shufat and Al-Ram embarked Sunday on civil disobedience and a one-day general strike in protest of the Israeli repression measures against Palestinians in the city.

The civil disobedience includes a shutdown of the entrances to the four neighborhoods and a boycott of the Israeli occupation by all possible means, including refusing to pay taxes and calling on workers who work for Israeli employers not to go to their workplaces, according to (WAFA) news agency.

Confrontations between Israeli occupation forces and Palestinian protesters were reported this morning in Jabal al-Mukaber and Al-Isawiya neighborhoods, shortly after the civil disobedience came into effect.

The Palestinian national and Islamic forces in occupied Jerusalem declared Saturday their intention to observe civil disobedience, starting Sunday early morning, in protest of the Israeli repression measures against Palestinians in the city and the rest of the occupied territories.

The civil disobedience comes in response to the daily crimes of the Israeli occupation government against the people in Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories, including extrajudicial killings, arrests, and home demolitions.
It also comes against the backdrop of the almost daily Israeli police and military raids on the Palestinian refugee camp of Shuafat, in occupied Jerusalem, and the adjoining town of Anata.

Ukraine in mind, US frantic to avert Mideast showdown at UN

Sat, February 18, 2023


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is scrambling to avert a diplomatic crisis over Israeli settlement activity this week at the United Nations that threatens to overshadow and perhaps derail what the U.S. hopes will be a solid five days of focus on condemning Russia’s war with Ukraine.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken made two emergency calls on Saturday from the Munich Security Conference, which he is attending in an as-yet unsuccessful bid to avoid or forestall such a showdown. It remained unclear whether another last-minute intervention might salvage the situation, according to diplomats familiar with the ongoing discussions who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Without giving details, the State Department said in nearly identical statements that Blinken had spoken to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Munich to “reaffirm the U.S. commitment to a negotiated two-state solution and opposition to policies that endanger its viability.”

“The secretary underscored the urgent need for Israelis and Palestinians to take steps that restore calm and our strong opposition to unilateral measures that would further escalate tensions,” the statements said.

Neither statement mentioned the proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate halt to Israeli settlements. The Palestinians want to bring that resolution to a vote on Monday. And neither statement gave any indication as to how the calls ended.

But diplomats familiar with the conversations said that in his call to Abbas, Blinken reiterated an offer to the Palestinians for a U.S. package of incentives to entice them to drop or at least delay the resolution.

Those incentives included a White House meeting for Abbas with President Joe Biden, movement on reopening the American consulate in Jerusalem, and a significant aid package, the diplomats said.

Abbas was noncommittal, the diplomats said, but also suggested he would not be amenable unless the Israelis agreed to a six-month freeze on settlement expansion on land the Palestinians claim for a future state.

Blinken then called Netanyahu, who, according to the diplomats, was similarly noncommittal about the six-month settlement freeze. Netanyahu also repeated Israeli opposition to reopening the consulate, which was closed during President Donald Trump's administration, they said.

The U.S. and others were hoping to resolve the deadlock on Sunday, but the diplomats said it was unclear if that was possible,

The drama arose just ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which will be the subject of special U.N. General Assembly and Security Council sessions on Thursday and Friday.

The U.S. opposes the Palestinian resolution and is almost certain to veto it. Not vetoing would carry considerable domestic political risk for Biden on the cusp of the 2024 presidential race and top House Republicans have already warned against it.

But the administration also fears that using its veto to protect Israel risks losing support at the world body for measures condemning Russia's war in Ukraine.

Senior officials from the White House, the State Department and the U.S. Mission to the U.N. have already engaged frantic but fruitless diplomacy to try to persuade the Palestinians to back down. The dire nature of the situation prompted Blinken's calls on Saturday, the diplomats said.

The Biden administration has already said publicly that it does not support the resolution, calling it “unhelpful." But it has also said the same about recent Israeli settlement expansion announcements.

U.N. diplomats say the U.S wants to replace the Palestinian resolution, which would be legally binding, with a weaker presidential statement, or at least delay a vote on the resolution until after the Ukraine war anniversary.

The Palestinian push comes as Israel’s new right-wing government has reaffirmed its commitment to construct new settlements in the West Bank and expand its authority on land the Palestinians seek for a future state.

Israel captured the West Bank, along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Mideast war. The United Nations and most of the international community consider Israeli settlements illegal and an obstacle to ending the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem.

Ultranationalists who oppose Palestinian statehood comprise a majority of Israel’s new government, which has declared settlement construction a top priority.

The draft resolution, circulated by the United Arab Emirates, the Arab representative on the council, would reaffirm the Security Council’s “unwavering commitment” to a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace as democratic states.

It would also reaffirm the U.N. Charter’s provision against acquiring territory by force and reaffirm that any such acquisition is illegal.

