Saturday, February 01, 2020

BREXIT; THIS SAYS IT ALL

Police called in after poster tells residents of flats to speak English

 Brexit poster seen in a block of flats in Norwich Photograph: Anonymous via Twitter
A poster telling residents of a block of flats “we do not tolerate” people speaking languages other than English in the building has been reported to police.
The typewritten poster, bearing the title “Happy Brexit Day”, was reportedly found stuck to fire doors in Winchester Tower in Norwich on Friday morning. The discovery came hours before the UK officially left the European Union at 11pm later that day.
A photo of the poster shared in news reports and on social media revealed that it declared: “We finally have our great country back.”
FacebookPinterest
 Brexit poster seen in a block of flats in Norwich. Photograph: Anonymous via Twitter
Addressing Winchester Tower residents, it said the “Queens (sic) English is the spoken tongue here” and suggests that people wanting to speak a language other than English should leave the country.
Writing on Twitter on Saturday, Norwich city council said: “You may have seen a photo of a poster that has appeared in one of our properties.
“Norwich has a proud history of being a welcoming city, and we will not tolerate this behaviour. As soon as we became aware of this incident, we reported it to Norfolk police and they are investigating.
“We take this very seriously and encourage residents to contact us or the police if they have any concerns.”
According to the BBC, which spoke to a resident, the signs were left on fire doors across all 15 floors of the block of flats before being removed by the caretaker.
Mike Stonard, a cabinet member on Norwich city council, told the Eastern Daily Press: “I absolutely condemn this abhorrent poster. Whoever put it there has committed a hate crime, it is as simple as that.
“Many people voted for Brexit for a range of different reasons, however I am sure not many of them will condone this kind of thing.”
Norfolk police have been contacted for comment.

Protesters who demanded Huawei CFO's release revealed to be paid actors

More than a dozen people outside Vancouver courtroom with ‘Free Meng’ signs were promised C$100 for two hours’ work on a movie


Leyland Cecco in Toronto and agencies
Wed 22 Jan 2020 The Guardian

 

Protesters stand outside a Vancouver courtroom 
on 20 January 2020. Photograph: Alia Dharssi/AFP 
via Getty Images


Protesters calling for the release of a senior Chinese telecommunications executive arrested in Canada have admitted they were paid actors, in the latest twist in a closely watched extradition case that has chilled relations between Ottawa and Beijing.

More than a dozen people joined a demonstration on Monday outside a Vancouver courtroom where the Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is fighting extradition to the US for alleged fraud related to sanctions against Iran.

The protesters held handwritten signs that read “Free Meng” and “Trump stop bullying us” – but it soon emerged that they were actors who had been promised C$100 ($76) for two hours’ work on a movie.

In a Facebook post, one of the actors, Julia Hackstaff described the fake protest as a “filthy cheap scam” that has resulted in her receiving hate messages online.


Huawei CFO's extradition would let US criminalize behavior in Canada, say lawyers

Hackstaff said she had been offered work as a movie extra, but soon after arriving at the court realized she had been duped into attending a real event.

“I feel cheated, used, abused, angry, deeply saddened and emotions that I don’t even have words to describe,” she wrote. It was unclear who had recruited the actors.

A Huawei spokesman told the AP that the company had no involvement with the protest. China’s embassy in Ottawa did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Another protester, Ken Bonson, gave an identical account to the Toronto Star, saying she “had no idea what I was going into”.

“I’m honestly pretty ashamed and embarrassed,” she said, explaining that she had not known about Meng or her legal saga.

The revelations came as Canadian government lawyers returned to court for the third day, to argue that Meng – Huawei’s chief financial officer – should be extradited because she was guilty of fraud – and not because she violated US sanctions against Iran.

Meng’s legal team has argued that she was caught up in a US effort to use its extradition treaty to get Canada to enforce US banking sanctions against Iran.

The US alleges Meng lied to HSBC about Huawei’s relationship with its Iran-based affiliate Skycom, putting the bank at risk of violating US sanctions against Tehran.

“Lying to a bank in order to get banking services that creates a risk of economic prejudice is fraud. Fraud – not sanctions violations – is at the heart of this case,” Canadian prosecutor Robert Frater told the court on Wednesday.

In order to win extradition, lawyers for Canada’s attorney general – acting on behalf of the US justice department – must demonstrate that the US accusations against Meng would be considered a crime in Canada if they had occurred there.

Meng has maintained her innocence, saying the alleged conduct was not illegal in Canada. Unlike the United States, Canada did not have sanctions against Iran at the time Canadian officials authorized commencing with the extradition, her lawyers have said.

The proceedings are expected to conclude on Friday, but a ruling is not expected this week.
BEST HARVEY WEINSTEIN HEADLINE

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP DEPT.


Weinstein Accuser Says He Has No Testicles

Jessica Mann testified in a Manhattan courtroom Friday that Harvey Weinstein engaged in forced oral sex and raped her in early 2013...
As Mann tearily described alleged incidents, she also made the bombshell claim that Weinstein doesn’t have testicles and appeared to have a vagina, saying she thought he was “intersex” the first time she saw him naked.
The first time I saw him fully naked,” she said, “I thought he was deformed and intersex. He has an extreme scarring that I didn’t know, maybe [he] was a burn victim …”
“He does not have testicles, and it appears that he has a vagina,” she claimed, saying she had oral sex with Weinstein.
As Mann claimed that he had deformed genitals, Weinstein dropped his head
Here is what #HarveyWeinstein had to say when asked if #jessicamann's description of yr body accurate: pic.twitter.com/jdT2JDK7ZI
— Victoria Bekiempis (@vicbekiempis) January 31, 2020


Greensboro Sit-in: The US civil rights activists who sparked nationwide protests against segregation

Google commemorates 60th anniversary of protest with Doodle

Tom Embury-Dennis @tomemburyd

Google marks the 60th anniversary of the Greensboro Sit-in in North Carolina ( Google )

The “Greensboro Four”, a group of civil rights-era activists, are being remembered on the 60th anniversary of their iconic stand against segregation in the US.

