#but has since been outspoken about pro Palestine | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

intothenoise · 5 years

Text

To Palestine and Israel: Open a Space for the Presence of the Socio-Political and Religious Other

(This post was originally published as part of IMES’ Regional Brief for December 2018, written by Jesse Wheeler)

News

For those following the conflict and global developments related to the conflict in Palestine/Israel, the month of November could aptly be described as a rollercoaster. Last month witnessed, for example, the election of the first Palestinian-American woman to the United States congress, Rashida Tlaib, along with a number of outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights, including Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Given the US’s instrumental role in the conflict’s perpetuation, the multiplication of voices sympathetic to Palestinians in Congress is an interesting development, even as newcomer progressives face a Democratic Party establishment that remains solidly pro-Israel. In addition, online bed & breakfast giant, Airbnb, made the decision to discontinue rental listings within Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, another small success for the growing, nonviolent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

More tragically, however, a “botched Special Forces operation” within Gaza triggered an additional round of hostilities between Israel and Hamas that many feared would escalate into yet another full-blown war. Hamas fired 400 rockets into Israeli territory, with the only death being that of a Palestinian worker from the West Bank temporarily residing in Israel, while Israel bombed 100 sites, both civilian and militant, killing seven. Recognizing the precarious situation in Gaza since 2014, Hamas reached out to Israel, via Egypt, for the cessation of hostilities and a reinstatement of the cease-fire, to which the Netanyahu government ultimately agreed. This agreement, however, triggered the resignation of Israel’s hawkish Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and threatened the collapse of Netanyahu’s government, a move seen by many as anticipating Lieberman’s own candidacy for premiership. The ceasefire was also roundly condemned by other hawkish members of the cabinet who advocated a full-blown assault on Gaza, yet ultimately chose not to resign for fear that government collapse would be seen as a Hamas victory. In response, Netanyahu has been positioning himself as a responsible centrist – an important, albeit ironic development as elections draw nearer.

Analysis

Perhaps the most interesting development is the recognition that Hamas deliberately pursued a ceasefire with Israel and that Netanyahu agreed to it, at the possible – or at least perceived – risk of his ruling coalition. We must remember that each traditionally represents the war camp within their respective societies. Each rose to prominence in the 1990s in opposition to the Peace Accords, and each has played an important role in Oslo’s eventual demise. In many respects, it could be said that Hamas and Netanyahu have fed off each other in an adversarial, yet ultimately symbiotic tension – each deriving their political legitimacy in violent opposition to the other.

Yet as leaders play their political games, dancing within the halls of power or strategizing within the bunkers and back alleys of the Resistance, it remains always the innocent who suffer. As politicians beat the drums of war, drumming up popular support through aggressive stances and dehumanizing rhetoric, they fail to take into consideration, or either don’t care about, those who suffer needlessly. What does it mean, therefore, when the war hawk extends his arm in peace? Do we celebrate such overtures wherever we find them? Or, must we view such pursuits as merely the desire to perpetuate an exploitative, even demonic status quo? Should it be interpreted as battle fatigue? Or little more than political theatre? Is it right to be so cynical, weary of each’s intentions?

Therefore, to borrow a concept from social psychology, what factors allow for the restoration of intergroup trust where none presently exists?[1]

[1] Thanks to IMES Consultant, Dr. Thia Sagherian.

Theological and Missiological Reflections

Despite modern sensibilities, all religion is innately political – Islamic, Jewish, Christian, or otherwise. To recognize the reign, or sovereign authority of God is to automatically decenter those human or systemic pretenders, groups or movements that would elevate themselves to the place of God, taking upon themselves the authority of life and death over others and redefining right verses wrong in relation to their own will (to power). But, when religious leaders and groups ally themselves or identify so closely to such leaders and institutions, as well as territory, the situation can become extremely dangerous.[2] For this is the heart of idolatry.

Especially when competing religio-political identities seek to occupy the same geographical or ideological space, the situation can quickly devolve. This is true in America, as many don’t know what to make of or downright fear the congressional newcomers, their politically unorthodox views and at times triumphalist attitudes – two of the most high-profile being Muslim women – and it is true to the extreme in the case of Palestine/Israel, wherein multiple religio-political nationalisms find themselves locked within a vicious, intractable cycle of recrimination and violence.

This leads us to ask what it means to share public space, peacefully and with justice. Secularist nationalisms and the privatization of religion as a solution to this question has a troubled history in the MENA, more often than not imposed from above by autocratic leaders. Theological liberalism/modernism has likewise lost much of its influence, a consequence of rejecting of the authority of traditional religious sources. What, then, does it look like for two groups to occupy the same socio-geographical space, peacefully, from a position of holistic fidelity to one’s convictions and socio-religious identity?

At this point, all I can do is commend the words of Christ Jesus: “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets,” to practice empathy, and open within ourselves space for the presence of the socio-political and religious other. Then, there is a chance we might one day be able to occupy the same geographical space, peacefully and with justice.

[2] Ida Glaser, The Bible and Other Faiths: What Does the Lord Require of Us? (Carlisle: Global Christian Library – Langham, 2005) Kindle Locations 1353-1387.

0 notes

leftpress · 7 years

Text

Steve Cohen’s ‘That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic’

charliethechulo | Shiraz Socialist | March 7th 2017

Steve Cohen (ZT”L) died on 8th March 2009. He had been a member of the Jewish Socialists Group, the International Marxist Group, and a leading campaigner for migrants rights. An outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights, he was nevertheless concerned about the prevalence of anti-Semitism on parts of the left and pro-Palestinian movement. Steve was a prolific writer (we tried to rope him into Shiraz towards the end of his life), but by far his most important piece was That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic, which can be read in full on the website devoted to Steve and his great pamphlet, which we reproduce here in memory of a fine comrade:

An anti-racist analysis of left anti-semitism by Steve Cohen (ZT”L), edited ...

by Libby Lawson and Erica Bunnan:

There Must Be Some Way Out of Here

In 1984 I wrote a booklet against anti-Semitism. For this I was denounced as a Zionist.