Last Tuesday, Blinken and the top diplomats from Britain, France, Germany and Italy condemned Israel’s plans to build 10,000 new homes in existing settlements in the West Bank and retroactively legalize nine outposts. Netanyahu’s Cabinet had announced the measure two days earlier, following a surge in violence in Jerusalem.

In December 2016, the Security Council demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” It stressed that halting settlement activities “is essential for salvaging the two-state solution.”

That resolution was adopted after President Barack Obama’s administration abstained in the vote, a reversal of the United States’ longstanding practice of protecting its close ally Israel from action at the United Nations, including by vetoing Arab-supported resolutions.

The draft resolution before the council now is much shorter than the 2016 document, though it reiterates its key points and much of what the U.S. and Europeans already said last week.

Complicating the matter for the U.S., the Security Council resolution was introduced and is supported by the UAE, an Arab partner of the United States that has also normalized relations with Israel, even as it has taken a tepid stance on opposing Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

The U.S. will be looking to the UAE and other council members sympathetic to the Palestinians to vote in favor of resolutions condemning Russia for invading Ukraine and calling for a cessation of hostilities and the immediate withdrawal of all Russian forces.

___

Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.

Matthew Lee, The Associated Press

Blinken calls Abbas, Netanyahu as US works to block UN resolution on settlements

PA president briefs secretary of state on Palestinian-backed Security Council measure calling for halt to Israeli activity in West Bank; Blinken later calls PM to update him

By JACOB MAGID 18 February 2023, 


U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, meets with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank town of Ramallah, Tuesday, January 31, 2023. (Ronaldo Schemidt/Pool via AP)

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken phoned Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday, as Washington seeks to thwart a Ramallah-backed UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate halt to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.

Later in the day, he called Netanyahu to update him on where things stood.

The Security Council resolution has placed the US in an uncomfortable position, as it too has spoken out aggressively against last Sunday’s decision by Israel to legalize nine outposts in the West Bank and advance plans for some 10,000 new settlement homes, the largest-ever package to be green-lit in one sitting.

Israel’s Judiciary: Reform or Ruin?Keep Watching

Additionally, the Biden administration has maintained that vetoes at the UN Security Council should be used sparingly and has been critical of Russia’s efforts to block consensus-backed initiatives over the past year. Vetoing this measure, which includes a condemnation of steps toward annexation by Israel — such as outpost legalizations, would put them at odds with countries it has asked to back UN resolutions against Russia for annexing Ukrainian lands.

However, the US has also said the UN is not the correct forum for adjudicating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been critical of member states’ disproportionate and sometimes biased approach on the issue.

The Palestinian readout of the Saturday phone call said Abbas briefed Blinken on his office’s involvement in the Security Council initiative, which was drafted by the United Arab Emirates, the Arab League’s representative on the top UN panel.

Abbas said the UN effort was “a result of Israel’s insistence on violating signed agreements” and “underscored the need for Israel to stop all unilateral measures, including settlement construction, home demolitions, raids on cities and villages and the extrajudicial killings of Palestinians,” according to the PA readout.

Illustrative: Hayashi Yoshimasa, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, chairs a Security Council meeting at United Nations headquarters in New York, January 12, 2023. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

The PA president urged the US to “immediately and effectively intervene to press Israel to stop all these dangerous measures” to ensure the continued prospect of a two-state solution, his office said. It added that Blinken assured Abbas that he would reach out to the Israeli government “in an effort to stop the unilateral Israeli actions on the ground.”

The State Department later released a readout saying Blinken stressed “the US commitment to a negotiated two-state solution and opposition to policies that endanger its viability.”

“The secretary underscored the urgent need for Israelis and Palestinians to take steps that restore calm and our strong opposition to unilateral measures that would further escalate tensions. Secretary Blinken and President Abbas also discussed efforts to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people and enhance their security and freedom,” the statement added.

In a tweet about his call with Netanyahu, Blinken characterized the conversation as “productive,” reiterating the same points that were highlighted in the readout on his dialogue with Abbas.

Israel framed its Sunday cabinet decision as a response to a series of terror attacks in East Jerusalem that left 11 Israeli dead. Meanwhile, nearly 50 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the year — most in clashes with troops, though several died under less clear circumstances being investigated by the IDF.

Senior Israeli officials have leaked anonymous statements to Hebrew media noting that it will take several years before the outposts — many of them built on private Palestinian land — will be formally legalized and before ground will be broken on the settlement homes that it’ll be advancing this week.

But such assurances have failed to satisfy the Biden administration, which is wholly unconvinced that further entrenching Israeli presence beyond the Green Line will help deter future terror attacks, a US official told The Times of Israel earlier this week. In his statement condemning the Israeli settlement announcement, Blinken said the moves would be “detrimental” to Israel’s security.

Nonetheless, the US spent the past several days urging Security Council members not to bring the resolution to a vote, instead proposing that they adopt a symbolic joint statement to the same effect, which Washington could get behind, according to three UN diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity.

