Today’s Pipeline Protests Are a Response and Reaction to Centuries of Lip Service and Neglect by Colonial Governments

By

 Chief Wiindawtegowinini Isadore Day

 -

February 18, 2020

By Isadore Day, CEO of Bimaadzwin

What Canada is seeing right now — in the manifestation of railway and highway blockades and downtown rallies across the country — is as much about pipelines in British Columbia as it is about the lack of response to the 1990 Oka Crisis; the Idle No More Movement; Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Children; the ongoing cycle of poverty and despair. Canadians should be reminded that First Nations were starved and forced off their lands in order to build the railways in western Canada.

It is very telling that Prime Minister Trudeau has convened an “Incident Response Group” emergency meeting this week to deal with the “infrastructure disruptions” across the country. If the Trudeau government had committed to its 2015 promise on Reconciliation, and pledge to prioritize Indigenous Peoples as the most important relationship, this would not be happening today. In fact, if the Chretien government had adequately responded to the ground-breaking 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, this would not be happening today.

The number one RCAP recommendation was to provide Indigenous peoples with a land base to grow a sustainable economy. This has not happened. The socio-economic target presented by RCAP was to close the economic gap and improve social conditions by at least 50 per cent within 20 years — by 2016. Four years after that target, poverty, and despair has increased. There are more First Nation children in care than at the height of residential schools. Last week, the Assembly of First Nations launched a $10 billion lawsuit in response to the Liberal government’s repeated delays over child welfare compensation. So much for reconciliation.

Building pipelines to export a non-renewable resource through traditional territories that may provide a handful of short-term jobs per community is not the answer. In fact, back in 2012 former Prime Minister Stephen Harper endorsed the Alberta First Nation Energy Centre proposal to build a $6.6 billion dollar refinery on First Nation land outside Edmonton. The provincial government shot down the project.

A state-of-the-art refinery would have created thousands of direct and spin-off jobs for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous in Alberta and beyond, generating billions of dollars for the economy.  A new refinery, with a lifespan of 20 years, would have gone a long way towards not sending our raw bitumen by pipeline to the United States to be refined and then sent back to Canada.  One would hope that by 2040 we will have electric cars and trucks to help combat climate change.

Among the front-page headlines, this week on protests and emergency responses is the sad story that the federal government has failed to roll out the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $35 billion investment fund. Seriously, this situation should also be included in the Prime Minister’s Incident Response Group meeting. Spend that infrastructure funding on ending the First Nation housing crisis. Accelerate an end to boil water advisories. Build much-needed schools and medical centres in remote communities. The list goes on.

Besides infrastructure, the federal government must make procurement of Indigenous goods and services a top priority. For example, it will take a decade to renovate Parliament Hill.  How many First Nation companies and employees have been hired? How many vacant federal buildings and land in Ottawa – and across the country – have been allocated as urban reserve economic centres for First Nations? Saskatchewan has the best model where even remote First Nations have urban reserves in the nearest towns and cities.

Finally, there has been much concern about the national supply chain of goods that have been slowed and shut down as a result of the railroad blockades. It is ironic that the most successful supply chain of renewable resources in Canada right now is the First Nation cannabis supply. There are First Nation dispensaries from BC to Newfoundland that have a lock on a significant portion of Canada’s cannabis market. In every First Nation community that is selling or growing cannabis, dozens of residents are employed, millions of dollars are generated weekly.

The potential billion-dollar Indigenous cannabis industry has renewed and revived First Nation sovereignty and Nationhood. Many communities are now developing their own cannabis laws and regulations within their jurisdictions. While pipeline protests have unified a certain segment of society, the developing cannabis sector has unified a cross country push for First Nation control of a commodity that will generate own-source revenues for generations. In fact, cannabis on-reserve has already made a dramatic positive impact on the quality of life.

The simplest first step for the federal government is to support the First Nation cannabis industry as a significant contributor on the road to economic reconciliation. At the same time, First Nations must prove to both the federal and provincial governments that the products are safe and regulated and that revenues are also being generated for the good of the community.  When the Algonquin receives the right to sell cannabis to tourists visiting Parliament Hill, then Canada will truly have begun to atone for centuries of lip service and neglect.

Les Leyne: Remarkable organizing prowess fuels protests


Les Leyne / Times Colonist FEBRUARY 15, 2020 

Saul Brown talks to Wet'suwet'en supporters in front of 1515 Douglas St. 

near Victoria City Hall on Friday. Feb. 14, 2020
Photograph By DARREN STONE, TIMES COLONIST



The motives and validity of the protest shutdowns are up for debate, but the organizational prowess is beyond dispute. It’s a remarkable achievement to co-ordinate thousands of people in massive civil disobedience across Canada.

And it confirms what’s already obvious — the B.C. and federal governments are dealing with something significant and ongoing.

Two years ago, there was a brief glimpse of the strategic thinking that’s going into the demonstrations. It was a small political story that passed quickly, but this week suggests the concepts that came to light then are still in play.

It was about “the hive.”

The reference was in a planning document that leaked after Environment Minister George Heyman attended a meeting at a Bowen Island retreat with some people who were dedicated to blocking the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline proposal.

The opposition Liberals landed on the outline and accused Heyman of consorting with activists and agitators.

He said he was just doing his job, meeting everyone. The rest of the cabinet just rolled their eyes and laughed off the opposition’s dark suspicions.

But nobody’s laughing today. Because the hive looks to be alive and well, and buzzing around the NDP government’s head.

It was described at the time as a lift-off for “ongoing coordination of organizational support for mass action.” The outline described a coalition of grassroots groups that would support and share information about mass, creative and non-violent direct actions.

“The Hive brings resources, money, action experience and technical know-how, capacity and co-ordination experience.”

It described regular meetings where decisions are made by consensus, but groups are free to act independently as their work requires.

Flowing from that was “the Swarm.” It brings energy, creative, hard-hitting plans and momentum,” said the outline.

It gave various examples of how an opportunity for mass action might be identified and how sponsors of specific protest actions could tap into the hive and get support to make it a success.