In 2005 I wrote a pastiche poem criticising Zionism. For this I was denounced as an anti-Semite by some people on the Engage website. What is happening here?

It seems to me that one of the things that is happening is that whatever the fundamental political distinction between anti Semitism and anti Zionism (a distinction I see as absolute) yet on an emotional and existential level the two have become hopelessly intertwined—and this itself is political. Something else which is happening is the confirmation as far as I’m concerned of a political analysis of anti-Semitism which in my naivety, strikes me as obvious but which I’ve never seen articulated anywhere else. This is that the Jewish Chronicle and Socialist Worker are both correct. And incorrect. Zionism is anti racist. And Zionism is racist. I cannot see how Zionism in its triumphant form (the Israeli state) is anything except essentially racist. It was founded on the dispossession of the Palestinians. And it continues on the super exploitation and humiliation of the Palestinians as the “other”. To deny this strikes me as fundamentally immoral. I also happen to think that two states, one of which by definition has to be exclusively Jewish is similarly immoral. I think majoritarianism (the legitimisation of an entity through numbers) is immoral wherever it presents itself—it leads at the very least to forced population movement and at its most extreme to ethnic cleansing and all that implies. I’ll leave open to discussion and personal judgement the point on this continuum that Israel may already guilty and at which a divided state would become guilty.

On the other hand it seems to me equally undeniable that Zionism in its inception was anti-racist. It was a reaction against, a way of dealing with, European anti-Semitism. Maybe as a revolutionary socialist writing in Prestwich in 2005 it would not be my way. However as a Jew of whatever political persuasion in Europe after the coming to power of Hitler in 1933 or the defeat of the revolution in Spain in 1939 I may well have had a different position. And if fascism ever took over here and Jews were barred entry elsewhere then I guess I might take a different position. I empathise with the “bolt hole” theory of Zionism. I appreciate the significance of the remarks by Isaac Deutscher, the Polish Marxist ex-rabbi, who wrote in later life “In this controversy (between socialism and Zionism) Zionism has scored a horrible victory, one of which it could neither wish nor expect; six million Jews had to perish in Hitler’s gas chambers in order that Israel should come to life … If instead of arguing against Zionism in the 1920s and 1930s I had urged European Jewry to go to Palestine, I might have saved some of the lives that were later extinguished in Hitler’s gas chambers” (Israel’s Spiritual Climate). I take it as axiomatic that any revolutionary of that pre-war period would have fought for the absolute right of Jews to enter Palestine. To have argued otherwise, to have argued for immigration controls, would have meant support for the British Mandate whose army tried to prevent entry. However the tenets of revolutionary socialism (tenets to which I still hold even in these days of Blair, Bush, Sharon and … Bin Laden) would demand that entry into the then Palestine would/should have lead to an attempt to forge an alliance between Jewish workers and Palestinian workers and peasants against the Zionist leadership, the absentee Palestinian landlords and the British soldiery. Of course the task would have been enormous. But the failure of that historic task has lead to what we have today—Israel the perpetual blood bath.

It is because Zionism is both racist and anti-racist that I call myself an anti-Zionist Zionist. It is also because Zionism is racist and anti racist that there is an even more urgent need to rigorously distinguish anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism. This itself requires a rigorous definition of both—otherwise how is it rationally possible to ever distinguish the two? I do not think there is ever the question of anti-Zionism discourse “becoming” or “sliding into” anti-Semitism. If a position is anti-semitic then it is anti-semitic in its origins—it does not become so. It is nothing whatsoever to do with Zionism. So, fascistic critiques of Israel are not about Zionism. They are about Jews. And this is the point. Anti-Zionism is about solidarity with the Palestinians. Anti-Semitism is about the Jewish conspiracy. Not all critiques of Israel are based on Jewish conspiracy theories. And anti-Semitism is not going to help progress the Palestinian cause. Just as August Bebel famously described the equation of capital with Jew as the socialism of fools then the equation of Zionism with world domination with Jew is the anti-zionism of fools.

It often feels like the wisdom of Solomon is required to know how to deal politically with this grotesque foolishness. One issue is the actual (the “cleansing” of Jews from Jerusalem in 1948, the suicide bombings of today) or threatened (“drive them into the sea”) repression of Israeli Jews which fuels a fortress mentality and to which sections of the left retain an ambivalent or agnostic attitude. Another issue that should be a matter of concern is that anti-semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism drives away those who would otherwise want to give solidarity to the Palestinian cause. For myself, this is what I found unfortunate in the debate over the boycott of some or all Israeli universities. Whatever the motive of those proposing the boycott (and like Engage I’m opposed to exceptionalising Israel) there is still an imperative need to offer real, material, political support to the Palestinians. I think for myself the best way of dealing with any particular proposed boycott is to come to a decision on whether the boycott would help the Palestinians irrespective of its proposers—and organise independently against anti-Semitism. Which perhaps meaning building a movement that simultaneously is dedicated to Palestinian solidarity and opposition to anti-Semitism.

It is apparent from what I’ve said that I also disagree with what I take to be the dominant position within Engage—namely that in our contemporary world anti-Zionism must inevitably equate with anti-Semitism. Paradoxically I also disagree with Engage’s position that in the modern world the form that anti-Semitism takes is through (foolish) anti-Zionism. I think it is worse than that. Obviously this is one form that is taken by the theory of the world Jewish conspiracy. However it seems to me that this is merely concealing more classic forms—Jew as all-powerful (the “Zionist lobby” running the USA), Jew as financial manipulator (the world being supposedly run by trans-national corporations and not imperialist states), Jew as murderer (take your pick—the blitzing of Iraq comes in there somewhere through its constant equation with the repression of the Palestinians). Jew as the subject of the blood libel (ditto but add the surreal accusation that Jews are responsible for September 11th), Jew as the killer of the first born (double ditto), Jew as poisoner of the wells (the anti-urbanisation of much Green politics—with Jews being the urban people par excellence). These images, these world-views, are powerful enough to split off from any anti-zionist base. And they have begun to split off within sections of the anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist movement. It is here that the anti-Zionism of fools emerges with a vengeance but is still subservient to the classic socialism of fools and also to the pre-capitalist feudalism of fools—the real McCoy of jew hatred. This is because anti-capitalism is shared by socialists who aspire to post-capitalist formations and right-wing organisations who hark back to an earlier pre-capitalist age—which is one of many reasons why genuine socialists have to be vigilant against any equation of capital with Jew.

