HEY AMERIKA

Robert Reich: How Are You Doing? – OpEd

 December 12, 2024

By Robert Reich

We are in a queasy interregnum. Four weeks ago, we learned that Donald Trump won the 2024 election. In six weeks, he’ll be taking over the United States government. 

To run that government, he’s nominated a Star Wars cantina of fanatics, extremists, conspiracy theorists, billionaires, sexual harassers, and disreputable no-goods. 

Republican senators — the only firewall against this bunch — seem reluctant to take Trump on, other than drawing a line at the reprehensible Matt Gaetz. 

The person Trump wants to run the FBI is pledging a campaign of vengeance against his political enemies. The people he wants to put in charge of the military and the border are promising a mass roundup and deportation of undocumented immigrants. The billionaires he’s put in charge of eliminating “waste” are gunning for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The person he wants to run the nation’s health is a nutcase who doesn’t believe in vaccinations. And so on. 

This time there will be few if any grownups around him to constrain Trump’s worst instincts. 

Some of you are frightened. Me too. You’d have to be living on another planet not to fear what will happen starting in six weeks. 

Meanwhile, most of the criminal charges against Trump, as well as his sentencing for the felonies he was found guilty of having committed, have been dropped or vacated. 

Many of you are furious that Trump won’t be held accountable. I am too. 

Yet I’m surprised at how many of the people I speak with are in denial. They tell me “Trump is just bluffing,” or “He’s not so stupid as to try these things.” Or they say “the Constitution is strong enough to withstand Trump.”

I fear they’re wrong. He’s nuts, he and his minions will try these things, and the Constitution is already near the breaking point. 

I’ve also been surprised at the silence of the Democrats. Where’s the Democratic leadership? Who’s speaking up for the rule of law right now, other than Liz Cheney? Why have Joe Biden and Kamala Harris seemingly disappeared?

Democratic leaders apparently believe it’s better for them to say nothing now and let Republicans take the heat. 

But there’s little or no heat. Trump seems to be taking over Washington without a whimper of opposition. 

I just heard from an old friend who’s also a U.S. senator, who writes: “The new administration isn’t as bad as we thought. It’s worse.” 

I wish him well. We need people of integrity on the front lines to try to constrain Trump and his sicko sycophants. 

Yet even those of us who aren’t on the front lines must be activists. 

If you don’t want to watch the news, I understand. If you’re feeling frightened or furious or worried, you’re in good company.

But I hope you feel more determined than ever to fight the fanatics who will take charge in just six weeks.

Stand up to them. Call them out. Do not tolerate intolerance. We cannot compromise with cruelty. There is no middle ground between democracy and fascism. 

I use these daily posts to you as ways of finding some hope in the dark. As small tokens of resistance. As means of fortifying you in these difficult times. 

Thank you for reading. Thank you for sharing. Thank you for your comments and your words of encouragement. 

Mostly, thank you for your commitment to a fair and decent society. 

As we head into the darkness, we need each other to help light the way forward.

• This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

UK

London Met Police staff vote to strike for first time over curbs on working from home

Change for civilian employees would disproportionately hit women and disabled, says union

Jane Dalton

THE INDEPENDENT
Wednesday 11 December 2024 

(The Washington Post via Getty Im)

Civilian staff at the Metropolitan Police have voted for the first time to strike, after being told they may not work from home so often.

Union members claim managers have gone back on a deal that allowed them to work from home part of the week.

Around 2,400 staff, who support the everyday work of police officers, have been told they must go into the office more frequently.

Depending on where they work, those who have been travelling in on two days were ordered to increase that to three; those doing three must increase that to four, and those doing four in the office were told they must go in full-time.

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union said the changes would disproportionately affect women, part-time workers and those with disabilities.

In a ballot, 85 per cent of members who voted supported taking strike action, and 91 per cent voted for action short of a strike.

The union said it was the first time Met Police staff had voted for industrial action, and it “showed the depth of feeling” about the policy.

Union general secretary Fran Heathcote said: “Our members are not bobbies on the beat. They are desk-based civilians who work from home just as productively as if they were in the office, but without the stress and cost of a daily commute.”

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said they were disappointed the union felt such action was necessary, adding: “Our policy doesn’t end working from home. We have given staff and officers in support roles the ability to work from home up to two days a week.

“Our plans will provide consistency across the Met and ensure we can deliver for our communities.