“This group is about inspiring and supporting action on a mass scale … This group is an organizing structure, not a brand. We will not have a brand or presence in public beyond what is necessary to achieve our goals.”

It committed to non-violent direct action and avoid harm to individuals and “unnecessary damage to property.”

It also recommended digital security protocols to maintain a low profile — discuss tactics in person wherever possible, prevent documents from being publicly viewable, use encrypted message apps and ensure phone calls are private.

It’s not known if the specific hive referred to is still functional.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline project collapsed before mass protests were called.

But the outline is a perfect model for how to accomplish exactly what unfolded this week — coordinated, mass action on a grand scale.

It doesn’t just happen spontaneously. It needs a lot of careful thinking, and big pool of volunteers.

Just So You Know: Another document from even further back came to light this week. It is much more obviously in play today and it’s more than a little ironic.

A message circulating widely refers to how “legal observers” were trained by the protesters to monitor the response of police and authorities to the disruptions.

The co-author of the handbook being used?

It was David Eby, now B.C.’s attorney general, who wrote it for protesters active during the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympics while he was with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

The same Eby whose Vancouver-Point Grey constituency office was occupied this week by protesters who traumatized office staff.

Legal observers following the Eby handbook were on hand at the legislature blockades.

He described their role in the guide as “calm, independent objective witnesses to the activities of security forces.”

They are considered separate from protesters and their main job is to collect evidence that protesters later pursuing complaints against police might use.

He recommended against providing legal advice, interfering, or speaking to the media.

The tactics are bewildering. How antagonizing tens of thousands of taxpayers by shutting down Metro Vancouver transportation links constitutes a win is hard to figure.

But demonstrators are following a comprehensive and thorough game plan as they raise the stakes.

lleyne@timescolonist.com

The Law Says Chelsea Manning Must Be Freed From Prison

Natasha Lennard

February 19 2020

Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning

 arrives at the Albert Bryan U.S Courthouse on May 16, 2019, 

in Alexandria, Va. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

TO OBSERVE CHELSEA Manning’s actions over the last months is to know that she will not be coerced. She could have avoided her current incarceration at Alexandria Detention Center in Virginia, where she has been held for nearly a year. She could have freed herself at any point. She could have avoided accruing fines of $230,000 and counting. She could still avoid further days in jail and further crippling debts to the government. All she would have to do — all she ever had to do — is testify in front of the federal grand jury currently investigating WikiLeaks.

What has long been clear — no amount of jail time will coerce Manning into speaking — is now, surely, undeniable. The sole purpose of Manning’s detention has been to coerce her to testify, and it has failed.

On Wednesday, Manning’s legal team filed what’s known as a Grumbles motion in court, asserting that Manning has proven herself incoercible and so must, according to legal statute, be released from her incarceration.

“Should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.”


It is a grim peculiarity of American law that a person who refuses to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena may be held in contempt of court and fined or imprisoned with the express purpose of coercing testimony, but when the coercive condition is absent, such incarceration becomes illegal. Wednesday’s motion directs Judge Anthony Trenga, who is presiding over the grand jury and Manning’s imprisonment, to accordingly recognize the illegality in this case.

“The key issue before Judge Trenga is whether continued incarceration could persuade Chelsea to testify,” said Manning’s attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, on filing the Grumbles motion. “Judges have complained of the ‘perversity’ of this law: that a witness may win their freedom by persisting in their contempt of court. However, should Judge Trenga agree that Chelsea will never agree to testify, he will be compelled by the law to order her release.”

If the motion is successful, Manning will be freed for the very reason she has been caged: her silence. The judge can decide to recognize that Manning won’t speak as a consequence of more time in jail — or because she will continue to face unprecedented $1,000-per-day fines. Any other conclusion, after her months of steadfast and principled grand jury resistance, would fly in the face of all reason. The whistleblower’s actions and words make it plain.

“I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral,” Manning said in a statement Wednesday. “It is easier to endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self-interest and not principle.”

FEDERAL GRAND JURIES have long been used to investigate and intimidate activist communities — from the late 19th century labor movements, to the Puerto Rican Independence Movement and black liberationists of the last century, to the more recent persecutions of environmentalists, anarchists, and Indigenous rights fighters. Manning has consistently shown her refusal to cooperate with any such process, and again asserted in her latest statement that grand juries are “used by federal prosecutors to harass and disrupt political opponents and activists through secrecy, coercion, and jailing without trial.”

Motion to Release Chelsea Manning29 pages


THE GRUMBLES MOTION filed on Wednesday contains a letter from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, written late last year accusing the United States of submitting Manning to treatment that is tantamount to torture. As I wrote after the letter was first released, Melzer not only criticized the torturous practice of coercive imprisonment and harsh fines, but noted that Manning’s “categorical and persistent refusal to give testimony demonstrates the lack of their coercive effect.”

The motion also includes a personality assessment carried out by Dr. Sara Boyd, a clinical and forensic psychologist from the University of Virginia, which suggests that Manning is constitutionally incapable of acting against her conscience. “Manning exhibits long standing personality features that relate to her scrupulousness, her persistence and dedication, and her willingness to endure social disapproval as well as formal punishments,” Boyd wrote.


Related
Chelsea Manning Spent Most of the Last Decade in Prison. The U.N. Says Her Latest Stint Is Tantamount to Torture.


Manning’s consistent behavior in the face of immense hardship and financial ruin should be wholly sufficient evidence that she will not be coerced; the personality assessment and the letter from the U.N. rapporteur no more than state the obvious. Were the judge to decide to continue imprisoning Manning, which he has the discretion to do, he would do so in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Meltzer-Cohen, Manning’s attorney, has in the past successfully seen a grand jury resister released as a consequence of her filing a Grumbles motion. In 2014, her former client, a New York-based anarchist, was released after spending 241 days in a federal prison for refusing to testify. Meltzer-Cohen filed a motion arguing that since the young man had made amply evident that he would never cooperate, the coercive premise of his imprisonment was proven invalid.