Anti-Semitism on the left has for too long been a taboo subject—probably since the inception of the socialist project itself. I know because in 1984 I was that taboo! I became for a short period a political pariah in sections of the socialist/communist movement (my movement) for daring to raise the subject. Actually when I began writing my book I had no intention of writing anything on anti-Semitism, left or right. I wanted to write and condemn the (latest) Israeli onslaught on Lebanon. I used the left press as source material—and became horrified by what I was reading. And what I was reading was gross stereotyping of the Jew via the stereotyping of Israel as the most powerful force in the universe. All this was redolent of all the old-time European, Christian imagery—just stopping short it seemed of accusations of desecrating the wafer. So I did some research and quickly realised that this left anti-Semitism did not spring from nowhere but unfortunately had a long and dishonourable tradition—going back at least to the successful agitation for immigration controls against Jewish refugees and the 1905 Aliens Act. As it so happened, I was at that time thinking of writing another book just on this agitation—but Pluto Press told me that “Jews don’t sell”. To which I replied that I thought this was what we’ve always been accused of doing too much of. To show Pluto they were not being true Marxists I quoted Marx’s own piece of self-hatred from his On The Jewish Question: “What is the secular cult of the Jew? Haggling”. And then bizarrely I started to come across references and allusions (illusions) in parts of the left press to the wealth and power of Jews, of Jewry, all in the service of Israel—or maybe Israel was in the service of Jews and Jewry. Who knows? It was all rubbish anyway—but extremely dangerous rubbish.

And without managing (with the support of some comrades in the Jewish Socialist Group—the JSG) to keep fixed in my head the absolute distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, I guess I could have gone schizophrenic. There were two great successive nights when I was evicted from a mosque then a shul. I’m always sorry I never made the hat-trick of our common enemy—a church. The mosque incident involved picketing (along with some Asian youth) some local anti-Jewish ayatollah. The shul incident was wonderful. It was in Liverpool. I went with other members of the JSG to picket a meeting that was being held in support of the invasion (a shul supporting a military invasion? This really was Old Testament stuff). What we didn’t know was that the guest speaker was some Israeli General—we should have recognised him by his ripped jeans and tee shirt. As we were being lifted horizontally, face downwards, out of the shul by the stewards I looked down on a face looking up at me. The face looking up said “Weren’t we at Oxford together?”. To which I replied “I think so—were you at Trinity?” That to me is a classic example of tribalism. Mea culpa. I always regret not screaming out “Let my people go!”.

That’s Funny You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic did create ripples. It managed to split the JSG whose then dominant leadership thought it might offend the Socialist Workers Party. It resulted in some pretty dreadful correspondence over many weeks in journals like Searchlight and Peace News. A pamphlet was written denouncing me as a “criminal”. There was a particular review—in Searchlight—one sentence of which I will never forget. Every Jew on the left will know that terrible syndrome whereby, whatever the context and wherever one is, we will be tested by being given the question “what is your position on Zionism?” Wanna support the miners—what’s your position on Zionism? Against the bomb—what’s your position on Zionism? And want to join our march against the eradication of Baghdad, in particular the eradication of Baghdad—what’s your position on Zionism? And we all know what answer is expected in order to pass the test. It is a very strong form of anti-Semitism based on assumptions of collective responsibility. Denounce Zionism, crawl in the gutter, wear a yellow star and we’ll let you in the club. Which is one reason why I call myself an Anti-Zionist Zionist—at least that should confuse the bastards. Anyhow this particular review, noting that my book actually did attack Zionism, said “It is not enough to trot out platitudes, as he does, about being against Zionism and in support of the Palestinian struggle”. So I’m not allowed into the club even though I fulfil the entry requirements. I’m not allowed in because I recognise and oppose the existence of anti-Semitism on the Left—and this therefore renders all support for Palestinians a “platitude”. Well it ain’t me who’s here confusing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

An accusation greeting the publication of That’s Funny was that even if anti-Semitism existed, it was trivial compared to other forms of oppression—not least that being inflicted on the Palestinians. I find this argument abhorrent. The struggle for communism is not about establishing some equitable scale of oppression and exploitation. It is about smashing all such oppression and exploitation. Switch to Germany 1925—”Comrades why are you harping on about anti-Semitism? It’s trivial. If it ever became significant we will deal with it. Honest”.

But there were positives back in 1984. There were allies out there—for instance the then Manchester and Liverpool branches of the JSG. I discovered that a similar political battle was going on within the feminist magazine Spare Rib and a kind of informal alliance was formed here. I remember that a large debate was organised in the Peace Studies department at Bradford University—where I shared some dope with a member of the PLO. It was Lebanese! And then the three of us who had published the book (we called ourselves The Beyond The Pale Collective) organised a biggish conference in Manchester. And Pluto Press was wrong—we sold a lot of books. We sold enough books to publish another one—on Holocaust Denial by Gill Seidel. This had been accepted by Pluto but then pulped after it had been typeset! I guess this was part of their reality denial.