As of Friday afternoon though, members were still planning to bring the resolution to a vote on Monday, two senior UN diplomats said, when the Security Council will hold its monthly session to hear on developments relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, they noted that capitals were still holding consultations on the matter and that the situation was fluid.

The last time a resolution against Israel on settlements was passed by the Security Council was in December 2016. Fourteen of the body’s 15 members backed the measure while the US, under then-US president Barack Obama, decided to abstain to allow the resolution to pass, infuriating Jerusalem in the process.

Right-Wing Watch

Why do the right hate everything that’s good about Britain?

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

LEFT FOOT FORWARD

Yesterday


Not content with taking us out of Europe, the anti-EU right-wing forces in Britain have set their sights on some of our most cherished institutions.

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


Without ‘great ingredients’ like Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn, the party should fight the election on ‘culture wars and trans debate,’ says the new Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson. The outspoken MP, who wants to bring back the death penalty and has links to Nazi-supporting members of a scooter club, is part of a cohort of Conservative politicians promoting a dangerous far-right narrative.

Our home secretary was accused of fanning the flames of intolerance for likening asylum seekers crossing the English Channel to an ‘invasion.’ Tory MPs Bob Blackman and Nadine Dorries have shared tweets by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, while the MP Andrew Rosindell’s Facebook account was found to have joined a ‘Free Tommy’ group.

Within this threatening political obsession with culture wars and ‘free speech,’ attempts to infiltrate and influence British institutions are gaining traction.

Driven by some sort of imagined better alternative, though what, we’re not quite sure, the right-wing alts who scream patriotism – Lee Anderson wants every public building to fly a Union Jack flag – and cling to ‘traditional’ values, are doing their best to inspire opposition to our much-loved institutions.

Not content with taking us out of Europe, the anti-EU right-wing forces in Britain have set their sights on some of our most cherished and ‘British’ organisations. Perhaps emboldened by their Brexit win, for some time, illiberal populists have turned their wrath on the NHS, BBC, universities, the Church of England, the legal system, and even the National Trust.

Right-wing contempt for our justice system, which, like our health service, was once considered to be the envy of the world, has escalated during the post-EU referendum years. In November 2016, the Daily Mail promoted antagonistic rhetoric on its front page. ‘Enemies of the People, fury over ‘out of touch’ judges who defied 17.4m Brexit voters and could trigger constitutional crisis,’ read the headline. In 2021, concerns were raised that the Judicial Review and Courts Bill could be used to quash public dissent against the actions of the government, and undermine the rule of law. At the same time, the then prime minister and his home secretary demeaned lawyers as “lefties” who act “against the public interest.”

The National Trust, another enviable emblem of Britain’s unique heritage, has been the target of a wannabe right-wing infiltration. For several years , an insurgent group has been waging a ‘politicised’ campaign against perceived ‘wokeness’ within the National Trust. Fortunately, the insurgents have yet to have any success, and have achieved little more than make themselves look pathetic and desperate.

But it is our beleaguered NHS that is perhaps the biggest victim of right-wing animosity at sources of national pride. 12 years of flat funding have run the health service into the ground. Yet still we have a prime minister who, not only refuses to negotiate with nurses on pay to avert strikes, but also refuses to rule out NHS staff getting sacked in his strike crackdown.

The question is why do the right-wing hate everything that is good about Britain, and how far will they go?

‘Socialist’ institutions?

Much of the problem is owing to the right-wing belief that many of our institutions are socialist, and remnants of the 20th century social democratic consensus.

That the Church of England is ‘woke’ is a popular grievance of the right. Citing socialism as the dominant political viewpoint of the church, some Conservative churchgoers even claim they are scared of being a Tory in today’s CoE. Rather than being wrapped up with an issues-based identity-politics that the right love to claim, the socialism of the CoE is surely derived from Gospel teachings on caring for the poor as set out by that notable working man, Jesus of Nazareth. The right’s ‘woke’ accusations says everything about their own obsession with identity politics and culture wars.

Then there’s the NHS. Created by Aneurin Bevan, an obstinate and radical democratic socialist, our inherently unequal country has a socialised healthcare system thanks to decades-long fights by the left. This unique equalitarian institution that guarantees everyone access to a quality standard of care, regardless of their wealth, is frequently celebrated as an embodiment of national spirit and ‘Britishness.’ Yet the supposedly ‘patriotic’ right are hellbent on destroying it. How? By grossly underfunding it to damage public confidence, so the private sector can muscle its way in, and profit, is one argument.

But, perhaps more importantly, why?

Fortune favours the rich

Hostility towards some institutions may partly stem from party donors thinking there are financial opportunities. As we know, the right are in the grip of neo-liberalism, or Trussism as it’s also currently known, a clapped out and discredited ideology – not really a philosophy – to distribute resources to the already rich. Just look what happened in the pandemic. In a frantic rush to procure personal protective equipment, Covid tests, ventilators and other critical equipment, the government handed out thousands of contracts to a select few companies who they were connected to. And these Tory-allied firms reaped billions.