That motion was aided by letters from friends and acquaintances, as well as a Change.org petition — arguably less august testimony than that which accompanies Manning’s motion. But the judge in that case ruled, begrudgingly, that the evidence compelled him to release the prisoner. “The refusal to testify is somehow transmogrified from a lock to a key,” the judge wrote in his decision. At the time, Meltzer-Cohen told me that the case illustrated the power of grand jury resistance; that people “have been capable of standing strong in the face of serious consequences” and that resisters “can survive and even prevail.”

It is a perverse juridical logic that finds potential justice in brutally coercing a witness to testify before a secretive hearing, ripe for governmental abuse. But even the nefarious law, if followed to the letter, demands that Manning be immediately freed.

Is Russia cozying up to Syria's Kurds amid rift with Turkey?

ARTICLE SUMMARY
The United States has reportedly cautioned the Kurds not to fight Turkey in any potential escalation in Syria, but Russia appears to have moved closer to the Kurds, as suggested by Kurdish collaboration with the Syrian army in areas along Idlib’s boundaries with Afrin.

Fehim Tastekin February 20, 2020

REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki
Russian and Syrian national flags flutter on military vehicles

 near Manbij, Syria, Oct. 15, 2019.

The escalation in Idlib has left Turkey vacillating between Russia’s tough options and the United States’ enticing prodding, as it maintains its menacing posture to force the Syrian army’s retreat to now-defunct cease-fire lines in the rebel stronghold. Amid the standoff, the Syrian Kurds are becoming a key factor in both US and Russian calculations to sway Turkey’s attitude.

The US administration is said to be considering options to back Turkey in a potential thrust in Idlib and, in a further move pleasing Ankara, has reportedly cautioned the Kurds to stay out of the conflict. Russia, for its part, appears to have unfolded the Kurdish card, albeit rather discreetly at this time, in a way that goes beyond reviving the dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus.

Until recently, the Kurds worried that Russia, in a bid to keep Turkey on its side in Syria, might allow it to take control of the Kurdish city of Kobani on the Turkish border in return for Turkish concessions in Idlib. In fact, this has been a fear recurring at each apparent progress in the Turkish-Russian partnership. Amid the recent head-spinning developments, however, the Kurds sense that the Russian door might open to them to an extent they have never imagined.

In general terms, the Kurdish position could be summarized as follows: The Kurds still place importance on their partnership with the United States on the ground, continue to consider Turkey’s military presence as a primary threat, and — while seeing Russia as the guarantor of any negotiations with Damascus — they keep in mind that Russia’s strategic interests might lead it to accommodate Turkey, as it did in 2018 when it acquiesced to Turkey taking over Afrin.

Yet the order of priorities in the Kurdish approach has changed since Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring in northeast Syria in October 2019. The notion that Damascus should be the address of settlement on the Kurdish issue has gained weight as a general strategic choice for the Kurdish-led self-administration in northern and eastern Syria. In late December, the Russians had a meeting with Kurdish representatives at Russia's Khmeimim air base, after which they arranged a meeting between the Kurdish team and Syrian government representatives in Damascus. The talks, in which intelligence chief Ali Mamlouk led the Syrian side, resulted in a deal to set up joint committees with a view of furthering negotiations down the road.

The straining of Russian-Turkish ties over Idlib has resulted in some undeclared changes in Kurdish tactical choices. According to Kurdish sources contacted by Al-Monitor, the Kurds are collaborating with the Syrian army in certain parts of the operations in northwest Aleppo, namely in areas along the boundaries of Afrin. An expansion of the offensive toward Afrin is likely to make the Kurdish participation more visible.

Standing out as two other potential fronts are Tel Rifaat, where the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) has redeployed after pulling out from Afrin in 2018, and Manbij, where Syrian and Russian troops have moved in since the withdrawal of US forces. To the east of the Euphrates, meanwhile, Ras al-Ain and Tell Abyad, which are controlled by the Turkish military and its ally, the Syrian National Army, as well as nearby Tel Tamer and Ain Issa, which lie on the M4 highway, are considered key areas to which potential clashes might spread. The said locations are already the scene of sporadic confrontations in the form of transient, controlled exchanges, but in the event of a direct face-off between the Syrian and Turkish militaries in Idlib, they are likely to turn into hot battlefields.

The joint Russian-Turkish patrols along the Turkish-Syrian border, which had stalled after the killing of Turkish soldiers in Idlib earlier this month, resumed Feb. 17, yet the Kurdish sources believe the Turkish-Russian arrangement reached in Sochi Oct. 22 after Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring has collapsed. The collapse of the deal would mean that Russia, a guarantor of the cease-fire, would stop acting as a brake holding up the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian military in the region. Still, making such a conclusion appears a bit premature at present.

Speaking of the Afrin front — which has been effectively opened with the Kurdish involvement — and other potential fronts, another curbing factor, namely the United States, is at play.

According to US sources, quoted by prominent Turkish journalist Murat Yetkin on his personal blog, the United States has made it clear to the YPG that they would not get US support if they fight the Turkish military. “A senior official stressed that YPG forces were ‘clearly and repeatedly’ told that the United States would not choose them over Turkey in case of a conflict,” Yetkin wrote Feb. 18.

The report quotes a senior US source as analyzing that Turkey’s October incursion, while opposed by Washington, seems to have accomplished two objectives, namely establishing Turkish military presence in northeast Syria, which is critical for future developments in Syria, and demonstrating that the United States would not protect the YPG against Turkey, even though Ankara was concerned and at least some in the YPG believed that the United States would do so.

Regarding the situation in Idlib, Yetkin summarizes the comments of US sources as follows: “US forces will not directly get involved in conflict [in Idlib]; that is our limit. But we will support Turkey in other areas, from advanced intelligence services to special equipment when needed.”

The journalist quotes the source as saying that Washington will not raise any objections if other NATO allies decide to assist Turkey by deploying Patriot batteries at the border to “ensure air cover.”

One of the sources notes that Turkey is capable of dispatching up to 45,000 troops to the region in a short period of time, stressing that “neither Syria nor Russia would be capable of that.” The source, however, adds that Washington does not expect Russia to strain ties with Turkey “too much” over Idlib, given “the strategic significance” of the relationship.