“Although the threshold for strike action has been met, it doesn’t have to go ahead, and we urge our staff and the union not to take further action.”

Working from home became standard during the pandemic lockdowns, but politicians such as former Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg frowned on it.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has said flexible arrangements are beneficial for productivity.

And teachers will be allowed to work from home to do marking and lesson planning under a government plan to boost recruitment to the profession.

UK

£75m redress scheme to be launched for veterans who suffered under ‘gay ban’

Defence Secretary John Healey described the historic wrongs faced by LGBT+ service personnel as a ‘moral stain on our nation’.


LGBT+ veterans affected by the ‘gay ban’ are set to receive financial redress (John Walton/PA)

PA Wire
Nina Lloyd
12/11/2924

Veterans who suffered mistreatment in the armed forces under the “gay ban” will receive up to £70,000 each as part of a £75 million scheme being launched by the Government.

Defence Secretary John Healey described the historic wrongs faced by LGBT+ service personnel as a “moral stain on our nation”, ahead of applications for the financial redress programme opening on Friday.

The total amount available will be £75 million, exceeding the cap of £50 million recommended in an independent review by Lord Etherton on the impact of the ban.

The historic treatment of LGBT veterans was a moral stain on our nation

Defence Secretary John Healey

Under the policy, which lasted until the year 2000, members of the armed who were – or were thought to be – gay or transgender were subjected to brutal interrogation and dismissal.

Some have suffered lifelong consequences, being left without access to their military pensions, shunned by family and friends and facing diminished career prospects.

The previous Tory government accepted in full the recommendations of Lord Etherton’s report into the policy in December 2023, which included a proposal for a financial awards scheme capped at £50 million.

But campaigners and charities including the Royal British Legion said the figure was “inadequate and unacceptably low” and demanded a better payout.

Defence Secretary John Healey said the Government was ‘determined to right the wrongs of the past and recognise the hurt that too many endured’ (James Manning/PA)
PA Wire

The Ministry of Defence said it had increased the amount after “extensive engagement with LGBT veterans”.

Veterans who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity are to receive £50,000.

Saudi Arabia's human rights record under fire after World Cup bid win

Amnesty International has expressed concern over Saudi Arabia's hosting of the 2034 World Cup specifically due its migrant worker rights

The New Arab Staff & Agencies
11 December, 2024

Aaudi Arabia has been given the green light to host the 2024 FIFA World Cup, despite concerns over human rights [Getty/file photo]

Rights organisations strongly criticised FIFA on Wednesday after the world footballing ruling body officially awarded the 2034 men's World Cup to Saudi Arabia.

Hosting the global showpiece tournament is the pinnacle of Saudi Arabia's massive push into sports and entertainment over recent years as it seeks to improve its international image.

"FIFA's reckless decision will put many lives at risk," Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International's Head of Labour Rights and Sport, said in a statement issued by 21 bodies.

They included Saudi diaspora human rights organisations, migrant workers' groups from Nepal and Kenya, international trade unions, fans' representatives and global human rights organisations.

"FIFA knows workers will be exploited and even die without fundamental reforms in Saudi Arabia, and yet has chosen to press ahead regardless," the statement added.


Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in sport, revamping its domestic football league by signing global superstars such as Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo and Brazil's Neymar.

The kingdom's Public Investment fund (PIF) acquired English Premier League club Newcastle United and founded the LIV Golf tour, challenging the US-based PGA Tour's dominance.

Saudi Arabia this year hosted the season-ending tennis WTA Finals for the first time.

It has also invested in sports such as boxing as it continues its metamorphosis into a tourism hub as part of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman's Vision 2030 economic transformation programme.

FIFA gave the bid a high technical score, a move Amnesty called an "astonishing whitewash" of the country's human rights record.

Saudi Arabia has banned labour unions, does not have a minimum wage for migrant workers, and enforces the "kafala" system of foreign labourer sponsorship.

Kafala binds migrant workers to one employer and prevents them from leaving the kingdom without the employer's approval. Rights groups say it leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation.

Saudi Arabia denies accusations of human rights abuses and says it protects its national security through its laws.

The Saudi government communications office, the country's football association and FIFA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The head of the Saudi World Cup bid unit told Reuters last week that the kingdom had launched several initiatives to safeguard workers' rights as part of Vision 2030.


"Now employees have the freedom of choice to move from one employer to the other," Hammad Albalawi said.