Inspired by Martin Luther King Jr’s nonviolent protests for racial equality, four black college students in 1960 requested service at a “whites-only” café at a local Woolworth’s department store in Greensboro, North Carolina.

After being refused, the students – Ezell Blair Jr, David Richmond, Franklin McCain and Joseph McNeil – remained in their seats and refused to leave until the store closed for the evening.

Despite being met by aggressive counter-protesters, the students were in the weeks following joined by hundreds of fellow demonstrators.

Willing to repeat the sit-ins for as long as necessary, by July the activists had forced Woolworths to integrate their canteen.

The protest ultimately helped spark a nationwide nonviolent sit-in movement, and contributed to the banning of segregation of public spaces in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Part of the Woolworths counter where the men sat is now housed at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, DC, while the department store has been converted into a civil rights museum.

To commemorate the sit-in, Google are marking its 60th anniversary with a Doodle created by Los Angeles artist Karen Collins of the African American Miniature Museum.

“Creating art honouring the Greensboro sit-in (and the Civil Rights Movement it was part of) is my way of giving back to today’s generation, especially to those who are in desperate times and troubles – to lift them up and teach them about their history,” Ms Collins said.



Saturday Marks 60th Anniversary of Historic Greensboro Four Sit-In

JAN 31, 2020


Saturday marks the 60th anniversary of the Greensboro Four sit-in protest at the lunch counter at Woolworth’s in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina. On February 1, 1960, four freshmen students at North Carolina’s A&T State University — Ezell Blair Jr., Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil and David Richmond — refused to leave the whites-only lunch counter after being denied service. Their action inspired a nationwide wave of sit-ins aimed at desegregating businesses and public spaces. Within weeks of their action, sit-in protests spread to over 250 cities and towns across the country, sparking a nationwide movement that saw more than 400 protests by the end of the year.
TOPICS:
Civil Rights

Race in America
“Yet Another Declaration of War on Palestinians”: Rashid Khalidi on Trump’s Middle East “Peace” Plan


STORY JANUARY 29, 2020

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE


GUESTS
Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. He’s the author of several books, including his latest, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced plans to annex about 30% of the occupied West Bank, after Israel was given the green light to do so by the United States. On Tuesday, President Trump — with Netanyahu by his side — unveiled a so-called Middle East peace plan that was drafted by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner without any input from Palestinians. Under the plan, Israel will gain sovereignty over large areas of the occupied West Bank, Jerusalem would be under total Israeli control, and all Jewish settlers in the occupied territory will be allowed to remain in their homes. The plan also calls for a four-year settlement freeze and the possible creation of a truncated Palestinian state, but only if a number of conditions are met. Palestinians responded to the U.S. plan with protests in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the deal. Only hours before the plan was announced, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, marking the first time in Israel’s history that a sitting prime minister will face criminal charges. We speak with Mehdi Hasan, senior columnist at The Intercept, and Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. Khalidi’s latest book is titled “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced plans to move ahead with annexing about 30% of the occupied West Bank, after Israel was given the green light to do so by the United States. On Tuesday, President Trump stood by Netanyahu to unveil the Middle East “peace” plan that was drafted by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner without any input from Palestinian leaders. The plan was introduced just hours after Netanyahu was indicted for corruption and in the middle of Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

Under the plan, Israel will gain sovereignty over large areas of the occupied West Bank, Jerusalem would be under total Israeli control, and all Jewish settlers in the occupied territory would be allowed to remain in their homes. The plan also calls for a four-year settlement freeze and the possible creation of a truncated Palestinian state, but only if a number of conditions are met.

This is President Trump.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security. Today, Israel has taken a giant step toward peace. Yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu informed me that he is willing to endorse the vision as the basis for direct negotiations — and, I will say, the general also endorsed, and very strongly — with the Palestinians. A historic breakthrough.

AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the U.S. deal.


PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: For too long, far too long, the very heart of the land of Israel, where our patriarchs prayed, our prophets preached and our kings ruled, has been outrageously branded as illegally occupied territory. Well, today, Mr. President, you are puncturing this big lie. You are recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, large and small alike.

AMY GOODMAN: Palestinians responded to the U.S. plan with protests in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the deal.


PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS: [translated] I say to the partners Trump and Netanyahu: Jerusalem is not for sale. All our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain. And your deal, the conspiracy, will not pass.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined in New York by Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, the author of several books. His latest is just out. It’s called The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Khalidi. Can you start off by responding to this plan? The scene yesterday at the White House: President Trump, in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial nearby in the Capitol, standing next to the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who had just been indicted yesterday for corruption.

RASHID KHALIDI: Right. Well, what these two miscreants have done, one of them impeached and the other indicted, is to roll out an Israeli peace plan, a peace plan that was dictated to young Jared Kushner by his Israeli mentors, and who have fulfilled the wish list of the extreme Israeli right ever since they conquered the West Bank in 1967 — and I would even say going back even further. This is meant to end the Palestine question. This is meant to expand “Greater Israel” from the river to the sea. There’s no state in this for the Palestinians. Sovereignty will reside solely in Israel. Control will reside solely in Israel. And in fact what it means is not just annexation and so on and so forth; it means that the United States and Israel are going to dictate the terms, or try to dictate the terms, of a settlement.