A Kurdish source contacted by Al-Monitor denied the Kurds had received any message to not expect US backing if they fight Turkey, but they are not ruling out such an eventuality. “The United States is against any alignment between the Kurds and Damascus. Saying that [the Kurds] should not fight Turkey amounts to saying that [the Kurds] should stay clear of Idlib,” the source noted.

Stressing that the situation remained fluid, the source said, “We are on a very fluctuant ground, where cooperation, contradiction and conflict between the United States and Turkey, between Turkey and Russia and between Russia and the United States are going on simultaneously. So, we are unable to speak in definitive terms. Still, we can emphasize this: Russia’s role as mediator and guarantor has become more prominent [for the Kurds] after the US attitude in the face of Turkey’s invasion [in October].”

According to the source, the deepening of the Turkish-Russian rift is significant for the Kurds in the sense that it could lead Russia to take the Kurds into account more prominently and result in a solution mechanism on the Kurdish question. “If the conflict in Idlib grows, the Russians are likely to open the Kurdish card. In fact, we can say they have already opened it to some extent,” the source said.

Nevertheless, the Kurds believe it is still premature to declare a clear position, not ruling out the possibility that the Russians might eventually lack the resolve to go into a full-fledged face-off with Turkey. Of note, while reaching out to the Kurds on the one side, the Russians are trying to rouse Turkey’s sensitivities on the Kurds on the other. In a Feb. 18 statement, for instance, Russia said the United States had moved more than 300 truckloads of weapons from Iraq to northeast Syria this year, with the weapons being “used against Turkish troops” in the region. In other words, the “dual usability” of the Kurdish card is another reason why the Kurds are blowing on cold water.

Fehim Tastekin is a Turkish journalist and a columnist for Turkey Pulse who previously wrote for Radikal and Hurriyet. He has also been the host of the weekly program "SINIRSIZ," on IMC TV. As an analyst, Tastekin specializes in Turkish foreign policy and Caucasus, Middle East and EU affairs. He is the author of “Suriye: Yikil Git, Diren Kal,” “Rojava: Kurtlerin Zamani” and “Karanlık Coktugunde - ISID.” Tastekin is founding editor of the Agency Caucasus. On Twitter: @fehimtastekin



Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/02/turkey-syria-russia-idlib-unfolding-kobani-card-kurds-sdg.html#ixzz6EqSjoKgh

Trump-linked lobbyist turns from Gulf Arabs to more toxic clients


Aaron Schaffer February 19, 2020

REUTERS/Toby Melville
Isabel dos Santos, Chairwoman of Sonangol, speaks during a Reuters

 Newsmaker event in London, Britain, Oct. 18, 2017.

A lobbying firm that made a fortune promising Gulf Arab clients access to President Donald Trump is looking to ever more controversial work amid a dizzying turnover of customers and staff.

The Sonoran Policy Group stopped working for Kuwaiti oil magnate Saud Abdul Aziz al-Arfaj on Dec. 31, making him one of more than a dozen clients terminated since the firm took off in the wake of Trump’s election. The termination follows the end of other lucrative contracts with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and a shift toward clients that are radioactive in Washington, as firm founder Robert Stryk seeks to keep the money flowing after making almost $14.5 million over the past three years.

Last month, Sonoran drew bipartisan condemnation after getting paid $2 million as a subcontractor to Foley and Lardner representing the government of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. Foley ended the contract under pressure, but there is no indication Sonoran returned the money.

Just weeks before that, Sonoran signed two contracts worth a total of $2.2 million to represent Isabel dos Santos, Africa’s richest woman and the daughter of Angola’s former president. Dos Santos turned to the firm just one day after being contacted by journalists investigating allegations that she siphoned millions of dollars from the continent.

“It does certainly appear that [Sonoran has] a certain clientele that tends to gravitate toward them, particularly at a time of crisis,” said Jodi Vittori, a defense industry research and policy manager for Transparency International's Defense and Security program. “Clearly it seems to be on a number of country’s shortlists when they’re in significant crisis.”

Sonoran did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But public records paint a picture of a firm in turmoil.

Lobbying disclosures show that six of the eight lobbyists who have worked for Sonoran's foreign clients have now left the firm, leaving only Stryk and CEO Christian Bourge. And at least 15 foreign clients have ended their relationship with the firm, leaving only six active accounts, including Maduro’s regime and dos Santos.

Meanwhile, Accelerant Studios, a Sonoran contractor, sued the firm in a District of Columbia court last year, claiming nearly $200,000 in unpaid fees, including proposals to represent Egypt and the Kurdistan Regional Government, neither of which ended up signing contracts with Sonoran. Sonoran has denied the allegations.

Also, at least one of Sonoran’s former employees has not been shy about criticizing the firm.

“This is what happens when you get desperate for money,” Andrew Nehring tweeted in response to Sonoran’s $2 million payout involving Venezuela. “You take money from Maduro’s brutal regime to get him off lists he deserves/should be on.”

Even in Trump’s tumultuous Washington, Stryk’s rise from unpaid West Coast adviser for the president’s 2016 campaign to the lobbying high life has stood out.

“This is what happens when you get desperate for money,” Andrew Nehring tweeted in response to Sonoran’s $2 million payout involving Venezuela. “You take money from Maduro’s brutal regime to get him off lists he deserves/should be on.”

After an auspicious start helping connect New Zealand’s prime minister with the president-elect, Sonoran scored an improbably lucrative contract with Saudi Arabia's Interior Ministry in May 2017.

Stryk personally signed the deal with the ministry, which was then under the control of the then-crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, on May 5. Two months earlier rival prince Mohammed bin Salman had met with Trump at the White House, and Nayef realized that “he needed to improve his game,” Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told CNN at the time.

Six weeks later, however, a palace coup toppled bin Nayef and effectively ended the lobbying contract before it ever really began. Sonoran pocketed $5.4 million up front on May 12, 2017 and has never disclosed returning any of it in subsequent lobbying filings or in response to queries from multiple news outlets since then.

In February 2018, Sonoran signed a $500,000-a-year contract with the Embassy of Bahrain in Washington to lobby Congress and the Trump administration. Bourge met with a dozen House members and two senators until the contract ended in October 2019, with most of that activity taking place in the first year of the contract.