"A month and a half ago, the government announced a new insurance policy, meaning that if any company goes into bankruptcy, the government can step in and ensure workers are paid their dues."

There were 13.4 million expatriate workers in Saudi Arabia in 2022, the last time a census was conducted, accounting for 42 percent of the population.

Extreme heat

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre said one stadium under construction for the tournament had been linked to alleged exploitative labour of 10-hour shifts in extreme heat.

"FIFA, its sponsors, and multinational companies have a legal and ethical responsibility to respect human rights," said Phil Bloomer, BHRRC Executive Director.

FIFA came under similar criticism from rights groups for awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar.

An Amnesty report in 2021 said practices such as withholding salaries and charging workers to change jobs were rife in the 2022 World Cup host nation.

Qatari authorities said the criticism was unfair and misinformed, pointing to labour law reforms enacted since 2018 and accusing critics of racism and double standards.

Asked on Wednesday what lessons the Saudi bid team had learned from Qatar, the kingdom's sports minister Abdulaziz bin Turki Al-Faisal told Reuters that tournament had given them "a good insight on what needs to be done properly".


"I think controversy will happen in anything you do and we've learned a lot from their experience," he said.

FIFA also confirmed on Wednesday that the 2030 World Cup would be held in Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

Joint Statement: 

Award of 2034 Men's World Cup to Saudi Arabia Risks Lives and Exposes

FIFA's Empty Human Rights Commitments

Today’s confirmation of Saudi Arabia as host of the 2034 FIFA men’s World Cup, despite the well-known and severe risks to residents, migrant workers and visiting fans alike, marks a moment of great danger. It should also mark a moment for change.

As global and regional human rights organizations, trade unions, fans groups and organizations representing migrant workers, many of us have long highlighted the severe risks posed by Saudi Arabia’s hosting of mega-sporting events. By awarding the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia without meaningful protections, FIFA has today decided both to ignore our warnings and discard its own human rights policies.

FIFA can never claim that it did not know the severity of the risks of hosting its flagship event in a country with such weak human rights protections. Nor can the national Football Associations voting to approve it. Today, there is no shortage of evidence of migrant workers being exploited and subjected to racism, activists sentenced to decades in prison for expressing themselves peacefully, women and LGBTI people facing legalized discrimination, or residents forcibly evicted to make way for state projects. It is evident that without urgent action and comprehensive reforms, the 2034 World Cup will be tarnished by repression, discrimination and exploitation on a massive scale.

FIFA has long accepted that it has a clear responsibility, in line with international human rights standards, to prevent and mitigate human rights violations and abuses connected to its activities, as well as to provide remedy for those to which it has contributed. By pursuing today’s decision regardless of the known risks, FIFA will bear a heavy responsibility for much of what follows.

In the process of awarding the 2034 World Cup, FIFA’s human rights policies have been exposed as a sham. Without competitive bidding, there was little prospect of bids being rejected – no matter how poor the human rights strategy, or how severe the outstanding risk. There was no consultation with people likely to be impacted by either tournament, or specific or binding measures agreed that will ensure compliance with international labour standards or more comprehensive human rights reforms.

In the decade ahead we will mobilize the human rights community across the globe to ensure the violations and abuses of this World Cup are not ignored, and press for the fundamental changes needed to protect lives and expand freedoms. The Saudi authorities, FIFA, national Football Associations, FIFA sponsors and companies involved in the World Cup – or profiting hugely from it – all have human rights obligations and responsibilities, and we will seek to hold them accountable.

Together, we will continue to advocate for the rights of everyone in Saudi Arabia and beyond – migrant worker, resident, citizen, player, fan, activist or journalist – who may be impacted by the 2034 World Cup. While the Saudi population undoubtedly deserves to experience the joy that international sport can bring, this cannot come at any price. It must go hand in hand with measures to guarantee the rights that their government continues to deny them.