We will never see this thing come to pass. It is so unrealistic. It is so at odds with not only international law, but everything everybody has put forth, except the extreme Israeli right and their friends in Washington, since the beginning of this conflict. It is, in my view, yet another declaration of war on the Palestinians, in this 100 years’ war that’s been going on since the beginning of the 20th century.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called Trump’s plan a “conspiracy.” And the prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, said, in advance of its release, it’s “nothing but a plan to liquidate the Palestinian issue.” If you can say more how this plan came into being? I want to turn, though, first, to the voices of some Palestinians who took to the streets on Tuesday to protest the U.S. deal.


FARID ALBERIM: [translated] Regarding the plan of the century, we say to Trump and the American administration that our people are united behind our Palestinian leadership, represented by President Abbas. We reject this plan, the plan of shame that has nothing to offer Palestinians.


MOHAMMED ALBAKRI: [translated] I think that this speech came to support Benjamin Netanyahu, to help him to pass his internal crisis. It is also part of the election campaign for Donald Trump in the coming election. It is nothing more than an election campaign for both.


JIHAD ALQAWASMEH: [translated] This plan is a gift from a big thief to a small thief.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Khalidi, those are voices of Palestinians, from Gaza to Hebron. So, what exactly does it mean when the U.S. stands with Israel at the White House and puts this forward, developed by the young developer Jared Kushner?

RASHID KHALIDI: Yeah. Well, I don’t think Jared Kushner has an idea in his head about anything to do with Palestine or Israel. He knows what he’s told. And this is dictated to him by his Israeli mentors, and it is meant to be an Israeli diktat to the Palestinians, telling them, “You will not have Jerusalem. You will not have sovereignty. You will not have any of your national rights. And you will get what we choose to give you, when we choose to give it to you.”

And the United States has now endorsed that position. In so doing, the United States actually separates itself from every country in the world, except a few client states in the Arab Gulf. It puts itself in a position completely at odds not only with past American positions, but every aspect of international law. We heard Netanyahu call — the description of the Occupied Territories as “illegally occupied,” we heard him call that a lie. The liar here is Netanyahu. International law is not determined by an indicted — an impeached president and an indicted Israeli prime minister. It’s determined by others. And others have long since determined that those territories are illegally occupied, that what Israel does in Jerusalem — everything it does in Jerusalem — is illegal.

And so, this is a — I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy. This is something cooked up by two political leaders trying to escape the plight that they’re both in, in order to increase their chances at the next election. There’s one in Israel in a little more than a month and a bit, and there’s one in our country in November. And both of them think that this will help them in that regard.

It won’t see the light of day. But the things that it includes, such as annexation and so forth, will go ahead — and they were going to go ahead in any case. So, I don’t think this is a momentous plan, in any way, shape or form. It simply represents, as I said, the wish list of the extreme Israeli right, which has now been endorsed by the American president. It has actually no valence beyond that.

AMY GOODMAN: This is President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner speaking on CNN.


JARED KUSHNER: I come from a real estate background. It was very, very difficult to draw these lines and to get a map where you could have contiguity to a Palestinian state. And again, this isn’t because of something that we — that we developed. This is something that we inherited, the situation where Israel continues to grow and grow. And what the president secured today was Israel agreeing to stop, for four years, more settlements, to give the Palestinians their last chance to finally have a state.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Khalidi, your response? And then, put it in the context of history.

RASHID KHALIDI: Right. I mean, one actually has to look at this ludicrous plan, the 181 pages, and look at the map and see that either Jared Kushner is blind or he’s a liar. There is no contiguity for the Palestinian — so-called Palestinian state. There are five or six chunks, separated by swaths of Israeli territory, which is part of a plan that goes back to almost the beginning of the occupation: to chop up the West Bank so there can be no Palestinian state, so there can be no contiguity. If he can’t see that, or is lying to the people on CNN, that’s his problem. We should not be taken in. I suggest everybody have a quick look at that plan, because what is clear is that this is something that — I mean, you can talk about it in terms of Bantustans, you can talk about it in terms of any other kind of humiliating imposition on the rights of the indigenous population by a settler colonial regime, which is what we are seeing here. And Mr. Kushner is aiding and abetting this in his ignorance and in his passion for the extreme Israeli right’s positions.

AMY GOODMAN: So, your book, which talks about the hundred years’ war on Palestine, this is yet just another moment in history.

RASHID KHALIDI: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Put this into context of that century.

RASHID KHALIDI: Well, and one of the things that I point out is that this is not a war waged just by Israel or by the Zionist movement on the Palestinians. This is a war that was aided, abetted, endorsed and made possible at every stage by the greatest power of the age, whether that was Great Britain at one stage or the United States and the Soviet Union in 1947 or, today, President Trump. Israel could not do this without external support. The Zionist movement could not have established itself as it did without Great Britain.

And so, as you suggest, this is yet another stage in a very long process whereby not just Israel and the Zionist movement, but a whole range of collaborators or people in collusion with Israel have enabled Israel to do what it has managed to do. And it is a war on Palestine. This is not a struggle between two equals. This is not simply a struggle between two national movements. There are two peoples involved, but one of them has enormous support from the outside, and the other, the Palestinians, are an indigenous people faced with this Moloch-like colonial settler movement, which is grinding up their country, taking as much of it as it can, and only able to do this because of support from great powers like the United States under President Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to break, and we’re going to continue with professor Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. His new book is just out, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. And Mehdi Hasan will also join us, of Al Jazeera and The Intercept. We’ll continue to talk about the — what President Trump calls the Middle East “peace” plan, but Palestinians call everything from a conspiracy to simply reject this plan about what will happen in the Middle East. Then we’ll talk about the impeachment trial, with Mehdi Hasan, that’s going on now in the Senate. And finally, what’s happening in South Dakota targeting trans youth? Stay with us.