Take the recent Richard Sharp and Boris Johnson £800,000 loan scandal. The BBC chair (another institution at the mercy of right-wing fury) was a friend of Johnson’s, was Rishi Sunak’s old boss at Goldman Sachs, and has given generously to the Tory party. It came as little surprise to learn that the BBC chair owns a multibillion pound stake in a healthcare company that was granted nearly £600,000 for Covid research while he worked in No 10 as an economic advisor.

Willing to abolish the 45p tax rate and scrap the cap on bankers’ bonuses so that already mega-rich bankers could get even richer at a time when many of us couldn’t even afford to put our heating on, Trussonomics favours the rich at the expense of the poor. As Stewart Lansley, a council member of the Progressive Economy Forum, said:

“The new governing philosophy, it seems, is to be built around an intensification of Britain’s deep-seated pro-rich, anti-poor bias.”

Despite the market chaos Liz Truss’ short-reign created, the Tory right-wing and their press are still championing for Truss-like tax cuts. ‘Sunak’s tax blunders prove it – Liz Truss was right all along,’ was a headline in the Telegraph last weekend.

This discredited ploy to make the rich richer at the cost of the poor has not yet found itself on the philosophical scrapheap because its beneficiaries – i.e the already rich – fund the think-tanks and politicians which in turn promote their cause.

The American influence

Some of the most influential right-wing think-tanks in the UK, which include the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute, and the Policy Exchange, which promote a free market agenda of low tax, the privatisation of public services and lightly regulated business, are opaque about their funding. Wrapped up in opaquely funded ‘dark money’, believed to be from a handful of wealthy American donors, such organisations can invest to warp democratic processes like elections and then, in turn proceed to the detriment and immiseration of the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged. Of course their moral justification is that wealth ‘trickles down’ and that the wealthy engage in entrepreneurial activity which promotes growth. At least that is what they have been telling us for the last 40 years but experience has well and truly busted that flush, except for inside some think-tanks.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, free market think-tanks have gained extraordinary access to the UK government. In July 2019, when Boris Johnson became prime minister without a mandate or general election, and went on to appoint an exceptionally right-wing cabinet, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) congratulated itself. Noting that 14 of Johnson’s cabinet, including the foreign secretary Dominic Raab, the chancellor Sajid Javid, and the home secretary Priti Patel, were “alumni of IEA initiatives,” the free market think-tank sent an email to its supporters, saying: “This week, liberty-lovers witnessed some exciting developments.”

Hard-right think-tanks in the US have exerted influence in the UK, where they have a strong relationship with right-wing politicians and share the same fantasy view that they want to impose on the country. Liz Truss has long-standing connections with the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, free market think-tanks that aim to shrink the size of the US government and scrap environmental protections.

It might brand itself as a beacon of the intellectual conservative establishment, but in reality the Heritage Foundation regularly spouts hateful ideas, dedicating energy to extremist policy recommendations, such as anti-critical race theory legislation, climate change denial, and anti-transgender youth healthcare. Organisations like this would be very happy to see the UK become a laboratory for their crazy ideas and ‘puppets’ like Liz Truss could well hold the key.

Boris Johnson has a strong support base among the hard-right in the US. In June 2019, a video revealed that far-right former Donald Trump strategist Steve Bannon, had helped Johnson to write his speech when he resigned from the role of UK foreign secretary.

“Johnson had previously denied any association with Bannon as a ‘lefty delusion’,” DeSmog reported.

Our current PM, Rishi Sunak, is not without connections to influential free-market right-wing think-tanks. In 2015, after becoming an MP, he wrote a report calling for the creation of ‘freeports’ around Britain for the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), which was co-founded by Margaret Thatcher. Before becoming an MP, Sunak worked for the Policy Exchange, another murkily-funded think-tank. As chancellor, he spoke at the IEA, which is, like the other two organisations, consistently ranked among the least transparent think-tanks in the UK.

From healthcare privatisation to dark money think-tanks, the reactionary politics of America have swept onto the UK’s shores. And with it, suppressive and dangerous policies are gaining traction in Britain, such as voter suppression through the introduction of ID cards, trickledown economics, and climate change denial.

Just this week it was reported that millions of voters are at risk of not being able to vote in the upcoming May local elections due to the government’s plans to enforce photo ID checks at polling stations. And guess what? Among the most affected will be ethnic minority voters, younger voters, and poorer voters.

Global populism

Surging global right-wing populism and contempt for liberal democracy aggressively peddled by the likes of Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orban in Hungary, is taking seed in the UK. This authoritarian worldview of using the power of the state to enforce right-wing moral values, such as the advocating traditional family unit values, crackdown on immigration, and fury at ‘woke’ lefties, is shared by many on the Tory right.