SignatoriesALQST for Human Rights
Amnesty International
Building and Woodworkers International (BWI)
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC)
Equidem
European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR)
FairSquare
Football Supporters Europe (FSE)
Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
Human Rights Watch
ILGA World – The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association
International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF)
Jafari Jata Solution, Kenya
Law and Policy Forum for Social Justice (LAPSOJ), Nepal
Migrant Defenders Organisation, Kenya
Middle East Democracy Center (MEDC)
Migrant-Rights.org
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – Africa
Paurakhi Nepal
Shramik Sanjal, Nepal
Solidarity Center (SC)
Sport and Rights Alliance (SRA)

SPORTSWASHING

Saudi Arabia will host the 2034 FIFA World Cup — a controversial pick

December 11, 2024
Becky Sullivan
Aya Batrawy

NPR/PBS

People celebrated in Jeddah as Saudi Arabia was announced Wednesday as the host of the 2034 FIFA World Cup.Mahmoud Khaled/Getty Images

The world's largest sporting event, the FIFA World Cup, will be held in Saudi Arabia in 2034, soccer's governing body announced Wednesday — a controversial selection that has already drawn criticism from human rights groups.

Saudi Arabia's was the only bid for the 2034 tournament, making its announcement on Wednesday a formality. And it is the biggest jewel yet of the long-running effort by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom's de-facto ruler, to rebrand the country and propel it onto the world stage.

FIFA should pay workers harmed in building World Cup venues, its committee report says

But critics have decried the award of such a massive, lucrative event to a country whose leadership is accused of serious human rights violations — including the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 and the jailing of other critics inside the country. And others fear that migrant workers needed to build stadiums and other infrastructure will face similar abuses to those who built the last World Cup in Qatar.

In a joint statement, 21 human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Saudi-focused organization ALQST, said the selection of Saudi Arabia represented a "moment of great danger" for "residents, migrant workers and visiting fans alike."

"FIFA can never claim that it did not know the severity of the risks of hosting its flagship event in a country with such weak human rights protections," the groups wrote. "It is evident that without urgent action and comprehensive reforms, the 2034 World Cup will be tarnished by repression, discrimination and exploitation on a massive scale."

How Saudi Arabia was selected

Wednesday's announcement also included the 2030 event, which is set to be co-hosted by Portugal, Spain and Morocco. And to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first World Cup, which was held in Uruguay, the first three games of the tournament will be held in South America, with a match apiece hosted by Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay.

Under FIFA rules, a World Cup cannot be hosted on the same continent that hosted the previous one. In turn, FIFA's decision to combine what had originally been two different 2030 bids — one from Spain, Portugal and Morocco and the other from the South American countries — had the effect of disqualifying any bids for 2034 from Europe, Africa or South America.

That considerably narrowed the field of potential hosts. After Australia announced last year it would not submit a bid, that left Saudi Arabia as the only bid standing.

Saudi Arabia's bid proposed holding games across 15 stadiums and five host cities.

The FIFA World Cup is one of the largest events in the world. And it generates enormous revenue for FIFA itself, which expects to bring in $11 billion from the 2026 event, which will be held in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The tournament has grown over time, and now includes 48 teams and more than 100 total matches.

Human rights groups documented a wide range of abuses faced by migrant workers who built stadiums and other infrastructure in Qatar for the 2022 World Cup.

Warren Little/Getty Images

Human rights at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar

A major focus of the critics are the problems of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where human rights and environmental impacts were concerns from the moment the bid was selected.

Qatar relied on the labor of tens of thousands of migrant workers to build the stadiums and other infrastructure needed for the World Cup. Many faced injuries, unpaid wages and debt — and some died, although the number of deaths is disputed.

Death and dishonesty: Stories of two workers who built the World Cup stadiums in Qatar

Afterward, a report commissioned by FIFA found that "severe human rights impacts" had taken place and that FIFA had potentially contributed to them.

Saudi Arabia, too, is expected to rely on the labor of migrant workers in order to complete construction by 2034.

"There is nothing to indicate that Saudi Arabia will be any better," said Abdullah Alaoudh, a senior director at the Middle East Democracy Center.

With the World Cup over, rights groups hope the issues raised stay relevant in Qatar

Qatari officials have said the country's labor practices improved as a result of the World Cup, and it and FIFA largely blamed employers for abuses faced by workers.

Saudi Arabia's bid outlined existing laws that officials say will protect workers from abuse. In addition, officials say they will adopt "a human rights-based approach" to third-party contracts and worker welfare standards.

In evaluating Saudi Arabia's bid, FIFA nodded to social reforms that Saudi Arabia has made in recent years, and it noted that the country has 10 years to address any additional risk of discrimination or abuse before the tournament begins.