Mehdi Hasan: Trump’s Middle East Plan Is a Policy of Apartheid & Settler Colonialism
STORYJANUARY 29, 2020

GUESTS
senior columnist at The Intercept and host of their Deconstructed podcast. He’s also host of UpFront on Al Jazeera English.



Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. He’s the author of several books, including his latest, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.

LINKS

We continue our discussion of President Trump’s long-awaited Middle East plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he has described as the “deal of the century.” The plan was drafted by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner without any input from Palestinians and would give Israel sovereignty over large areas of the occupied West Bank, control over all of Jerusalem, and keep all illegal settlements built in the occupied West Bank. We speak with Mehdi Hasan, senior columnist at The Intercept, and Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. Khalidi’s latest book is titled “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren responded to President Trump’s so-called Middle East peace plan.

Sanders issued a statement saying, quote, “Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with international law and multiple UN Security Council resolutions. It must end the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent, democratic, economically viable state of their own alongside a secure and democratic state of Israel. Trump’s so-called 'peace deal' doesn’t come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict, and undermine the security interests of Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians. It is unacceptable,” Sanders tweeted.

Elizabeth Warren tweeted, “Trump’s 'peace plan' is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn’t diplomacy, it’s a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it,” Senator Warren said.

Well, we go now to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Mehdi Hasan, senior columnist at The Intercept and host of the Deconstructed podcast. He’s also host of UpFront at Al Jazeera English. And still with us in New York, professor Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. His new book, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.

Mehdi Hasan, if you can respond to the presidential candidates responding to the Middle East plan, and then how the media has covered it?

MEHDI HASAN: I’m glad that some of the presidential candidates, Amy, have come out strongly. Elizabeth Warren came out very quick, Bernie Sanders referring to it as “annexation.” Obviously, I would like them to go further, but I know the limits of U.S. political discourse when it comes to Israel-Palestine. It’s good at least that in this election cycle you have two candidates, Warren and Sanders, talking very explicitly about Netanyahu’s racism, about annexation, about this “peace plan,” quote-unquote “peace plan,” being a sham. In fact, I think anyone who describes this as a, quote-unquote, “peace plan” — and, there you go, I just fell into the trap, because we keep hearing this phrase all the time — it’s malpractice. This is not a peace plan. When you hear any political candidate for office, any journalist referring to it as a “peace plan,” you really need to stop and think twice about that, because this is a plan for apartheid, this is a plan for settler colonialism, as Professor Khalidi mentioned earlier, before the break. And I think we need to be clear about our terms.

And, of course, you know, The New York Times put out a tweet yesterday when the plan came out, a breaking news tweet, where they talked about the Palestinians being asked to make more concessions. Just that language that we have here in the U.S. about Israel-Palestine, the idea that an occupied people, who have had their land stolen from them, are expected to concede that land to the people who have occupied them and stolen their land, it’s madness. It’s not language we would use in any other walk of life or in any other conflict. We don’t use it in the context of Crimea, Ukraine and Russia. But we do use it, and we have used it for years, in the Middle East in relation to the Occupied Territories.

What’s so interesting about the current moment, of course, is that Donald Trump — there’s always a silver lining to Donald Trump’s awfulness. And that is that he takes any issue, and he’s so extreme on it — he’s so extreme even by American presidential standards — that he forces people off whatever fence they were sitting on. And I think what he’s done in the last 24 hours, with the help of his son-in-law, with the help of Netanyahu and MBS of Saudi Arabia, who has also endorsed this plan, is the he’s forced people to basically take off the blinkers and recognize this for what it is. The conflict now is no longer Israel versus Palestine, as it’s often set up — as Professor Khalidi pointed out, it’s not; it’s a one-sided war — but it’s apartheid. And Americans now have to decide: Do they support apartheid, or do they not support apartheid? There’s no more nonsense about two-state solutions and all of that rubbish. That’s gone. That’s finished, finally over. No one pretends it’s still there on the table. It’s: Do you support apartheid, or do you not support apartheid? That is what we should be asking Democratic presidential candidates, and that is what journalists should be discussing in the media, in their op-eds, in their cable news discussion panels.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Mehdi, talk about American opinion polls. They’re very interesting on the issue of Israel-Palestine.

MEHDI HASAN: Yes. So, we are often told by supporters of the Israeli occupation in Washington, D.C., especially Republicans, that the reason the United States backs Israel so blindly, gives it billions of dollars, turns a blind eye when it massacres children in Gaza, is because American public opinion is behind Israel, because Americans want to support the, quote, “only democracy in the Middle East,” as it’s often sold, which is not actually true. Going back many, many years, if you look at the polling on this subject, most Americans, the majority or plurality of Americans, say they don’t want the United States to take the side of Israel or the Palestinians. They want the United States to be what it claims to be, but of course is not, and that is an honest broker, an impartial outside force, which it’s never been, of course.

And what’s so interesting is, about — I think it was about a year ago, at the University of Maryland, Shibley Telhami, who’s a great academic and pollster, carried out some polling of Americans on the Middle East, which found that there was almost an even split between Americans on whether they support a two-state solution, as is framed by the establishment, 36%, I think, of Americans, versus a one-state solution, a democratic, binational, secular state in which Palestinians and Jews all have, you know, one vote — one person, one vote — equal rights, and that was around 35%. It was almost even. It was a third of Americans were two-state, a third of Americans were one-state. And here’s what’s so interesting, Amy. When you tell Americans that there is no two-state solution, that option is gone, the vast majority, two out of three Americans, say, “We support a one-state solution with equal rights for everyone,” because Americans — shock, horror — like the idea of one person, one vote. That’s what this country is supposed to be built on. And they don’t like the idea of saying, “You know what? We’re going to take a people and put them under occupation and disenfranchise them in perpetuity.”