Sadly, Britain has witnessed lately the devastating impact of the normalisation of right-wing hysteria. Far-right protesters hurled missiles outside a hotel where asylum seekers were being housed in scenes likened to a ‘war zone.’

Last weekend, the Tories’ newly appointed deputy chair, Lee Anderson, who wants Britain to bring back the death penalty, came under fire for his links to white supremacists and the far-right. The controversial MP described members of a Nazi-supporting Skegby Scooter Club who wear t-shirts donning ‘white pride,’ as “real salt of the Earth people” who “make me feel proud to be Ashfield born and bred.”

Far from being conservative, the rising of far-right rhetoric within the Tory party, seemingly emboldened by global populist figures and by the Brexit vote, actually want to blow everything up that’s great about Britain.

There is hope, however. The US, where there is less support for ordinary citizens in terms of employment protection, healthcare, social security, etc, than in Europe, is not an overwhelmingly right-wing country, as recent elections, and some of the policies of the Biden administration have demonstrated.

In spite of being bolstered by the toxic legacy of Donald Trump and other far-right world leaders, Britain’s ‘woke’ outlook on the likes of national sentiment, national identity and immigration, has become more popular, as shown by the September 2022 edition of the British Social Attitudes Survey.

Despite doing their best to chip away, penetrate and privatise, it is unlikely that the dangerously self-interested diehards will be successful in their bid to infiltrate British institutions so they can model them for their own self-serving gain.

At least we can live in hope.

Right-Wing Media Watch – Right-wing press turn criticism of Lee Anderson appointment into ‘class shaming’

Bring back the death penalty because “nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed,” the Tories’ new deputy chairman recently told the Spectator. It surely doesn’t take a loony leftie, a hard-line Marxist, a woke snowflake, and so on, to be disappointed and critical of Rishi Sunak’s promotion of Lee Anderson.

The prime minister’s decision to make an MP who believes poor families can feed themselves on 30p a day, and ‘nuisance’ council tenants should be forced to live in tents and pick vegetables at 6am, in order to pander to the right-wingers in his party sparked justifiable outcry.

Desperate to swing things round to make the critics look like the bad guys, the right-wing media painted Anderson’s criticisers as working-class shamers.

‘The class shaming of Lee Anderson’ shouted Spiked. The article not only attempts to offer some justification to the MP’s pro-death penalty stance by alluding to a YouGov survey which showed a sample 52 percent of voters think those found guilty of multiple murders should face capital punishment, but also that the new deputy Tory chair is the victim of ‘chattering-class scorn’ that is ‘dripping with snobbery.’

Pointing to the Euro 2020 tournament in 2021 when Anderson boycotted England matches over players taking the knee, the new deputy chairman was, according to Spiked, “mocked by right-on liberals”, so is “well used to being the butt of chattering-class scorn.” The author, Jordan Tyldesley, proceeds to argue that contempt over Anderson’s comments about food bank users, poor people’s budgeting habits, and illegal immigrants, is because he is a man from a modest background, a former miner, no less. “That means he can’t be dismissed as just another out-of-touch posh Tory, as middle-class liberals would normally do to someone with his views. And this has, if anything, turbocharged the snobbish, often classist animosity towards him.”

When reading this article, I felt a sickening lurch in my stomach. For one, the Tory party, and politics in general, need more working-class politicians, the left have been arguing that for years. For two, Lee Anderson’s outrageous comments bear little resemblance to the views of the wider working class and trying to equate criticism towards blatantly far-right, hate-driven rhetoric to classism, is an insult, not only to the ’middle-class liberals’ but also to the working-class. Sadly prejudice finds a home in the Golf Club bar just as much as the local pub. Speaking of which, one of the people to reputedly have disagreed with Anderson was the barman who pulls his pints. Immigrants needed to be treated right was his ‘working class’ opinion.

This incredible rant was not confined to the pages of Spiked.

The Daily Mail went for the same angle. ‘Pure snobbery! Top Tories defend new deputy chief Lee Anderson over death penalty row and hit out at ‘sneering attitude’ of critics,’ read the headline.

The article quotes several MPs who have accused Anderson’s critics of ‘looking down on working class values.’ This includes former minister Brendan Clarke-Smith MP who said: “This is snobbery. You get the sneering attitude from SNP and Labour, and I just don’t think a lot of them have got the life experience to be able to do that.” While Scott Benton, MP for Blackpool North, dismissed the response as “the usual Leftie hysteria.”

The Mail also points to Anderson’s claim that the death penalty has a “100 percent success rate.” It offers to critical evaluation of the claim, like how George Kelly, who was executed in Merseyside in 1950, was innocent. As was Mahmood Mattan, a British Somali father of three, who was executed in 1952 for a crime he didn’t commit.