And in February 2019, the firm signed a $1.2 million deal to “provide promotion and counsel” to al-Arfaj regarding a disputed oil region between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Sonoran reported no lobbying activity — and only $600,000 in payments — before the contract was terminated at the end of last year.

The pattern of high payments for little lobbying work has continued since then. In its latest lobbying disclosure, which covers the second half of 2019, Sonoran reported $1.1 million in payments from seven clients but just two meetings with members of Congress, both on behalf of Bahrain, along with a handful of phone calls on behalf of an Albanian political party.

Despite the firm's paltry record of lobbying sitting US officials, Stryk has remained in Trump's orbit.

Stryk helped organize a visit to Bahrain by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani in December 2018, The New York Times reported, during which the former New York mayor sought to land a security consulting contract with Manama.

Sonoran has also reportedly been involved in helping Giuliani in his quest to win a similar contract with the Democratic Republic of the Congo through Israeli firm Mer Security and Communication Systems. Sonoran signed a $1.25 million contract with Mer in July 2018 to lobby on behalf of the Congolese government as it faced the threat of US sanctions for huamn rights abuses and corruption.

As recently as last year, Stryk was mentioned (along with former Trump Florida lobbyist Brian Ballard) as someone Giuliani associate Lev Parnas thought could help with efforts to dig up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in Ukraine. Parnas' handwritten notes mentioning Stryk were made public by House Democrats during Trump's impeachment last month.

Aaron Schaffer writes about Middle East lobbying for Al-Monitor in Washington, DC. He co-writes and reports for Al-Monitor's bi-weekly lobbying newsletter. On Twitter: @aaronjschaffer

Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/02/sonoran-policy-group-stryk-lobbying-clients-controversial.html#ixzz6EqRWmNEo

Related coverage:
Trump defender Dershowitz signs on as lobbyist for Israeli billionaire accused of looting Africa

Magnitsky law spawns cottage industry of sanctions lobbying

Dueling Middle East lobbyists rush to praise Trump for Soleimani killing

Explore Al-Monitor's award-winning database of Middle East lobbying here.

High court rules Cairo University can restrict use of full veils

Salwa Samir February 10, 2020

REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
A woman wearing a niqab stands near a hieroglyphic mural in el-Dokki 

district of greater Giza, south of Cairo, Dec. 22, 2012.

After five years of public debate, Egypt's top court has settled the issue: Cairo University, one of Egypt's oldest higher education institutions, can ban its professors from wearing full-face veils, or niqabs, inside lecture halls. The ban does not apply to the rest of the campus.

The High Administrative Court ruled Jan. 27 that, while a person's choice of attire is among the personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, this freedom is not limitless and should not contradict public morals. The court noted that the Regulation of Universities Law doesn’t require staff members to don uniforms, but does demand that they abide by university traditions. With its ruling, the court rejected the appeal by some 80 of the schools' teachers who challenged the ban.

The next day, Cairo University media adviser Mahmoud Alam Eddin told CBC News that the niqab ban in lecture halls would be implemented by Feb. 8, the start of the second semester. Professors who don't comply won't be allowed to teach, he added.

Ain Shams University quickly followed suit, with President Mahmoud al-Metiny announcing Feb. 4 that his school would implement a ban immediately.

The controversy arose five years ago when Gaber Nassar, former president of Cairo University, called for the prohibition. Nassar said back then that the veil hinders clear communication with students, especially during academic lectures.

Egyptian parliament members have attempted numerous times to prohibit niqabs.

In 2018, legislator Ghada Ajami proposed a draft law that called for banning all women from wearing the niqab in public places such as restaurants, universities and parks and called for violators to be fined 1,000 Egyptian pounds ($63) or more.

Ajami described the niqab as a source of sedition in society, as it reflects the extremist ideology of ultraconservative movements. She said the ban would help combat terrorism. But after backlash over the proposal, Ajami gave up the effort, acknowledging a ban might cause divisions in the country.

That same year, Mohamed Abu Hamed, another lawmaker, called on the prime minister to ban the full-face veil in state and educational institutions, similar to action taken in Algeria. But many parliamentarians rejected his call, saying it would restrict personal freedom.

Cairo University is not the first institution to succeed in barring its staff from wearing the niqab. Al-Azhar, Egypt's top religious authority, made the call in 2009.

The former grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi, issued a decision to ban female staff and students from donning the niqab at the university, even in dormitories. Tantawi said the full-face veil is a sign of radicalism and has nothing to do with Islam.

There are supporters and opponents of the ban at Cairo University and in the general public. The Revolutionary Socialists, a movement established in 2011 after the January 25 Revolution, rejected the court's decision.

It said in a statement on Facebook, "We must defend women's right to choose their clothing." The university should pay attention to "factors that actually affect the educational process and the ability of a faculty member to deliver knowledge, not her appearance."

Lawmaker Dalia Youssef hailed the recent ruling and called for extending the ban to include students as well, to help shape Egyptian society’s way of thinking.

“I asked the minister of higher education [and the Ministry of Health] to issue a decision that applies to all universities," she said by phone on an al-Haya TV talk show Jan. 28. "The matter doesn’t require a draft law, as there is already a court ruling.”

Shaimaa Mousa, an assistant lecturer in Greek and Latin studies at Cairo University's School of Arts, told Al-Monitor she totally agrees with the ban.

“Actually, I am against the niqab, whether in or outside the university. How can I communicate with a person who is fully veiled except for her eyes?” Mousa said. “The face and body language are among the most important tools of communication."

However, Mousa noted that niqab wearers may find ways to circumvent the ban, as one ultraconservative Muslim recently suggested. Sameh Abdel Hamid, former leader of the Salafist Nour party, said Jan. 28 on Facebook that niqab-wearing staff at Cairo University should instead wear medical masks in lecture halls. He claimed the masks have many benefits, like avoiding the coronavirus. “The law will not prevent the use of masks,” Abdel Hamid said.

Salwa Samir, an Egyptian journalist, has been writing about human rights, social problems, immigration and children's and women's issues since 2005.




Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/02/egypt-cairo-university-ban-niqab-religion-freedom.html#ixzz6EqPoGmlE

Hebrew University offers credits to volunteers in right-wing lobbying group


Danny Zaken February 21, 2020


The administration of Hebrew University in Jerusalem is facing fierce criticism these days from a group of its faculty, for allowing students to receive academic credit for volunteering with the right-wing group Im Tirtzu. This organization works on several fronts and is especially known for “identifying” professors with left-wing opinions in a campaign it calls “the politicization of the academy.”

This critique has been issued by professors who aren’t necessarily politically identified, such as Michal Frankel, head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, who is now signing on her colleagues to a request for an urgent meeting of the university senate in order to discuss the matter. In addressing the faculty, Frankel wrote Feb. 13, “I believe that our role as academics and members of the senate of Hebrew University is to defend the freedom of expression and academic freedom from those who seek to curtail it and surveil it, especially as this is done, frequently, by violent means. I believe that the university will have no ability to supervise the activities of the volunteers and that the legitimacy it grants to the activities of Im Tirtzu, whose primary goal to limit the academic freedom of the faculty constitutes a threat to the continued existence of the Israeli academy as a stronghold of free thinking.”

Law professor Ruth Gavison in an internal communication among the faculty wrote that the lack of academic supervision over the activity leads to the conclusion that there is no justification to grant academic credit for such activity, and that it seems that on the list of organizations that received similar permission there is no other political group, certainly not from the left.

Attorney Eitay Mack, a graduate of the university, in a letter to Rector Barak Medina, who was behind the decision, offered an array of examples for the political activities of Im Tirtzu. He claimed that Im Tirtzu is waging an incitement and delegitimization campaign against human rights activists and organizations in Israel, including a personal campaign against employees and activists of these organizations, calling them “enemy agents” (or "planted") and defining them as backers of terrorism. He further claims that Im Tirtzu’s campaign resembles anti-Semitic campaigns and that the organization is conducting a campaign of incitement and delegitimization against faculty in institutions of higher education that it identifies as leftists and human rights activists. The messaging of this movement matches those of political parties from the right and the extreme right, he writes, and a significant part of its activities are shared with political parties on the right, including advancing legislation.

Medina responded in a letter to university faculty and in a frank opinion piece in the Haaretz newspaper. According to him, it is the obligation of the university to grant credit to students who volunteer with aid and charity organizations, according to legislation from 2018. He emphasized that according to the rules of the university volunteer work with groups that have party affiliation is not permitted, but because of the difficulty in determining which groups should be considered political and which should not, the committee authorized to discuss the issue is mainly examining the nature of concrete actions for which volunteering recognition is requested and does not deal with the general character of the groups seeking recognition. According to him, the approach that was taken is liberal, coming from the view that students should be allowed as broad a freedom to choose their volunteer activity. He added that the Im Tirtzu movement promised that the activity for which credit would be granted would only be indiscriminate aid for the needy, and would not include political activity.

It turns out that Medina himself was the subject of attacks from the same Im Tirtzu. Among other things, the movement strove to remove his candidacy to serve as judge on the Supreme Court because of his support in principle for a ceremony in September 2014 to commemorate the Nakba held by Arab Israeli students. Alon Schwartzer, head of the policy arm of Im Tirtzu then explained that demand by saying, “In the hall of justice that is supposed to be a beacon of truth for the State of Israel there is no place for a judge who encourages a narrative that negates and invalidates the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. It would be a disaster like no other if professor Medina leads the lights of justice in Israel.”

Medina told Al-Monitor this is in fact the reason that he is committed to taking a liberal approach that demands tolerance toward these kinds of groups. “The paradox of tolerance — that is, the proper treatment from a liberal viewpoint toward those who do not respect others and act to invalidate their rights — is a topic on which there is a variety of opinions in law and among thinkers. An important consideration on this issue is the influence of a policy on public opinion. I believe that we can attribute the significant erosion in public support for defending freedom of expression to a growing trend in Israeli law to permit restrictions on this right,” he noted.

Some at Hebrew University think that these steps were taken to prevent conflict with the government, in light of the “leftist” reputation the university has gained recently in several episodes. For instance, in the 2018 Lara Alqasem episode, involving an American student who had supported and been active in the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and sought to study in Israel. Medina waged a public and legal battle against Minister Gilad Erdan to allow her to study here, and won. Medina, who is considered an expert on human rights in Israel as well as worldwide, and was awarded the prize for good government in 2015, said that at the time that deportation from Israel of someone who supports the boycott could lead their associates to boycott Israel, as an act of solidarity with the activist rather than support for the boycott. He personally supports the entry to Israel of boycott activists, “and here I would argue with them and show them the other side of the issue. But in my role as rector I work in the public and national interest and because I know that Alqasem’s deportation would greatly harm the battle against the academic boycott of Israel.”

According to a senior source at Hebrew University, who spoke on condition of anonymity, it is very likely that Medina and the administration granted the permission to receive academic credit for volunteering with Im Tirtzu in order to prevent a conflict with the Ministry of Education, headed by Rabbi Rafi Peretz of the Yamina party, which is associated with Im Tirtzu. The test will be when organizations affiliated with the left or human rights organizations submit a similar request.

Danny Zaken is a journalist who works for the Israeli public radio station Kol Israel. Zaken has covered military and security affairs, West Bank settlers and Palestinian topics. He was a Knight Wallace fellow at the University of Michigan and completed the BBC Academy's journalism program. Zaken lecturers on media and journalism at the Hebrew University, the Mandel School and the Interdiscinplinary Center Herzliya. He is the former chair of the Jerusalem Journalists Association.



Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/02/israel-hebrew-university-im-tirtzu-volunteering-rightwing.html#ixzz6EqOatfKd

Exclusive: Fargo woman who's part of class action lawsuit against US Census says she wasn't paid for work


Joshua Peguero

FARGO, N.D. (Valley News Live) - In an exclusive story, a Fargo woman says she wouldn't recommend anyone working for the United States Census after she claims she hasn't been paid for work she did several years ago.

© Provided by Fargo KVLY-TV

Sally Stutlien is part of a class action lawsuit against the federal government and she says she worked for the U.S. Census Bureau from 2006 to 2012 as a field representative.