Sports as a tool for change in Saudi Arabia

Under the crown prince, the kingdom has spent billions of dollars to build up tourism and sports, part of a wider effort to boost foreign investment and revamp the economy away from oil, though energy revenues remain at the heart of this transformation.

The crown prince has opened up sports to girls in public schools, allowed women's gyms to flourish, lifted restrictions on women attending matches in sports stadiums and removed gender segregation in public spaces and restaurants — all unthinkable just a decade ago, when the country was under the sway of ultraconservative religious clerics who argued that playing sports blurred gender lines and encouraged promiscuity.

Saudi Arabia and China are accused of using sports to cover up human rights abuse

A new Saudi vision, under the crown prince, argues that sports are a tool for a change, with soccer at its heart. Saudi Arabia has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to draw global stars like Cristiano Ronaldo to play in Saudi Arabia's domestic leagues.

Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund also underwrites golf's LIV tournament, a rival to the North America-based PGA. And the country has brought major boxing and tennis tournaments to its capital, Riyadh, along with motorsport events such as Formula One races and the Dakar Rally.

Human rights draw backlash to Saudi reforms

The 39-year-old crown prince's efforts have come alongside a crackdown on dissent and activism. People who have publicly called for change or criticized the crown prince have been jailed or banned from traveling abroad.

U.S. Intelligence: Saudi Crown Prince Approved Operation To Kill Jamal Khashoggi

Prince Mohammed's crackdown on critics came into global focus after the 2018 operation that killed Saudi writer and critic Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey by agents who worked for the crown prince. His remains were never found, and the crown prince maintains he had no knowledge of the operation.

The Saudi human rights group ALQST says at least 306 people have been executed so far this year in the kingdom, the highest known figure in the country's history.

 

Massad Boulos, Trump’s new Middle East adviser, touts roadmap to Palestinian state

A top Trump adviser and family member stakes out a position on Palestinian statehood that appears to be at odds with Benjamin Netanyahu.

By Ron KampeasJEWISH NEWS SERVICEDecember 10, 2024   

Republican nominee Donald Trump with Massad Boulos. Pic: AP

Massad Boulos, President-elect Donald Trump’s adviser on Middle Eastern and Arab affairs, said that the United States would have to discuss laying out a “roadmap” to Palestinian statehood if it hopes to establish relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi officials have long made it known that they would not establish ties with Israel absent progress toward a Palestinian state. But for Boulos — a Lebanese-American billionaire and the father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany — to emphasise the point is significant because other Trump appointees, in addition to Trump himself, are seen as close to the Israeli right, which rejects Palestinian statehood.

“I think the issue of a roadmap that would lead to a Palestinian state is an important part of the discussions between the United States and Saudi Arabia,” Boulos said in a wide-ranging interview last week with Le Point, a French magazine. “It is certainly a very important point.”

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

Boulos, 53, framed the focus on Palestinian statehood in terms of expanding the Abraham Accords, the 2020 normalisation agreements between Israel and four Arab countries that were Trump’s signature foreign policy achievement in his first term.

Trump has spoken repeatedly about expanding the Abraham Accords. In the interview, Boulos said that many additional countries would initiate ties with Israel if Saudi Arabia did so.

“It is important to remember that Saudi Arabia is not demanding the creation of a Palestinian state today, but it is asking for a vision and a road map for it, that’s all,” he said. “Today, the president’s priority is to resume discussions on the Abraham Accords, with, of course, Saudi Arabia first. Because we know very well, and the president has said it, that once we agree with Saudi Arabia on Israel, there will be at least 12 Arab countries that will be immediately ready to follow suit.”

It’s not clear how much influence Boulos will have with Trump. Another relative, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, spearheaded the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term in addition to taking point on a wide range of other issues. Boulos had campaigned for Trump in Michigan, which has a large Arab-American population and which the president-elect won.

“Massad is an accomplished lawyer and a highly respected leader in the business world, with extensive experience on the International scene,” Trump said when announcing Boulos’ position on Truth Social, the platform Trump owns. “He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my campaign, and was instrumental in building tremendous new coalitions with the Arab American Community. Massad is a dealmaker, and an unwavering supporter of peace in the Middle East.”

Before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, launching Israel’s multi-front war, a deal with Saudi Arabia was also a primary goal of President Joe Biden as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But Netanyahu opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state, and has doubled down on that position since the Oct. 7 attack. Most Israelis also oppose Palestinian statehood.