And that’s what this Kushner plan does. It basically says, “You’re never getting anything else. This is what you get.” Israel gets to annex what it likes, takes over whatever part of the West Bank it likes. And the Palestinians know they don’t get any rights. What’s so astonishing about this plan — and, you know, Americans, I would argue, the average American, would not support this idea — that a Palestinian refugee not only loses their status as a refugee under this plan forever, but Israel gets to veto Palestinian refugees from returning even to a Palestinian state, not just to Israel. Forget the right of return to Israel. Under this plan, if you look at the small print, they can’t even return to a Palestinian state without an Israeli veto.

So, I think this is all a reminder once again that — you know, Edward Said said it best back in 1978. He said, here in the United States and in the West, amongst establishment types, the Palestinian person politically does not exist. They have been completely obliterated. And I think we saw that in the last 24 hours, where you have a White House press conference, at which no Palestinian spoke, a White House meeting with the Israeli leadership but not with any members of the Palestinian leadership, and a plan put forward by the White House which had no Palestinian input whatsoever. It’s the complete and utter erasure of the Palestinians by the U.S. political establishment, by the U.S. administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Mehdi Hasan, before we move on to the issue of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump that’s taking place at the same time — it seems to have motivated a great deal in President Trump, from January 3rd, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, to his setting precedent last Friday speaking at a “right to life” march in Washington, D.C., the first sitting president ever to do this, and then suddenly announcing he’s releasing a Middle East “peace” plan — I wanted to turn back to Rashid Khalidi. You had talked about some Gulf states perhaps supporting the president. If you can talk about the significance of Saudi Arabia, perhaps one of the most closest allies with the United States, along with Israel?

RASHID KHALIDI: Well, I think this brings up something that people don’t think about very often. The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its regional superiority is because most Arab states are not democratic. The only countries that could or would buy into this are countries which can suppress their domestic public opinion. So, the absolute monarchies of the Gulf, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain, whose ambassadors were at this shameful ceremony yesterday in Washington, are countries, like a few others in the Arab world, Egypt and so forth, ruled in different ways, but in ways that completely exclude representation, democracy, parliaments, public opinion, a free press, and so on and so forth. In those Arab countries where those things do exist, countries like Lebanon or Kuwait or Tunisia, you have popular outrage at what is being done in Washington. The absence of democracy in the Arab world is a precondition for this kind of thing happening. Only regimes which completely — which are capable of completely suppressing their public opinion would support such an outrageous derogation of international law, Arab rights, Arab dignity, as, unfortunately, a few of these governments have and, I’m afraid, will.

But it’s vital to represent, and it’s vital to understand, these are not the Arabs. These are a group of kleptocrats who control their countries absolutely, against the will of their people, and who are able to get away with this partly because they’re protected by the United States. So, you have had a few Arab governments that have either squeaked their approval or failed to indicate their disapproval or shamefully sent their ambassadors to this sham ceremony. But it is vital to understand what they are and who they are and what they represent. They don’t represent anybody except the elites which dominate those countries.

AMY GOODMAN: Rashid Khalidi, we want to thank you for being with us, Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University. His latest book, just out, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
Rincon De La Vieja Volcano Eruption (Photos)

B
y Rico -1 February 2020

At 12:13 pm, Thursday, January 30, 2020, a phreatic* eruption occurred in the Rincon de La Vieja volcano, about 23 km from Liberia, in the province of Guanacaste.

A hot mudflow of composed of a slurry of pyroclastic**material flowed in rivers and ravines near the volcano, primarily the Azufrada gorge, Zanjona gorge, and Pénjamo river.

The mudflow reached the fords or bridges between 15 to 30 minutes after the eruption.

The following photographs by Dr. Mauricio Mora show the effect of the mudflows that went down the Penjamo river. The population is advised not to carry out activities in these rivers and keep an eye on secondary mudflows.



On Friday, January 31, 2020, staff of the volcanology section of the Red Sismológica Nacional, Costa Rica (National Seismological Network) and the Comision Nacional de Emergencias (National Emergency Commission), in coordination with the Air Force section of the Fuerza Publica made a flight over the Rincon de La Vieja volcano.

Despite the cloudiness, it was possible to observe material released by yesterday’s eruption that could generate secondary mudflows in case of rain in the area.

Here we share some of the flight photographs taken by Dr. Paulo Ruiz.


Because of the activity presented, the CNE declared a green alert for the Aguas Claras and Two Rivers Upala. It also recommended monitoring the conditions of the rivers that descend from the north face of the volcano and heed to official sources of primary information, whether the Red Seismological Nacional (RSN), the Observatory Volcanological and Seismological of Costa Rica (OVSICORI) or the Comision Nacional de Emergencias (CNE).

*Phreatic eruption - USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Glossary


Dec 23, 2015 - Phreatic eruptions are steam-driven explosions that occur when water beneath the ground or on the surface is heated by magma, lava, hot ...

Dangerous water vapour: phreatic eruptions. Phreatic eruptions often occur without any forewarning. Many were unprepared for the sudden eruption of Ontake ..

**A pyroclastic flow (also known as a pyroclastic density current or a pyroclastic cloud) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and volcanic matter (collectively known as tephra) that moves away from a volcano about 100 km/h (62 mph) on average but is capable of reaching speeds up to 700 km/h (430 mph).

Pyroclastic flow - Wikipedia



Ring Doorbell App Packed with Third-Party Trackers
BY BILL BUDINGTON JANUARY 27, 2020


Ring isn't just a product that allows users to surveil their neighbors. The company also uses it to surveil its customers.