Why would you work for someone that hasn't paid you for work that you already completed,” Stutlien, who contacted our Whistleblower Hotline, said.

Stutlien said she quit, but then a few years later learned she'd been underpaid during her time there.

“I got a letter in 2016 saying that my name was part of a class action lawsuit against the US Census Bureau and they owed me a significant amount of money,” Stutlien said.

Several court documents that Valley News Live reviewed shows nearly 3500 people from across the country are owed more than $10 million for Census work.

“It's infuriating when I hear them advertising what great employees they are when they're not paying the people that have worked for them in the past,” Stutlien said.

The class action lawsuit claims they weren't paid a premium for working on Sundays. All other federal agencies received extra for working Sundays except field representatives.

According to the lawsuit, Stutlien is owed nearly $3600 and she said you were required to work Sundays.

“They knew the whole time that they were supposed to be paying more and they were paying more to...employees in other branches, but just not the field representatives," Stutlien said.

The federal government tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but the plaintiffs persisted and won a judgement in 2016.

The lawsuit has gone on for so long, however, that the main plaintiff died in April of 2018 before even getting paid.

Arlene Boop, one of the attorneys, said she's hopeful those who sued will get paid sometime this year.

“We're not talking about any of the terms now because I mean in all settlements there are some compromises, but this class has been waiting for a very long time,” Boop said.

Yet, Stutlien said she doesn't have her fingers crossed that she'll get the full amount.

“Now they're trying to negotiate to pay everyone less than what they're owed,” Stutlien said.

She also said people need to think twice this year before signing up to work for the census.

We reached out to the US Census Bureau and they told us they can't comment on any ongoing litigation.

For military personnel, 'mere membership' in a neo-Nazi group 'is not prohibited,' say military officials

Isaac Scher Feb 16, 2020

Members of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement. Mel Evans/ AP Photo

US military officials testified before a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing Tuesday, where they told legislators that personnel will not be discharged from the military for membership in a white-supremacist group.

"Mere membership in the organization is not prohibited," said Robert Grabosky, deputy director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. "Active participation," on the other hand, could result in administrative action.

A 2019 Military Times poll found that more than one-third of soldiers have seen examples of white supremacy in the military.

United States military officials testified before Congress on Tuesday, telling legislators that personnel will not be discharged from the US military for claiming membership in a neo-Nazi group.

The House Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel hearing — which featured scholars, experts, and Pentagon officials — comes on the heels of a broad uptick in white-supremacist violence that government officials are looking to curb.

"Military personnel must reject active participation in criminal gangs or other organizations that … advocate supremacist, extremist, gang-doctrine ideology or causes," said Robert Grabosky, deputy director of law enforcement at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Any military member who actively participates, he said, is subject to investigation and potentially a discharge.

But just being in a white-supremacist group will not lead to an investigation or discharge, Grabosky told Congress members. "It is important to note that the Air Force policy dictates [that] mere membership in the organization is not prohibited."

"So if I say, 'I'm a racist,' I'm not going to be investigated? I'm not going to be evaluated as to whether or not I should be kicked out?" Representative Jackie Speier, chair of the House Armed Services subcommittee, interjected.

In that case, Grabosky said, the issue would be kicked back to the commander of the individual in question, who would then "take care of them in the appropriate manner."

Grabosky presented to legislators a distinction between being a member of a neo-Nazi group and participating in one.

"Mere participation is not something that OSI [the Air Force Office of Special Investigations] actually investigates," Grabosky said to Speier. "We actually investigate the active participation of a member."

"I am flummoxed by what I've heard today," Speier said at one point during the hearing.

Other officials noted that the military has seen an uptick in active-duty personnel who are involved in extremism including white supremacy.

"Over the course of the fiscal year 2018," said Christopher McMahon, executive director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service's National Security Directorate, "the Naval Criminal Investigative Service experienced an increase in the number of domestic extremism-related reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigations involving Department of Defense-affiliated personnel."

The US Army's representative at the hearing, Joe Ethridge, made a similar observation: In 2019, the branch's criminal intelligence division saw "a small increase" in investigations of soldiers involved in "extremist activities" including white supremacy. There were 2.4 investigations per year from fiscal years 2014 through 2018, and seven investigations in 2019.

A spokesperson for the US Army told Insider that military personnel are held to very high standards.

"We prohibit military personnel from actively advocating supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes," the spokesperson said. "Soldiers who choose to engage in such acts will be held accountable for their actions."

Days prior to the Congressional hearing, a US Army Specialist pleaded guilty to sharing information about building bombs, the Jerusalem Post reported. Jarrett William Smith, who had ties to the neo-Nazi group Feuekrieg Division, was arrested in Kansas City, Kansas, last fall while on active duty at Fort Riley. He shared bomb-making instructions on Facebook and planned to use self-made explosives to target CNN and politician Beto O'Rourke.

According to a 2019 poll from Military Times, more than one-third of soldiers have seen examples of white supremacy in the military. That figure rose to 53% among soldiers of color, and stood at 30% among white ones.

In 2012, the US Marine Corps was embroiled in a scandal after a photo emerged of Marine scout snipers posing with two flags: an American flag and what appeared to be a Nazi SS flag. An internal investigation stated that the letters "SS" referred to "scout snipers," not the elite guard of the Nazi regime.

More recently, a joint investigation by ProPublica and Frontline PBS reported on six former or then-active military personnel with ties to neo-Nazi groups. One such group, Atomwaffen, is "a series of terror cells that work[s] toward civilizational collapse," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

One of the six was Vasillios Pistolis, then a Marine and Atomwaffen member. He attended the infamous Charlottesville white-supremacy rally in 2017, where he attacked at least one person with a wooden club.

Pistolis later faced a summary court-martial, roughly equivalent to a misdemeanor trial.