Nor did the article point out that the UK’s murder rate is at its lowest in 30 years, despite the lack of executions

But then pointing to such information would put a spanner in the theory that the backlash towards Lee Anderson’s promotion stems from him being from a working-class background and not for his shocking remarks.

Woke-bashing of the week – Book banning in the ‘land of the free’

Talking of right’s obsession with culture wars and free speech, and the UK looking to the US for influence, one of the most worrying ‘woke-bashing’ trends has to be the rapid expansion of book banning in education settings across America. The issue has raised concern that restricting information undermines one of the primary functions of education – to teach students how to think for themselves, thereby discouraging freedom of thought.

There is nothing quite like the escalating censorship of books in US schools that ties into the American conservative philosophy – ‘free markets until the market produces a result we don’t like, and free speech unless it’s leftist speech.’

Articles routinely surface in Britain about ferocious book censorship culture wars simmering in the US. This piece in the FT entitled ‘Banning books in the land of free,’ points to a number of depressing recent incidents involving the book prohibition trend.

Human rights campaigner Kenneth Roth had successfully run a Human Rights Watch advocacy group for years. However, in January, his proposed fellowship at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) was controversially removed. Roth said the ‘donor-driven censorship’, had resulted from his previous criticism of human rights abuses in Israel. This was denied by HKS and, following outcry over the incident, the dean reversed the decision and apologised.

In Florida, the governor Ron DeSantis, who is likely to stand as a Republican presidential candidate, relentlessly attacks the so-called ‘woke.’ As well as his Stop-Woke (Wrong to Our Kids and Employees) Act, DeSantis has banned professors at the University of Florida from providing evidence against the state’s voting law. The governor claims that professors at public colleges have no right to freedom of speech. He even attempted to takeover a liberal arts college in Florida.

Book banning and the attack on the education system is an issue of concern for PEN America, a literary and free expression advocacy organisation. PEN found that in the 2021 -22 academic year, more than 2,500 books had been banned in schools and libraries throughout the US, significantly higher than last recorded. The books targeted, according to PEN, were overwhelmingly “by authors of colour, by LBGT+ authors, by women.. [or[ about racism, sexuality, gender, history.”

The scale of book censorship in education settings has yet to reach Britain, but with a new party deputy chairman who says the Tories will have to fight the general election on ‘culture wars and trans debate,’ the right’s crusade against progressive culture could be set to move up a notch this side of the Atlantic.

Books carry knowledge, and knowledge is power, which makes them a threat to an increasingly authoritarian government like Britain’s, where like in the US, an anti-woke shtick threatens to explode.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

U.S. envoy apologizes for suggesting Afghan women may need 'Black Girl Magic'

Karen Decker's comments were seen by some on social media as minimizing the experience of Afghan women whose rights have been rolled back since the Taliban swept to power.

Afghan women have seen their rights severely curtailed since the Taliban takeover in the wake of the chaotic U.S. withdrawal.

Omer Abrar / AFP - Getty Images


Feb. 17, 2023, 
By Aina J. Khan

The top U.S. diplomat to Afghanistan has apologized for suggesting that Afghan women might find inspiration for their struggle against Taliban oppression in the #BlackGirlMagic social media movement.

“Sometimes, our best intentions go awry because we haven’t listened enough or don’t truly understand others’ lived experience,” Karen Decker, the chargé d’affaires of the U.S. mission to Afghanistan, said Thursday on Twitter. “My efforts to celebrate courageous African Americans this month fall in that category. I apologize to any and all who I may have offended or hurt.”


Decker had raised the ire of a number of high-profile social media users with her tweet this week, which many interpreted as minimizing the experience of Afghan women who have seen their freedoms rolled back since the Taliban swept to power again in 2021.

Female students have been banned from universities as well as middle and high schools, with women restricted from most jobs, banned from parks and gyms, and forced to cover their faces in public under strict rules.

“Are Afghans familiar with #BlackGirlMagic and the movement it inspired?” Decker wrote Wednesday in the now-deleted tweet, which was shared widely online by activists, academics and journalists. “Do Afghan girls need a similar movement? What about Afghan women? Teach me, ready to learn,” Decker continued, tagging the recording artists Beyoncé, Lizzo and the Oscar-winning actress Regina King.

The comments sparked swift backlash online.

“I don’t think many girls in Afghanistan are familiar with #BlackGirlMagic but they definitely [have] made day and night sleep difficult for Taliban,” wrote Fowzia Koofi, who was elected to the Afghan National Assembly and later became the first female deputy speaker of Parliament. She left the country for Britain in September 2021 during the Taliban takeover. “They need to be lifted and their voices to be amplified, and Taliban have expedited arresting them,” Koofi added.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, weighed into the online discussion. “And they said the adults were back in charge … ” he tweeted Thursday

.

Karen Decker.U.S. embassy in Afghanistan

Decker’s tweet was one of a handful in which she referred to both Black History Month and the plight of Afghan women in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

She also faced mild rebuke from within the Biden administration, which has been criticized for its withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent approach to the issue.