Also opposed to a Palestinian state is Mike Huckabee, Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, who supports Israel perpetually controlling the West Bank, which would preclude Palestinian statehood. Trump’s former ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, also supports Israel’s West Bank settlements.

Trump has also named pro-Israel hawks to other key positions, including Florida Rep. Mike Waltz as national security adviser; Rep. Elise Stefanik as United Nations ambassador; Fox News pundit Pete Hegseth as defenc

-e secretary, and Marco Rubio as secretary of state.

Boulos would not address calls from far-right figures in Netanyahu’s coalition to annex the West Bank, but said that as of Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 there would be a “very clear and precise policy on this issue, and one that must be respected.”

Before the Abraham Accords were signed, Trump had proposed a peace plan that would have seen expanded Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank — though Israeli settlements would have remained in place and Israel would have security control over the entire area.

Palestinian leaders immediately rejected the proposal because it stopped short of giving them statehood — but Boulos feels that it was tantamount to endorsing a Palestinian state.

“If you look at the plan that was proposed in 2020 by President Trump, it spoke very clearly about an eventual Palestinian state,” he said.

On Iran, Boulos echoed Trump in saying there should be a new nuclear deal to replace the one Trump pulled out of in 2018 at Netanyahu’s behest. Boulos also noted that Trump has not spoken of regime change in Iran. “He has not spoken about regime change, but only about a nuclear deal, and that he is ready to negotiate with the current regime,” he said.

Boulos was careful in the interview, repeatedly saying that he did not want to say too much before Trump assumed office, invoking the belief that the United States should have only one president at a time. That marked a contrast with Trump, who is already conducting an aggressive foreign policy.

“As you well know, we are still in the transition period and we don’t really have the right to interfere in U.S. foreign policy, as long as the Biden administration is still in power and guides American diplomacy,” Boulos said.

QPC condemns Israeli killing of journalist and her family in Gaza

Tawfik Lamari

December 12, 2024 | 

GULF NEWS


Journalist Iman al-Shanti

The Qatar Press Center (QPC) has condemned in the strongest terms the killing of journalist Iman al-Shanti and her family on Wednesday, in the Israeli occupation's bombing of her apartment in a building in the Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood, northwest of Gaza City.

The centre renewed its call on the international community, UN, human rights and media organisations to condemn the targeting of journalists and their families in Gaza with killing, arrest and intimidation. The QPC also called for the prosecution of the Israeli occupation and holding it accountable for war crimes against journalists and media professionals, and to pressure it to stop the crimes of genocide and stop the assassination of Palestinian journalists.

The centre called on the international community to pressure Israel to release journalists detained in Israeli prisons, who are suffering from dire conditions that deprive them of the most basic rights of prisoners stipulated in international laws and conventions.

The centre expresses its surprise at the continued international silence of the United Nations, human rights and media institutions regarding the deliberate and systematic targeting of journalists and media professionals in Gaza, bringing the number of martyrs to 193 journalists since the beginning of the brutal aggression on Gaza, which has been ongoing since October 7, 2023.

The number of Palestinian journalist martyrs who died as a result of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip has risen to 193, after the announcement Wednesday of the martyrdom of journalist Iman.

Local sources said that Iman, who worked as a broadcaster on the local Al-Aqsa Voice Radio, was martyred along with her husband and three children, while a number of the injured were transferred to hospital. The last words the martyr wrote three hours before her death on her official account on the “X” platform were: “Is it possible that we are still alive? May God have mercy on the martyrs.”

The occupation forces deliberately target journalists and media institutions. During the aggression, about 400 journalists were injured and 40 others were arrested. The occupation forces also destroyed most of the headquarters of local and international news institutions operating in the Gaza Strip and forced all local radio stations to close due to displacement and the lack of the elements of journalistic work, especially electricity and the Internet.

Israel’s Wars Repeat The 1980s On Steroids – Analysis

President Ronald Reagan speaking on the telephone. Photo Credit: Reagan White House Photographs, Wikimedia Commons

 December 12, 2024  

By James M. Dorsey

Appalled by Israel’s carpet bombing of Beirut during the 1982 Lebanon war, United States President Ronald Reagan didn’t mince words with then-Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin.

“I was angry. I told him it had to stop, or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately & said the symbol of his war was becoming a picture of a 7-month-old baby with its arms blown off,” Reagan noted in his diary.