Read more:
Marine Corps Acknowledges Photo With Marines Posing In Front of Nazi 'SS' Flag

More than half of all Americans think Donald Trump fuels white supremacy

The number of US troops who say they've seen racism in the ranks jumped to more than one-third in 2019

West Point and the Naval Academy are investigating students giving hand gesture tied to white supremacy during Army-Navy broadcast

More Israelis, Palestinians support the 'one-state' solution

ARTICLE SUMMARY
With more and more settlements constructed, the 'one-state' solution might be the only feasible one.

Ksenia Svetlova February 18, 2020

REUTERS/Ammar Awad
A general view shows the Israeli barrier and, behind it, 

East Jerusalem neighborhoods, Jan. 29, 2020.

It is not at all clear whether US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” will ever be implemented, but the very fact that it has been made public is having an impact on the mood in Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Remarks made by the president, when the plan was first revealed on Jan. 28, did not fall on deaf ears. Many people in Israel have come to the conclusion that the ultimate purpose of the plan was the immediate, unilateral annexation of the territories by Israel. Meanwhile, in the PA, many are convinced that the plan moves the Palestinians even further away from realizing their dream of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. It now looks like the number of people on both sides who no longer believe in a two-state solution is increasing and will continue to grow, even if only gradually.

Back in September 2018, Trump said that both parties — Israelis and Palestinians — can decide on their own whether they would prefer two states or a single state. At the same time, support among the Palestinians for the idea of a single state was increasing. In 2002, when Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi proposed his solution to the conflict, which he called “Israetine” (his proposal for the name of a new state, in which both peoples would enjoy full equality), the idea of a single, democratic state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River was met with derision and ridicule in Israel, the PA and the Arab world at large. A lot of water has flowed down the Jordan River since then. It now seems as if the younger generation in the PA and a significant number of Israelis, including both settlers and supporters of the left, have adopted the idea of a single state as their final default solution, capable of ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

According to a new poll published Feb. 11 by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), headed by Khalil Shikaki, support for a two-state solution stands at less than 40% for the first time since the signing of the Oslo Accord. About 61% of respondents no longer believe that a two-state solution is viable, given the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Shikaki tweeted as much just two weeks before the release of the deal of the century, saying that only 28% of Palestinians supported the idea of a single-state solution, but that number skyrocketed to 37% after the plan was released. In an article published in Haaretz upon the release of the deal of the century, Israeli-Arab journalist Nabil Armali wrote, “Actually, the Palestinians no longer have any tools with which they can fight against Israel, apart from describing the potential damage that some envisioned single state would cause. Armed struggle doesn’t have a chance, and it is not worth depending on support from the Arab states or the Arab street.”

There has also been a dramatic shift among Israelis regarding the question of a possible solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The younger generation is having a hard time connecting with or believing in the idea of a two-state solution. A survey of Israelis and Palestinians conducted by Tel Aviv University’s Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies, together with the PSR, published its findings in January 2018, noting that most Israelis and Palestinians no longer support a two-state solution. The survey also found that some 33% of Jewish Israelis expressed support for the idea of a confederation.

For several years now, Emanuel Shahaf, a former member of the Mossad, has been promoting the notion of a Jewish-Arab federation. The idea is that a future federal entity would be divided into “states,” similar to those of the United States, and thereby grant equality to all of its residents. Shahaf told Al-Monitor that the Trump plan proves it is impossible to create two states here in a reasonable manner. “You just look at the map and realize that it is impossible to use it to create two states,” he said. “If the occupation continues, it will lead to an apartheid government, so of course, that is untenable. I don’t believe that a two-state solution would resolve the conflict, since it fails to resolve the most basic problems.” Shahaf contends that his vision has a certain amount of support among the left, meaning within the Labor and Meretz parties, but also among supporters of the right, at least on a municipal level.

A survey conducted in January by the Smith Institute examined Israeli attitudes to the idea of a federation. According to its findings, about 18% of Jewish Israelis supported the idea of a federation, a significant number when considering it is a rather anonymous initiative without any government backing. Another 33% had no opinion on the matter, while 49% of Jewish Israelis completely rejected the idea. Shahaf claims that most people know nothing about the existing initiatives supporting a federation or confederation, so the public has a hard time positioning itself in response to them.

Another initiative, which has been around for about eight years, includes the idea of two sovereign states united in a confederation. Known as “A Land for all,” the initiative is advocated by journalist and media professional Meron Rappaport, with support from people on the left such as Avi Dabush (Meretz), but also from the religious Zionist movement, such as poet and intellectual Eliaz Cohen and Michal Froman, daughter-in-law of late Rabbi Menachem Froman who lives in the settlement of Tekoa. “There is a very basic and real debate between those who think that there should be sharp separation between us and the Palestinians, with “Us here and them there,” as a solution to the conflict, and those who think like us in “A Land for all” that the solution can actually be found in a partnership between two independent states, Israel and Palestine, and between the people living here,” wrote Rappaport in an opinion piece in February 2019.

Ostensibly, this initiative by Rappaport and the members of “A Land for all” offers the perfect solution. It includes freedom of movement, justice, security and sovereignty for everyone. On the other hand, it is doubtful that this idea can be implemented in the complicated reality of the Middle East, where the desire for any compromise whatsoever between the two parties has been dwindling over the years.

Col. (Res.) Shaul Arieli, who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is convinced that the idea of a confederation would have disastrous results. Instead, he continues to claim that the only viable option is a two-state solution. The question is what will happen a few years down the road, assuming that no real progress is made to find a solution to the conflict. The younger generation, which will come to power here in a decade, tends not to believe in the traditional formula of a two-state solution. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground is constantly changing: New West Bank outposts are being established, existing settlements are expanding and Palestinian lands continue to be confiscated. It is entirely possible that Israel and the PA are marching quickly to the point of no return, where a single, binational state awaits. If that does, in fact, happen, it would be prudent to begin as soon as possible to examine the various initiatives that describe what such a state would look like.

Ksenia Svetlova, a former Knesset member for Hatnua, is currently a fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. She previously worked as a senior analyst and reporter on Middle East affairs for Israel's Channel 9. She covered Gaza and the West Bank and also reported from Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and other Arab countries. She is an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and is fluent in Arabic, Russian, Hebrew and English.



Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/02/israel-palestinians-west-bank-two-state-solution-one-state.html#ixzz6EqGngWiN