State Department spokesman Ned Price said at a briefing Wednesday that the tweets were drafted by Decker alone and that they were not cleared with the department.

“I will say that there’s sentiments in her tweet thread that one can appreciate,” Price said. “I think the messaging in this context is rather inappropriate and ineffective, and it is not messaging that we would issue from here.”

For some, Thursday's apology was too little, too late.

“Protip: Stop tweeting and process SIVs,” tweeted Simone Ledeen, a senior fellow at the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue, referring to special immigrant visas that allow Afghans who assisted the U.S. during the Afghanistan war to leave the country.

Afghanistan’s economy is now on the brink of collapse, with millions unemployed and close to starvation — a dire humanitarian crisis exacerbated by a bitter winter.

HERE IS A SOLUTION TO THEIR PROBLEM

LIBERATE AGHANISTAN ONE VILLAGE AT A TIME

Is Pakistan incapable of fighting Tehreek-E-Taliban Pakistan? 

Know how TTP has backed Army into a corner

The Pakistani Army has been deemed somewhat incapable of fighting against the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) ever since it has been launching large-scale attacks in the country.


| Edited By: Major Amit Bansal |Source: DNA Web Desk |Updated: Feb 19, 2023,

Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is a matter of worry for the Pakistan government as the rebel group which was limited to the bordering areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan till a few years back is launching large-scale attacks in other parts of Pakistan at their own will. For a country whose common public is already suffering from the deeds of its Establishment (a term used for its Military and its support groups), the future is going to be extremely dark.

Understanding TTP is not difficult. Like other terrorist groups of the region and beyond (Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Taliban & others), TTP is also a creation of the Pakistan Army and its ISI who recruited the tribals from the Pashtun belt to fight in Afghanistan. As long as they were fighting USSR & then the northern alliance alongside Afghan Taliban, things were fine but the tables turned when post 9/11, NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ASAF) started targeting their own homes.

There were dozens of cases where American Jets and drones bombed Seminaries, marriage possessions, funeral possessions, public vehicles, and religious gatherings killing scores of innocent people. Pakistan Army instead of helping its own citizen was supporting NATO forces with all its might. This treachery on part of the Pakistan Army compelled the local warlords and tribal leaders to point their guns toward the Pakistani establishment itself.

In 2007, when TTP was formed, Pakistan could have handled the issue by diplomatic means but it resorted to killing its leadership which further infuriated them. By 2008-09, TTP joined hands with Afghan Taliban to fight along with the latter against American Forces In Afghanistan and the bond between the two groups formed in those times is still going strong.

The biggest question arises here that is whether can Pakistan handle the TTP. The answer is a clear no. There are multiple reasons and let's discuss the top ten of them.

Firstly, the TTP is not a short or medium-term but a long-term challenge for Pakistan which is going to haunt it for decades. Today, due to this economic turmoil, Pakistan Army is in no position to sustain a prolonged offensive against TTP.

Secondly, post 2020 and under the leadership of Charismatic Mufti Noor Wali Mehsud, TTP has united and there are no more factional turbulences. Earlier there were several factions that lacked unity which was beneficial for Pakistan Army to target them. Today, almost all the factions are united and fighting Pakistan Army under a common banner. This enhanced the challenge to counter them multiple times.

Thirdly, TTP is gaining expertise in urban attacks, training its fighters, equipping them, preparing suicide bombers & gaining its political cohesion at an alarming rate which will not be possible or Pakistan to handle. Post-September 2021, they also acquired huge quantities of warlike stores from the caches abandoned by American forces.

Fourthly, TTP enjoys unprecedented support from Afghan Taliban and that has two reasons. First is the name of Pashtun unity and the second is Islamic State in Khorasan (ISKP). ISKP is the top most enemy of the Afghan Taliban which not only enjoys the support of Pakistan ISI but also have its safe heavens in Pakistan. Many of the ISKP leaders are frequent guests in the Pakistan Army GHQ at Rawalpindi which does not need any corroboration. Afghan Taliban needs a strong ally in Pakistan and thus they are supporting TTP and its entire leadership. Today its cadres, training centers & logistics support are primarily based in Afghanistan and thus, they will remain safe from Pakistani attacks because any such attack will be considered as a breach of territorial integrity by the Afghan Taliban.

Fifthly, TTP has considerable support from the local public, chieftains & warlords not only in border areas of Pakistan but in the cities too which will be a major pain point for the Pakistan Army. In the name of Pashtun nationalism & Pashtunwali, a civil code followed in the entire Afghanistan and the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, TTP has been successful in uniting people for its cause.

Sixthly, instead of an insurgency, TTP is projecting their movement as an aggressive Afghan approach against the atrocities of Pakistan which is well accepted on both sides of the Durand line. This gives them sympathy for local chieftains too.