As far as I’m concerned I’m still prepared to stand behind most of what I wrote those two decades ago. However there is one issue where my position has somewhat changed. And there is a second where I think I missed the plot entirely. First I think the book was, in its critique of assimilation, far too uncritical of the concept of “Jewish culture”. In fact I think it was implicitly far too generous towards Bundism in this respect (though I still support the Bundist championing of political self-organisation). I no longer see Jewish (or any) culture as monolithic. It is fractured and determined by issues of class. I have been in too many situations where the need to fight racism (racist attacks, immigration controls, fascist mobilisations) has been counter-posed by some suggestion about having an “ethnic” evening with “ethnic” clothes and “ethnic” food. It’s got to the stage where, to paraphrase Goebbels, whenever I hear the word multiculture I want to reach for my gun. In particular I am now ruthlessly opposed to denominational schools—be they Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or Church of England. Some of this has been informed by the racist admission practices of the Jewish School in Manchester (no Jewish mother no entry). However the substantive point is that as a militant atheist I am opposed to the state subsidising the garbage of religion—any religion. And anyhow, I’m for the unity of people of all ages not their division. At the same time I’m equally opposed to the (political) drive towards assimilation—I don’t see incorporation into the norms of imperialism as a step forward for humanity. The latest example of this drive towards incorporation is the suggestion by the Home Office Minister, Hazel Blears, following the London underground bombings that ‘minorities should be described as, for example “Asian-British” rather than simply as “Asian”‘. (Times 8 August 2005). The idea of the labelling and re-labelling of human beings as a method of protecting the citizenry of London is as ludicrous as all other justifications used for restricting the free movement of the same human beings. In the past slaves were branded—literally and with fire. Under the modern market economy it is people. This commoditisation of the alien reduces her or him to a piece of capital, to a new form of enslavement – the enslavement of a forced identity within a hostile society ever ready to deport and expel.

Second I come to missing the plot. This is not about what I wrote. It is about what I did not write. In fact it was what I explicitly refrained from writing. So I said “The book says nothing about socialist or liberation movements in the third world, deliberately so, because countries in the third world have not historically been within the grip of Christianity, and thus have no tradition of conspiracy theories. For example within Islam both Jew and Christian were seen as infidels—and certainly there was no constant mythology of universal Jewish domination. If notions about Jewish power entered the third world, then that is a product of imperialistic and Christian penetration”.

Looking back on this from today’s realities it clearly is inadequate. For instance I cannot see any basis for conspiracy theories (i.e. classic anti-Semitism) within Islam historically, however badly Jews (usually alongside Christians) were sometimes mistreated. I guess for this we have to be thankful we never bumped off Mohammed as well as Jesus. However it would be a matter of interesting political investigation to see precisely how conspiracy theories have subsequently entered the Muslim world—to see how they have become the Islam of fools. Moreover whatever the significance today of Left anti-Semitism, its influence and social weight is insignificant compared to that within Muslim communities (an anti-Semitism which is possibly matched by racism within the Jewish community). So the Elders of the Protocols of Zion is a best seller in Arabic speaking countries. So I’ve read how Islamicists blame “world Jewry” for both the New York and London underground bombings. And this junk needs to be challenged. And it needs to be challenged by the Left—and it isn’t. In fact it is encouraged—if only obliquely.

It is encouraged by Israeli exceptionalism—by the constant depiction and caricaturing of Israel as somehow being the pre-eminent world imperialist power. Inasmuch as I might be for some boycott of Israeli universities then I’m equally in support of a boycott of British universities because of their collusion in the institutionalised apartheid of immigration controls—that is either collusion by their silence or by their active co-operation with the Home Office in developing controls (which appears to be the case with University College London). It is encouraged by the emergence on demonstrations against the American invasion of Iraq, of the denunciation of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank—as though there was some intrinsic connection between the two which is not shared with other imperialist interventions. It is encouraged by the sycophantic, uncritical relationship that the SWP/Respect has towards the Muslim leadership as organised, for instance, around the mosques—these Muslim machers are as right-wing and often as anti-Semitic as their Jewish macher counterparts organised around the shuls are anti-Islam. In the beginning was the Board of Deputies? Today there is the Muslim Association of Britain. Macherism, the political reliance on a self-appointed leadership (the macherites) is a political disease which needs to be challenged and destroyed—instead sections of the Left are cultivating it at its most dangerous points.

Is there any way out of this mess? Particularly is there any way out of this mess for socialists in this country trapped politically between the existential linkage of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? Is there a wisdom of Solomon? In all humility I think so. Of course we can all have our own politics on the way forward as regards Israel/Palestine. My own vision is of a federated secular and socialist middle east. This maybe is utopic but so is socialism. So is the revolution. So is all meaningful change. However there is going to be no way forward without a recognition of the fundamental block towards any change whatsoever—namely the world wide antagonism between Jews and Muslims. The international nature of this cleavage is central. Only joint and grassroots solidarity between the players in the game can possibly open up any dialogue. In Israel/Palestine this means between the Jewish and Palestinian masses. For instance let there be a march of a hundred thousand Israeli peaceniks into the occupied territories—and let them stay until the Israeli army and the settlers march out (or co-operate with the Palestinians in the sharing of resources—including the opening up of the new townships to Palestinians). Let Engage encourage this with its co-thinkers in Israel!

In this country it means joint activity between Jews and Muslims (and socialists) with the Jewish and Muslim communities. And what this boils down to is joint activity against fascism and racism. I suggested above the necessity to start to develop a movement simultaneously based on struggle for Palestinian rights and against anti-Semitism. This is presently an abstraction. However another real movement does exist against racism which can draw the two communities together in struggle. This is the disparate movement against immigration controls—for whom the Jews were the first and Muslims the latest victims. Of course controls need to be challenged in their own right—not just as a device for unity. However the challenge can also forge a unity which presently seems a million miles away. What is more the history of the last thirty years of struggle by migrants, immigrants and refugees against controls shows something that SWP/Respect have utterly missed. This is that real, meaningful, progressive political activity within the Muslim community (and all third world communities) comes from the grassroots either by by-passing or defeating the community machers. Let Engage become involved in these struggles both because of their intrinsic political importance and as part of its commitment to challenging left anti-Semitism by building meaningful alliances!