An investigation by EFF of the Ring doorbell app for Android found it to be packed with third-party trackers sending out a plethora of customers’ personally identifiable information (PII). Four main analytics and marketing companies were discovered to be receiving information such as the names, private IP addresses, mobile network carriers, persistent identifiers, and sensor data on the devices of paying customers.

The danger in sending even small bits of information is that analytics and tracking companies are able to combine these bits together to form a unique picture of the user’s device. This cohesive whole represents a fingerprint that follows the user as they interact with other apps and use their device, in essence providing trackers the ability to spy on what a user is doing in their digital lives and when they are doing it. All this takes place without meaningful user notification or consent and, in most cases, no way to mitigate the damage done. Even when this information is not misused and employed for precisely its stated purpose (in most cases marketing), this can lead to a whole host of social ills.

Ring has exhibited a pattern of behavior that attempts to mitigate exposure to criticism and scrutiny while benefiting from the wide array of customer data available to them. It has been able to do so by leveraging an image of the secure home, while profiting from a surveillance network which facilitates police departments’ unprecedented access into the private lives of citizens, as we have previously covered. For consumers, this image has cultivated a sense of trust in Ring that should be shaken by the reality of how the app functions: not only does Ring mismanage consumer data, but it also intentionally hands over that data to trackers and data miners.
Findings

Our testing, using Ring for Android version 3.21.1, revealed PII delivery to branch.io, mixpanel.com, appsflyer.com and facebook.com. Facebook, via its Graph API, is alerted when the app is opened and upon device actions such as app deactivation after screen lock due to inactivity. Information delivered to Facebook (even if you don’t have a Facebook account) includes time zone, device model, language preferences, screen resolution, and a unique identifier (anon_id), which persists even when you reset the OS-level advertiser ID.

Branch, which describes itself as a “deep linking” platform, receives a number of unique identifiers (device_fingerprint_id, hardware_id, identity_id) as well as your device’s local IP address, model, screen resolution, and DPI.

AppsFlyer, a big data company focused on the mobile platform, is given a wide array of information upon app launch as well as certain user actions, such as interacting with the “Neighbors” section of the app. This information includes your mobile carrier, when Ring was installed and first launched, a number of unique identifiers, the app you installed from, and whether AppsFlyer tracking came preinstalled on the device. This last bit of information is presumably to determine whether AppsFlyer tracking was included as bloatware on a low-end Android device. Manufacturers often offset the costs of device production by selling consumer data, a practice that disproportionately affects low-income earners and was the subject of a recent petition to Google initiated by Privacy International and co-signed by EFF.

Most alarmingly, AppsFlyer also receives the sensors installed on your device (on our test device, this included the magnetometer, gyroscope, and accelerometer) and current calibration settings.

Ring gives MixPanel the most information by far. Users’ full names, email addresses, device information such as OS version and model, whether bluetooth is enabled, and app settings such as the number of locations a user has Ring devices installed in, are all collected and reported to MixPanel. MixPanel is briefly mentioned in Ring’s list of third party services, but the extent of their data collection is not. None of the other trackers listed in this post are mentioned at all on this page.

Ring also sends information to the Google-owned crash logging service Crashalytics. The exact extent of data sharing with this service is yet to be determined.




Data delivered to api.branch.io






Data delivered to api.mixpanel.com






Data delivered to graph.facebook.com






Data delivered to t.appsflyer.com


Methodology

All traffic we observed on the app was being sent using encrypted HTTPS. What’s more, the encrypted information was delivered in a way that eludes analysis, making it more difficult (but not impossible) for security researchers to learn of and report these serious privacy breaches.

Our dynamic analysis was performed using mitmproxy running on an access point to intercept and analyze HTTPS flows from an Android test device. To remove noise generated from other apps, we installed the AFWall+ firewall app and only allowed network traffic from Ring. mitmproxy generates a root x509 certificate which is to be installed in the OS-level certificate store in Android, allowing active interception to take place on otherwise secured traffic. This led us to the initial discovery that the root certificate was not being accepted as valid, and that some form of certificate pinning was being employed by the app.

App-level certificate pinning is when an app validates the certificates of a remote server against a record of that certificate stored within the app, rather than validating against the list of root certificates within the OS. This is often used as a security measure, to ensure that misissuance of certificates or mismanagement along the chain of trust in PKI does not compromise the integrity, confidentiality, or authenticity of HTTPS traffic. Unfortunately, it can also prevent security researchers and users from seeing exactly what information these devices are sending, and to whom. In the case of Ring, we initially observed all intercepted traffic upon launch being rejected, and were not able to observe any communications.




mitmproxy screen displaying results of certificate pinning

It was only through the powerful dynamic analysis framework Frida that we were able to inject code into Ring at runtime, which ensured that the certificate provided by our mitmproxy instance would be accepted as valid. This allowed us to inspect all HTTPS traffic sent through the app.

Conclusion

Ring claims to prioritize the security and privacy of its customers, yet time and again we’ve seen these claims not only fall short, but harm the customers and community members who engage with Ring’s surveillance system. In the past, we’ve illuminated the mismanagement of user information which has led to data breaches, and the attempt to place the blame for such blunders at the customers’ feet.