Seventhly, unlike earlier times when they used to attack civilian targets, post-2018 when Mufti Noor Wali Mehsud is appointed as its emir, TTP made a significant change in its manifesto and that is to target Pakistani security establishment only and avoid targeting civilians and religious minorities. This is not only strengthening their roots but enhancing their support in Pashtun-dominated areas of Pakistan.

Eighthly, TTP knows who its enemy is and it generally does not target officials of any other country now unlike earlier times when they used to attack US officials. In 2020, it clarified that it does not have any regional or global agenda beyond Pakistan and thus limited itself to a local problem of Pakistani establishment without inviting the wrath of International powers including the UN. These tactics will resist any other country to meddle in the affairs & keep TTP safe.

Ninthly, since the US has moved out of Afghanistan and unlike Operation Zarb-e-Azb, Pakistan Army no longer enjoys its intelligence, Air support, drone support, and advanced weaponry. This has placed Pakistan Army militarily several steps behind TTP.
Tenthly and lastly, the Pakistani establishment has an even bigger challenge today than TTP and that is to resolve the political instability. By the time they succeed in this, it will be too late.

The future of Pakistan seems to be dark under the multiple threats of a collapsing economy, political instability, monopoly of the Pakistani establishment, Extremist groups like TTP and Baloch rebels attacking anywhere in the country at their own will, and rising religious groups like Tehreek e Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) as well as Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM).

Iron brother China to has pulled back its active support knowing that there is no return on its investments and that Islamic Ummah is too reluctant to help Pakistan in these tough times. TTP will only become stronger under these circumstances and will launch more fierce attacks with an increased frequency.

They will attack the Pakistan Army & its forces in major cities of Pakistan and carry out targeted assassinations for which they are very well capable. In this critical time when the common public has lost its faith in political leadership, there is no immediate solution visible to the TTP problem.

READ | ‘We are bankrupt’: Pakistan’s Defence Minister blames govt for economic crisis, says IMF has no solution

TikTok, Twitter massive user base put them under strict EU rules

TikTok, Twitter, Apple Store, Amazon and several other online platforms have announced user figures in Europe that bring them under stricter EU regulations for policing internet content. — Reuters pic

Friday, 17 Feb 2023 11:07 PM MYT

BRUSSELS, Feb 17 — TikTok, Twitter, Apple Store, Amazon and several other online platforms have announced user figures in Europe that bring them under stricter EU regulations for policing internet content.

The companies published their numbers ahead of a deadline today made compulsory under the new EU Digital Services Act (DSA) that puts internet behemoths operating in Europe under monitoring by the European Commission.

Those platforms — also joined by Alphabet’s Google Search and Google Maps units and its YouTube subsidiary, and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram units — all said they had more than 45 million monthly active “recipients” of their services.

That is the threshold above which they are categorised as a “Very Large Online Platform” (VLOP) or a “Very Large Online Search Engine” (VLOSE) under the DSA.

Many, but not all, of those falling into the VLOP/VLOSE listings are US internet giants.

One major non-American one was Chinese-owned TikTok, which on Friday said it had 125 million active monthly users in the EU.

Several platforms had chafed at the introduction of the new EU rules — and some said only that they did or did not qualify as a very big platform under the DSA.

For instance, Amazon and Apple Store’s iOS App Store said only that the number of people using their services monthly exceeded 45 million, without saying how many.

Swedish music-streaming site Spotify, British-based site OnlyFans, which streams content from sex workers and other content creators, and US dating app Tinder all said only that their active monthly users came in below the 45-million mark.

“We note with some concern that some platforms only published an estimation that they are below the threshold. This is not sufficient,” warned a commission spokesman, Johannes Bahrke.

“The rules are clear. A number is a number. We call on those platforms that haven’t done so yet to publish the numbers without delay,” he said.

Potentially huge fines

The DSA came into force in November last year, introducing tougher rules for internet companies to better protect European consumers.

It aims to crack down on illegal online content, counter the online sale of unsafe goods, better protect minors, boost transparency around internet services and data use, and give users more choice and information when they use the internet in the European Union.

Today’s deadline for platforms to report “average monthly active recipients” determines which big platforms get enhanced EU scrutiny.

They are the ones that each month have more than 45 million active users in the EU — or a reach of around 10 per cent of the bloc’s population.

The figure goes beyond just registered users to encompass those exposed to information or services online, or those who request online information without necessarily having an account with the platform.

The biggest platforms need to issue annual audits and say what measures they are implementing to stop illegal content.

The commission can also order them to divulge and explain their algorithms and databases — something that they like to jealously guard.

Smaller platforms have lighter-touch obligations under the DSA.

Potential EU fines for VLOPs and VLOSEs found in breach can go up to six per cent of their global annual revenues — a huge incentive for them to comply.

The commission said today it has launched a one-month public consultation period for how it goes about its DSA enforcement. — AFP