It could begin by supporting the campaign of Samina Altaf and her two children to fight deportation. Samina’s is just one of countless stories—though I guess more immediately poignant. Having fled Pakistan to avoid repeated domestic abuse she was refused asylum here. Like all asylum seekers she is outside of the welfare state and has been forcibly dispersed into Salford by the so-called National Asylum Support Service (NASS—a wing of the Home Office). And now as a failed asylum seeker who is refusing to return “voluntarily” to the country from she fled she is being threatened by NASS with eviction onto the streets. And I forgot to mention this—Samina is disabled with rickets. And her children are crippled with rickets. Get involved with the campaign! Write a letter of support to her constituency MP—Hazel Blears that well known re-labeller of third world identity and warrior against international terrorism (address House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1). Blears happens to be a Home Office MP—so terrorise her with letters of support. And invite a speaker from the campaign to one of your meetings—whilst sending money to the campaign (address Samina Altaf Defence Campaign, c/o Bury Law Centre, 8 Banks St, Bury BL9 ODL).

Finally I think that not one iota of the above can ever be resolved through communalism, through tribalism, through uncritically supporting Jews as Jews or Muslims as Muslims. My religion right or wrong! And all due to an accident of birth. I guess I recoil when I read on the Engage website the reflection on being Jewish—”frankly I can’t get enough of it”. Jewish identity as an addiction is not much of an advert for clarity of political thought. I was shocked by a news report I read a few years ago. It is a story that deserves creative fictionalisation. It concerned a guy who was raised in a highly Zionist family (I guess High Zionism is the Jewish version of High Church). He was raised as a conscious racist towards the Palestinians. Dirty Arabs! Until he discovered he was one of them—He was an adopted son. His biological parents were, I think, Libyan. Overnight (or maybe it took a little longer) he became a vehement anti-Zionist—and Jew hater. Dirty Jews! I was struck by two very powerful televisual images during the recent eviction of the Gaza settlers by the (Orwellian entitled) Israeli Defence Force. One was that of Israeli soldiers crying. The Israeli army in tears? One of the most powerful militaries in the world! Why no tears when the Palestinians were evicted? The second image was just bizarre in its tribalism. This was that of the settlers being evicted and the soldiers evicting them temporarily desisting from their civil war and praying together on shabbos—with the evictions resuming as soon as shabbos ended. Compared to this crazy chauvinism the legendary Christmas Day football match in the trenches of World War One between German and British soldiers was a genuine act of internationalism. However there can be no genuine internationalism, no genuine international solidarity, no meaningful working together of ordinary people wherever tribalism or communalism dominates. And at the moment it is precisely these reactionary formations that dominate both Muslim and Jewish communities—and the tragedy is they are hardening. It would be good if Engage put its energy into helping soften them.

Steve Cohen 2005

Next >>

That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic

Obituary for Steve Cohen (ZT”L)

There Must Be Some Way Out of Here

Why is this book different from all other books ?

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Socialism of Fools

The Socialism of Fools

Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism without Jews

Left Anti-Semitism

Socialism, Anti-Semitism, Thatcherism and Fascism

Chapter 2: The Anti-Semitism of English Socialism”s Formative Years

The Background

Immigration Controls

English and Jewish Opposition to Controls

Rich Jew, Poor Jew: The Conspiracy Theory in Practice

Anti-Alienism or Anti-Semitism

#leftpress #Anti-Racism #anti-semitism #From the archives #good people #Human rights #internationalism #israel #Judaism #left #Middle East #palestine #zionism #news #resistance #politics

8 notes · View notes

thisdaynews · 5 years

Text

Omar, Tlaib denounce Israel over travel restrictions

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/omar-tlaib-denounce-israel-over-travel-restrictions/

Omar, Tlaib denounce Israel over travel restrictions

Jim Mone/AP Photo

Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib continued to criticize Israel Monday, slamming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for barring the two lawmakers from visiting last week over their vocal criticism of his government.

Tlaib and Omar, the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, held a news conference in the Minnesota Capitol on Monday afternoon to again speak out after they were blocked from visiting Israel over their support of a global boycott of the country. Israel eventually agreed to allow Tlaib to enter the country on restrictive “humanitarian” grounds, but the Michigan lawmaker refused.

Story Continued Below

“The decision to ban me and my colleague — the first two Muslim American women elected to Congress — is nothing less than an attempt by an ally of the United States to suppress our ability to do our jobs as elected officials,” Omar (D-Minn.) said.

The two lawmakers were flanked by several constituents who had been directly impacted by the conflict between Israel and Palestine, including some who were also blocked from traveling to the region.

Tlaib and Omar have both been outspoken critics of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians since coming to Congress this year and are two of the most vocal supporters of the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the country.

Most Democrats are opposed to the BDS movement, with the House overwhelmingly passing a resolution last month condemning the effort. But the move by Netanyahu to ban the two freshman Democrats just before they were set to depart last week set off a political firestorm in Washington.

Trump, a close ally of Netanyahu, publicly encouraged the unprecedented move. But Democrats, including many who are on the opposite side of the debate about the future of the region, were quick to defend Omar and Tlaib and condemn the prime minister’s actions.

Tlaib grew visibly upset Monday when she explained why she initially agreed to go ahead with a “humanitarian” visit to her Palestinian grandmother under strict restrictions imposed by Israel, only to back away from the trip hours later.

Tlaib’s 90-year-old grandmother lives in the West Bank and encouraged the Michigan Democrat not to come given the conditions under which she could visit, Tlaib said.

“She said … I’m her free bird. So why would I come back and be caged and bow down when my election rose her head up high, gave her dignity for the first time?” Tlaib said with tears in her eyes.

“So through tears, at three o’clock in the morning, we all decided as a family that I could not go until I was a free, American, United States congresswoman coming there not only to see my grandmother, but to talk to Palestinian and Israeli organizations that believed that my grandmother deserved human dignity as much as anyone else does.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other senior Democrats sharply criticized Netanyahu for his decision to bar the two Democrats last week, saying he was showing “weakness” by giving in to Trump’s demands. Some lawmakers said it was clear Netanyahu was capitulating to Trump’s demands so as not to anger the U.S. president ahead of a critical election for the prime minister on Sept. 17.

Hoyer was among several pro-Israel Democrats who also personally lobbied Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a close confidante of Netanyahu, before the decision was announced last week.

Hoyer led dozens of Democrats on a weeklong trip to Israel as part of his annual visit to the country earlier this month. The No. 2 Democrat met with Tlaib’s grandmother during the trip.