This goes a step beyond that, by simply delivering sensitive data to third parties not accountable to Ring or bound by the trust placed in the customer-vendor relationship. As we’ve mentioned, this includes information about your device and carrier, unique identifiers that allow these companies to track you across apps, real-time interaction data with the app, and information about your home network. In the case of MixPanel, it even includes your name and email address. This data is given to parties either only mentioned briefly, buried on an internal page users are unlikely to ever see, or not listed at all.


mitmproxy flow files:
mitmproxy-1.flows_.txt
mitmproxy-2.flows_.txt
After Nonprofits Protest at ICANN, California's Attorney General Steps Into the .ORG Battle
BY JASON KELLEY AND MITCH STOLTZ JANUARY 31, 2020


Once appearing to be a done deal, the sale of the .ORG registry to private equity is facing new delays and new opposition, after a successful protest in front of ICANN last week by nonprofits and an intervention by the California Attorney General. Private equity firm Ethos Capital’s proposed $1.1 billion purchase of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) has raised nearly unanimous opposition from the nonprofit world, along with expressions of concern from technical experts, members of Congress, two UN Special Rapporteurs, and U.S. state charities regulators. ICANN, the nonprofit body that oversees the Internet’s domain name system, has found itself under increasing pressure to reject the deal.
“ICANN, You Can Stop The Sale!”

Last Friday’s protest at ICANN’s Los Angeles headquarters was the culmination of two months of intense backlash to the sale by nonprofits from around the globe, from The Girl Scouts of America, Consumer Reports, and the YMCA to Wikimedia and Oxfam. Nonprofit professionals and technologists gathered to tell ICANN their concerns in person: a private equity–owned firm running the .ORG registry would have strong incentives to undermine the privacy and free speech rights of nonprofit organizations, and to exploit them financially, in pursuit of new revenue streams for its investors. Besides potentially raising annual registration fees, PIR could censor nonprofit organizations at the request of powerful corporations or governments, or it could collect and monetize web browsing data about the people who visit .ORG websites.

The day before the protest, ICANN and PIR agreed to extend the contractual deadline for ICANN’s review of the sale by nearly a month, until February 17th. Although ICANN initially demanded transparency from PIR; its owner, the Internet Society (ISOC); and Ethos Capital around the details of the sale and the legal framework of PIR’s new for-profit status, very little of this information has been released to the public. ICANN even seems to be ignoring a formal request [.pdf] for information by the Address Supporting Organization, part of the “Empowered Community” that was created to oversee ICANN after its independence from U.S. government control. Despite its initial lack of transparency, ICANN now seems to be feeling pressure from the public not to rubber-stamp the acquisition.

The protest was organized by EFF, NTEN, Fight for the Future, and Demand Progress. Shortly before it started, ICANN staff seemed ready to talk to the protesters, reaching out to the organizers and offering to meet with them in person after the event. The organizers agreed, and suggested ICANN staff and the board join during the protest as well—standing with protesters, if they’d like, or observing, to learn more about the coalition and their concerns. But on the day of the protest, ICANN staff canceled the in-person meeting.





As ICANN’s board of directors met inside, EFF’s Elliot Harmon explained to the crowd outside what was at stake: the .ORG ecosystem is "not a product to be sold. It's not this asset that you can let acquire a bunch of value over 16 years and then sell it to a private equity firm. It's something special. It's part of the infrastructure that the global NGO sector relies on.” Supporters joined in chants of “1,2,3,4, profit’s not what .ORG’s for!” and “ICANN, you can stop the sale!” As Amy Sample Ward, CEO of NTEN, said, “This is [ICANN’s] job. This is their responsibility… if we were to make a decision about who could own and manage the .ORG domain that truly had nonprofits and the public's interest at heart it would not be a private equity firm. So we understand the role that ICANN has apparently more than they seem to, and we are calling on them to step in, stop the sale, and to immediately open up a multi-stakeholder process.”

At the end of the rally, surprising the protestors, the entire ICANN board came out to meet them in person. Organizers handed copies of two petitions, signed by 34,000 individuals and over 700 nonprofit organizations, to Board President Maarten Botterman, in a powerful moment that signaled ICANN’s willingness to consider the protesters’ concerns.



Protesters gather at ICANN in support of nonprofits and .orgs


ICANN's board receives the petition


Also last week, well-known international NGO’s including Amnesty International, Access Now, and the Sierra Club held a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to tell world leaders that selling .ORG puts civil society at risk. Numerous recent stories in the press have covered nonprofits’ concerns as well, from the lack of transparency in the process and the failure of ICANN to consider alternatives to the danger the sale could represent to ICANN’s own governance.
California Attorney General Asks for Unredacted Financial Info On Sale, Questions ICANN’s Authority

The California Attorney General’s Office has also reached out to ICANN, according to correspondence published on the ICANN website [.pdf], and asked for in-depth information on the sale. Some of its questions overlap with the questions ICANN has asked of PIR. According to ICANN, the Attorney General’s request constitutes an order that overrides confidentiality agreements which previously let ICANN hold back information, and requires them to respond with the confidential documents. On account of that request, ICANN has asked PIR for two more months to review the sale, meaning that the sale cannot be completed before April. In the meantime, the Attorney General’s office will be “analyz[ing] the impact to the nonprofit community, including to ICANN.”

Among the documents requested are not only the financial agreements, meeting minutes, documentation, and correspondence related to the transfer itself, but also:
Detailed information about the removal of domain price caps, which occurred just months before the sale was announced, and which ICANN, ISOC, and PIR have continuously (and curiously) claimed was unrelated to the sale.
Detailed information about ICANN staff and ICANN’s conflict-of-interest policy, indicating the Attorney General’s concern that at least some of those involved in the sale are self-dealing.
Historical information about ICANN’s own authority to manage the top-level domains, which could mean the Attorney General’s office is concerned enough about this transfer to put its trust in ICANN’s governance ability at risk.

We’re glad to see the Attorney General investigating the sale on behalf of nonprofit organizations. In addition to answering the Attorney General, ICANN should also respond to the many questions posed by the nonprofit community itself, many of which overlap. Three big questions the nonprofit community continues to ask of ICANN and PIR: How does Ethos plan on paying back the debt it will accrue in the purchase of PIR, without negatively impacting .ORGs? What “new products and services” does Ethos intend to offer to the .ORG ecosystem that makes this sale necessary? And will those new products and services serve the needs of nonprofits, or exploit them?