The August 1982 phone call between Reagan and Begin provides a template for the US’s ability to twist Israel’s arm and the limits of the Western giant’s influence.

Begin wasted no time in halting his saturation bombing of the Lebanese capital in response to Reagan’s threat. Yet, he rejected the president’s demand that he allow an international force to enter Beirut to protect the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in the Israeli-besieged city. His refusal had dire consequences.

A month later, at least 800 Palestinians, many of them women and children, were massacred in their homes in Sabra and Shatila in West Beirut by Lebanese Christian gunmen under the watchful eyes of the Israeli military. Public outrage in Israel forced Begin to resign, ending his career.

Biden failed where Reagan succeeded

More than four decades later, US President Joe Biden understood the stakes when Israel went to war in response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. He also knew the levers of power at his disposal after test-driving Reagan’s approach in 2021.

At the time, Biden, like his predecessor, picked up the phone to read Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the riot act. As a new book on Biden, The Last Politician, describes, it was his fourth phone call to the Israeli leader in ten days in which behind-the-scenes diplomacy and cajoling failed to end fighting between Israel and Hamas. The president advised him that he “expected a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire.” When Netanyahu sought to buy time, Biden replied: “Hey man, we’re out of runway here. It’s over.”

Netanyahu and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire a day later. Even so, he knew then and now that he had less to worry about than Begin did with the Reagan presidency.

In contrast to Reagan’s administration, which allowed the United Nations Security Council to pass 21 resolutions criticizing, if not condemning, Israel’s policies, Biden gave Israel blanket diplomatic cover and provided it with arms. With these, it could prosecute wars that make 1982 pale in comparison.

Biden’s test-driving of Reagan’s template, familiarity with the Israeli interventions in Lebanon and annexationist policies in the 1980s and beyond, coupled with his predecessor’s willingness to confront Begin in the 1982 war leave the president with little excuse for refusing to rein Israel in over the past year.

Biden’s failure has tangibly devastating consequences for the Palestinians and yet to materialize fallouts for Israelis and the rest of the Middle East. These will haunt the region for a generation, if not more.

Like Begin, Biden will likely see his legacy sullied by Israeli conduct on the Middle East’s battlefields.

Historic destruction may only increase

A heated encounter with Begin during the 1982 war, which involved finger jabbing and fists pounding on a table, spotlights Biden’s lack of an excuse. Echoing Reagan, Biden warned Begin that Israeli settlement policy could cost it US support. In response, Begin snapped, “I am not a Jew with trembling knees.”

Forty-two years later, Biden studiously ignores the fact that Israel’s latest Gaza and Lebanon wars are a repeat of the early 1980s on steroids.

Begin created the template for Israel’s systematic targeting of militants irrespective of the risk to civilians with the 1981 bombing of Fakhani. This densely populated Beirut neighborhood was home to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its affiliates. The bombing destroyed a seven-story building and damaged four nearby structures, killing some 90 people and wounding hundreds of others.

In a letter to Reagan, written during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Begin compared the carpet bombing of Beirut to the Allied destruction of Berlin during World War II.

“I feel as a prime minister empowered to instruct a valiant army facing ‘Berlin’ where, amongst innocent civilians, Hitler and his henchmen hide in a bunker deep beneath the surface,” Begin said.

Begin’s equation of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and his organization with Adolf Hitler and his associates, like Netanyahu equating Hamas with the Nazis, served to justify civilian casualties in operations that were as much about targeting fighters as they were designed to incite the local population against the militants.

“In certain cases, the Israeli shelling and bombing were carefully targeted, sometimes on the basis of good intelligence. All too often, however, that was not the case. Scores of eight-to twelve-story apartment buildings were destroyed… Many of the buildings that were levelled…had no plausible military utility,” recalled historian Rashid Khalidi, who lived in Beirut at the time of the 1982 bombings.

The strategy produced mixed results but, on balance, hardened rather than weakened popular resistance to Israeli policies.

There is little reason to believe that the impact of Israel’s current wars will be any different. Israel has already prepared the ground by turning Gaza into what onetime Australian human rights commissioner and United Nations rapporteur Chris Sidoti calls a “terrorism creation factory.”

• This article was published at Fair Observer and The Turbulent World first published this piece.

James M. Dorsey

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and scholar, a Senior Fellow at the National University of Singapore's Middle East Institute and Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and blog.