Omar said while she was encouraged some of her colleagues vowed not to visit the country until she and Tlaib were let in, she thought that was the wrong move given how closely aligned Israel is with the U.S.

“It is my belief that as legislators we have an obligation to see the reality there for ourselves. We have a responsibility to conduct oversight over our government’s foreign policy and what happens with the millions of dollars we send in aid,” Omar said. “We cannot let Trump and Netanyahu succeed in hiding the cruel reality of the occupation from us, so I call on all of you to go.”

#Foreign #Politics #restrictions #travel

0 notes

latentbloomers-blog · 6 years

Text

Inequality Damages

Spoiler alert: I am not going to shock any of you. Social Inequality was, and will forever be, the reason for all unhappiness.

But as this is a vague statement (for some reason, which I don't understand), I would like to point to the overlooked outcomes of social inequality, and correlate it to the reason people are at constant search for Happiness, which will never transform unless we transform.

I will start by noting that I do understand it's hard to reach the glass-ceiling in order to break it, but once we reach it, it's broken. It won't be hard, especially since some are paving the ways for centuries (aka activism).

Now I want to chip in.

Starting with a field that matters to us all: Privacy

I do not mean to discuss the concept of Privacy (for now), so I will spare you my philosophy, but I do want to point out this case: How Natalie Portman became the latest Israel-Palestine flashpoint, and although rhetoric, I would like to suggest an answer to this question, by using this article, which in short highlights the fact that if Natalie Portman wouldn't end up famous or wouldn't have been born in Israel, she would have been permitted to feel what she feels, and would not have to take responsibility for a whole nation (or nations, depending on your strongest hand. Lucky we have only two of those).

"Celebrities deciding to avoid Israel on political grounds is not all that uncommon. Hollywood is left-leaning, and many celebrities are outspokenly pro-Palestinian. Netanyahu’s government is one of the furthest right in Israeli history, particularly when it comes to the conflict with the Palestinians. Tensions are to be expected.

But Portman is an altogether different case. She is an Israeli citizen, born in Jerusalem, though she was raised in America and currently lives in France. In the past, Portman has been an outspoken advocate of Israel — as an undergraduate at Harvard, she worked on a prominent book defending the Jewish state against its critics. She speaks fluent Hebrew; in 2015, she wrote, directed, and starred in a Hebrew-language adaptation of Israeli author Amos Oz’s memoir." - Zack Beauchamp, Vox

If Natalie Portman wouldn't be offered a prize for her work and for being born in Israel, she could continue feeling the way she does, and make choices that are solely hers, and are based on her personal experience. Maybe she would even refrain from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and not have it hanging on her conscience.

If she would be considered regular, a person, she could concentrate on her fans (which she is supposed to affect), and not on two nations that will never escape warfare, as long as they believe that famous people should be treated better than people.

She would then be offered a prize that doesn't make you question her ethics, and you would know about it as a fan, and not as a critic/politician/Israeli/Palestinian/let's not do this...

And if you wonder whether she did or did not receive the $2M, I am pleased to tell you this isn't the place for that.

I have already contributed enough to this farce, and clearly got mine.

#inequality #social #equality #happiness #privacy #natalie portman #better world

0 notes

ralphmorgan-blog1 · 6 years

Text

Sarah Silverman got slammed for supporting a Palestinian teen and she stayed strong.

Photos by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for Turner, Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images.

Sarah Silverman has never exactly shied away from the outrageous, whether in her comedy or on Twitter. But when she stood up for a teen activist last week, the backlash was intense, even for her.

On Feb. 15, Silverman tweeted out a link to an Amnesty International petition to free 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi accompanied with the following message: "Jews have to stand up EVEN when — ESPECIALLY when — the wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government."

Jews have to stand up EVEN when — ESPECIALLY when — the wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government. https://t.co/vIKDxgLm41

— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) February 16, 2018

Pro-Israel advocates tweeted that Silverman should stick with comedy and "stay out of politics,” while others accused Silverman of being complicit in pro-Palestinian terrorism. You read that right: For some, supporting an outspoken young girl = terrorism.

If you’re asking yourself what the big deal is, buckle up: Silverman tiptoed onto the internet’s third rail.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been deemed one of "the world’s most intractable conflicts" and continues to be a polarizing issue among many Americans. While the region is highly significant to three major Abrahamic faiths, to some, the conflict raises questions of who belongs in the Holy Land, as well as the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state in Palestine.

So what does Tamimi have to do with all this? She became the face of the global Palestinian solidarity movement when she was arrested in December 2017 for slapping an Israeli soldier.

Photo by Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images.

The moment in question came just minutes after another Israeli soldier shot her 15-year-old cousin Mohammad in the face. He was unarmed and engaged in peaceful protest against President Donald Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

After Mohammad was shot, two Israeli soldiers forcefully invaded their home with the intention to use their yard as a base to shoot at other activists protesting. The armed soldiers refused to leave, and when they attempted to force their way into their home, Tamimi slapped one of them. For her, this was an act of resistance.

In addition to her cousin being shot, Tamimi spent much of her childhood witnessing her relatives shot, tortured, imprisoned, and killed by Israeli soldiers and police. Her mother was shot in the leg and imprisoned four times, her father has been imprisoned three times, her 12-year-old brother was choked and beaten by an Israeli soldier, her uncle was fatally shot in the stomach, and one of her other cousins was shot in the head and killed.

Ahed Tamimi, A Teen in Search of Freedom

Tomorrow is Ahed Tamimi's 17th birthday and she will be spending it in an Israeli prison. Her trial is set for February 6th. There are currently more than 300 Palestinian children, as young as 13-years-old in Israeli prisons.

Posted by Institute for Middle East Understanding ( IMEU ) on Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Despite being a teenager, Tamimi has been denied bail and is currently undergoing trial for what some believe was merely defending her home.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have called for her release. According to the Institute for Middle East Understanding, there are currently more than 300 Palestinian children detained in Israeli prisons. Furthermore, there are no basic fair trial protections and Palestinians face a 99.7% conviction rate in Israeli military courts. Tamimi is a part of that statistic.