People who work on Internet governance issues get nervous when governments throw their weight around, and for good reason: ICANN volunteers have worked hard to keep the domain name system and other parts of the Internet’s governance structure out of government hands. Since 2016, ICANN is no longer formally supervised by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and no national government can dictate policy there, as much as some may want to. Instead of answering to governments, ICANN is supposed to answer to the community of Internet users. ICANN’s independence is an important check against censorship and government surveillance through the DNS. But that independence is fragile. It depends on ICANN maintaining legitimacy through good processes for public input and by being responsive to the concerns of Internet users who are most in need of protection, such as nonprofit users. If ICANN can only give rubber-stamp approval to billion-dollar deals that don’t protect Internet users from surveillance and censorship, then why does ICANN exist?

To avoid government intervention here, and the dangerous precedent it would set, ICANN needs to insist on more transparency around the sale of PIR, and to actively solicit public input through a multi-stakeholder process. Over the last few months, it’s been increasingly obvious that the public needs to be involved. That’s why EFF thanks each of the 34,000 individuals and over 700 organizations who signed a petition to ICANN, all who expressed their fears or requested more information about this sale, and those who helped rally in support of their favorite nonprofits at ICANN. The nonprofit and .ORG community have been united in their concern that this deal presents to civil society since it was announced, and we’re glad to see the Attorney General join us in questioning the value that this sale supposedly brings to the nonprofit ecosystem.




The sale of the .ORG registry will impact the nonprofits we all care about. Please take a moment to add your name to the petition demanding a stop to the sale. If you represent an organization that would be affected by the sale, then you can find instructions there for adding your organization’s name to our coalition letter.

Thank you to our friends at NTEN, Fight for the Future, and Demand Progress—and especially to NTEN CEO Amy Sample Ward—for your work in organizing the protest.

TAKE ACTION

STAND UP FOR .ORG
CNN & MSNBC FAVOR THIS 'MODERATE' CANDIDATE LATELY

Image Credit: CNN

In election news, presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar is facing calls to suspend her campaign over the case of Myon Burrell, an African-American teenager who was sentenced to life in prison over the 2002 murder of 11-year-old Tyesha Edwards. Klobuchar led the case against Myon Burrell when she was Hennepin County’s district attorney. But a new Associated Press report says she may have mishandled the case and that Burrell could be innocent. The Associated Press report shows how prosecutors had no DNA or fingerprints tying Burrell to the murder and that they relied on jailhouse informants, some of whom have since recanted their testimonies. Burrell has always maintained his innocence. The Minneapolis NAACP, Black Lives Matter Twin Cities and other racial justice groups are calling on Klobuchar to suspend her presidential campaign.
Protests over NYC transit fares may make for a rough commute home
Friday Jan 31, 2020

By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Commuters might be in for a rougher ride home than usual on Friday afternoon if they use public transit in New York City due to protests.

A group called Decolonize This Place has called for a fare strike on MTA subways and buses and protests on those transit systems Friday afternoon that could also affect PATH.

The group protested at 5 p.m. at Grand Central Terminal, which draw large crowds. That led Suburban Transit to issue an alert to commuters riding its Crosstown buses that there may be heavier traffic due to delays from a demonstration on 42nd Street.

As of 6:20 p.m., the protest was moving west on 42nd Street toward Times Square, causing rolling street closures, and some protests were happening at penn Station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal, WCBS Newsradio 880 reported. Meanwhile MTA officials denounced vandalism to turnstiles and fare equipment.

A giant gathering at Grand Central right now demanding free transit in NYC, and cops out of our subways.

Police just arrested one man for unknown reasons and the crowd surged forward, chanting:

“THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!” pic.twitter.com/H13UYHUdcH— Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) January 31, 2020

The protests were sparked by the MTA’s ramped up fight against fare evasion and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s decision to hire 500 additional police officers at a cost of $250 million which protest organizers said on social media targets the poor and people of color. Those officers were deployed on Friday.

Organizers of the protest did not respond to an email seeking comment. The group also favors free transit fares.

Demonstrators unfurled a giant banner calling for a fare strike and hung it from an upper level of the World Trade Center transit hub Friday morning.

The group also called for a protest at 5 p.m. at Grand Central Terminal.

How this will affect commuters’ trips home is unclear. Actions posted on Twitter show emergency exits being zip-tied open in some subway stations, some riders “swiping it forward” and graffiti.

Now || We are receiving reports “Chained open + superglue in the swipes” on #J31 #FTP3 pic.twitter.com/qneyxY5XFJ— DecolonizeThisPlace (@decolonize_this) January 31, 2020

One Twitter user posted a notice from an employer sending workers home two-hours early so they could avoid any transit trouble from the protests.

We have eyes and ears. This is a movement and our demands are clear.👇🏽 pic.twitter.com/WPWicefpmQ— DecolonizeThisPlace (@decolonize_this) January 31, 2020

The group has called for non-violent protests. Including fare evasion, “swipe it forward” where riders pay for another riders fare with a Metrocard and other acts of non-violent protest.

Other actions reported on Twitter included putting glue on OMNY fare readers on some turnstiles and putting superglue in MetroCard swipe readers. Those actions were denounced by MTA officials.

“This demonstration activity follows the dangerous pattern of previous activities that have resulted in vandalization and defacement of MTA property – clearly violating laws," said Patrick Warren, MTA Chief Safety Officer. “Those actions divert valuable time, money and resources away from investments in transit services that get New Yorkers to their jobs, schools, doctors and other places they need to go.”

The MTA is monitoring conditions and cooperating with the NYPD and MTA PD to maintain service while ensuring everyone’s safety, he said.