No matter where you fall in the Zionist conversation, the fact is that this is daily life for the native inhabitants of Palestine. And it’s brutal.

Since the War of 1967, Israel gained control and occupied Palestinian land — the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula.

Under the occupation, Israel has built more than 500,000 illegal settlements, eventually forcing many Palestinians to flee their homes. In fact, there are more than 7 million Palestinian refugees worldwide and about 5 million of them are eligible for humanitarian assistance from the United Nations.

In their June 2017 report, Human Rights Watch said that Israel has violated multiple international human rights laws. These include "forced displacement, abusive detention, the closure of the Gaza Strip and other unjustified restrictions on movement, and anti-Palestinian discrimination." It also referred to instances where a child was "imprisoned by a military court or shot unjustifiably," and checkpoints that bar Palestinians exclusively.

youtube

Silverman is not alone for standing behind Tamimi. More than 25 celebrities and civil rights icons have signed a letter supporting the imprisoned teen activist.

Dream Defenders, a civil rights group associated with the Movement for Black Lives, released a letter this month condemning Tamimi's detention and their public support for Palestinians "in their righteous struggle." "The Tamimi family stands up to Israel's brutality because they believe Palestinians, like ALL people, should be free," the letter read. "Dream Defenders stands with them and all Palestinians in their righteous struggle."

Some of the signees include entertainers Vic Mensa, Talib Kweli, Jesse Williams, Tom Morello, and Rosario Dawson; scholars Cornel West and Michelle Alexander; and civil rights icons Angela Davis, Alice Walker, Patrisse Cullors, and Alicia Garza.

Image via Dream Defenders.

The letter highlighted the parallels of the Palestinian community and the black community, both of who've notably been on the receiving systemic violence and social injustice:

"While our struggles may be unique, the parallels cannot be ignored. US police, ICE, border patrol and FBI train with Israeli soldiers, police, and border agents, utilizing similar repressive profiling tactics to target and harass our communities. Too many of our children quickly learn that they may be imprisoned or killed simply for who they are. From Trayvon Martin to Mohammed Abu Khdeir and Khalif Browder to Ahed Tamimi — racism, state violence and mass incarceration have robbed our people of their childhoods and their futures."

The letter also endorsed a revolutionary bill introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Betty McCollum that calls on the protection for Palestinian children from "widespread abuse by Israeli forces." The signees urged congressional members to join the other 22 cosponsors and sign the bill.

If you’re moved to support Tamimi too, there are other ways you can show your support.

Call your congressional representative to co-sponsor or vote in favor of H.R. 4391: Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act.

Sign these petitions from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch calling for Tamimi's release.

Donate to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

Follow the examples of Silverman and the Dream Defenders by simply elevating Palestinian voices and signal-boosting them.

Or perhaps the easiest of them all: Join the conversation using the #FreeAhed or the #FreeTheTamimis hashtags.

More From this publisher : HERE ; This post was curated using : TrendingTraffic

=> *********************************************** Read More Here: Sarah Silverman got slammed for supporting a Palestinian teen and she stayed strong. ************************************ =>

Sponsored by SmartQuotes - Your daily smart quote

This article was searched, compiled, delivered and presented using RSS Masher & TrendingTraffic

=>>

Sarah Silverman got slammed for supporting a Palestinian teen and she stayed strong. was originally posted by A 18 MOA Top News from around

#A 18 MOA Top News from around

0 notes

businessweekme · 6 years

Text

Pence’s Mideast Trip Shrinks After Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration

Vice President Mike Pence will seek to show on a trip to the Mideast next week that the Trump administration can still partner with Arab and Muslim leaders on security matters and broker peace despite the backlash following President Donald Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.

Pence is expected to receive an enthusiastic welcome from leaders in Israel. Elsewhere, the reception will be cooler. Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi plans to continue with a scheduled meeting with Pence, despite Trump’s Jerusalem announcement — a decision the White House says is evidence of the value leaders in the region place on maintaining relationships with the administration.

But Palestinian leaders canceled their meetings with the vice president and he will not visit Bethlehem and the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank — a particularly meaningful stop for the evangelical Christian vice president. He’ll also spend less time on the ground in Egypt than once envisioned, with a trip to the Pyramids of Giza and a meeting with the leader of Coptic Christians off his itinerary.

The trip has been delayed, and truncated, to keep Pence in Washington in case his tie-breaking vote is needed to pass tax legislation in the Senate.

Pence knew as he planned his trip that it was possible Arab and Palestinian leaders would cancel their meetings in response to Trump’s declaration. He was briefed on potential unrest and other negative consequences of the announcement. But he had been cautiously optimistic that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other critics of Trump’s decision would proceed with the meetings, ultimately regarding face time with the U.S. vice president as both strategically valuable and an opportunity to express their disappointment in person, a person familiar with the matter said.

Instead, he’s being snubbed.

“The Palestinian position is clear: the vice president is not welcome here and there will be no meeting with him, after Trump’s decision,” said Wasel Abu Youssef, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s policy-making executive committee. “There is no talk with the U.S. side about the peace process if the U.S. administration does not retreat from President Trump’s decisions about Jerusalem. Their role as a mediator is done.”

Jerusalem Proponent

Trump’s Mideast envoy, Jason Greenblatt, will return to the region next Monday ahead of Pence’s trip, an administration official said. A U.S.-led process is the only way forward to an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and Trump remains committed to that goal, the official said.

Pence was one of the foremost proponents in the Trump administration for a declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and the relocation of the U.S. embassy. His argument bested those of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis, both of whom opposed the idea, according to people familiar with the internal debate. The vice president stood stoically behind Trump’s right shoulder as he made his televised announcement, an unmistakable signal to the president’s evangelical supporters.

Pence’s four-day trip to the region will begin on Tuesday, a few days later than initially planned in order to accommodate the U.S. Senate, which may vote on a tax overhaul earlier that day. He’ll stop in Egypt, Israel, and finally at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany for a holiday visit with U.S. service members, according to the vice president’s office.

In Egypt, Pence will discuss with Sisi their countries’ anti-terrorism partnerships, peace efforts, North Korea, foreign aid, nuclear energy, Russia and human rights, including the status of American citizens imprisoned by Sisi’s government. In Israel, the vice president will meet with Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, deliver a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, and visit the Western Wall and the Holocaust museum, Yad Veshem.

The vice president intends to “reaffirm the United States’ commitment to its allies in the Middle East and to working cooperatively to defeat radicalism,” said Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah.

Christian, Conservative, Republican

Pence has described himself as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order” and he’s been outspoken about his deep devotion to Israel as part of his religious beliefs since long before Donald Trump’s entrance into politics. But his advocacy for Trump’s Jerusalem decision has taken on a political aspect amid speculation about the administration’s ultimate goals for the region and Pence’s own presidential ambitions.

In remarks in May commemorating Israel Independence Day, Pence explained that “my Christian faith compels me to cherish Israel as well as our deep alliance and historical ties” and that “the songs of the land of the people of Israel were the anthems of my youth when I was growing up.”

Pence grew up Catholic and became evangelical Christian later in life.

In July, Pence told a Christians United for Israel summit in Washington: “I promise you that the day will come when President Donald Trump moves the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Leading up to the trip, Pence has sought out Jewish and evangelical leaders for advice ahead of his meetings.

“It’s important for him to go,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in an interview. “His trip was planned before a decision was ever made about the embassy. The trip was to obviously show our strong alliance with Israel but also to build new relationships.”

The Palestinians, Perkins said, “are marginalizing their role” by canceling meetings with Pence. Internal divisions among Christian minorities in the region may have factored into their calculations, he said.

Domestic Motives

Former U.S. Mideast peace negotiator Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, said while Pence’s religious views clearly shaped his views on Israel, the administration’s Jerusalem announcement appears driven more by domestic considerations than by strategic concerns.

“The Jerusalem decision has created a fraught situation” for Pence’s trip, Miller said. “If it ever had a foreign policy purpose, once the president did what he did on Jerusalem, the chances of gaining goodwill evaporated” among everyone other than evangelicals and Israelis.

“But the one constituency, in my judgment, that motivated this whole enterprise from the beginning, American evangelicals and pro-Israel supporters — he’s going to be fine with them.”

The post Pence’s Mideast Trip Shrinks After Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration appeared first on Bloomberg Businessweek Middle East.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2Cp4qrM via IFTTT

#Politics & Policy #Mike Pence #Trump

0 notes

israel-jewish-news · 7 years

Text

Regev First Minister to Visit Cuba since 1973

New Post has been published on http://hamodia.com/2017/10/03/regev-first-minister-visit-cuba-since-1973/

Regev First Minister to Visit Cuba since 1973

Culture Minister Miri Regev this week became the first serving Israeli minister to visit Cuba since 1973, Haaretz reported on Tuesday.

Although Regev’s trip was private, without any connection to her official duties, it was the first time a senior official has gone in any capacity to Cuba, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel, since Fidel Castro severed ties on the eve of the Yom Kippur War.

Regev notified the Foreign Ministry and the Cabinet Secretariat about the trip, as required by protocol, but divulged no details other than that it was to visit family.

Rafi Eitan told Haaretz that he visited the island nation in April 2006, before being sworn in but after being designated minister for pensioners’ affairs in Ehud Olmert’s government. Eitan went there as a private businessman. After entering his ministerial post, though, he did not return to Cuba, at the request of a Cuban official who felt it would be inappropriate.

Cuba voted against against the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, but then recognized Israel and formed diplomatic ties in 1949. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Israel had a small diplomatic delegation in Havana.

But the Castro regime turned hostile after the 1967 war, and severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 1973, and sent soldiers to fight with the Syrians against Israel.

The Cuban government became an outspoken supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and Yasser Arafat was welcomed in Havana on several occasions.

Beginning in 1992, Israel was one of the few governments to consistently vote with the U.S. against U.N. resolutions criticizing the U.S. for its embargo on Cuba.

When the U.S. renewed its diplomatic ties with Cuba in July 2015, deliberations ensued in the Israeli Foreign Ministry about doing the same, but no action was taken. This was due reportedly to opposition from Republican politicians who are pro-Israel and have taken a critical view of warming relations with Cuba as long as the dictatorship remains in place.

#Cuba

0 notes

junker-town · 7 years

Text

Colin Kaepernick to the Seahawks makes too much sense to not happen

Kaepernick is a perfect fit for Seattle in more ways than one.

Until this week, Colin Kaepernick hasn’t drawn much attention, if any, as a free agent. The outspoken passer left tens of millions of dollars on the table to leave a struggling 49ers franchise, only to be met by silence from NFL front offices and screeching hot takes from social media pundits along the way.

As a result, the former Super Bowl starter remains the most accomplished quarterback available in a dire market. While a few teams still need an experienced starter to take the reins behind center — the Jets foremost among them — another destination in need of a reliable backup has emerged as the best possible landing spot for the 29-year-old.

Seattle.

The Seahawks have been tied to Kaepernick and Robert Griffin III as they look for a reliable veteran to back up Pro Bowler Russell Wilson behind center. When asked about the mobile passers, Pete Carroll told ESPN Seattle’s Brock and Salk show that “quite frankly, yes, we are looking at all those guys.”

Their interest has gone beyond that, and they’re bringing him in for a visit on Wednesday.

RG3 could use his time in the Pacific Northwest to rebuild the winning narrative that injuries and one year in Cleveland stripped from him. Kaepernick could use it to show, underneath the headlines, he still deserves to be a starting quarterback in the NFL.

Kaepernick has stayed glued to the top of “best available quarterbacks” lists since the season ended, and while several excuses have been made for his inability to find a new home, few hold any water.

A spot with the Seahawks would make almost too much sense. Here are some very real reasons why.

Colin Kaepernick was much better than you thought last season

Kaepernick started off his season playing behind Blaine Gabbert and wound up piloting a 2-14 team, but his performance — especially given his supporting cast — was significantly better than his numbers suggest. While he only completed 59 percent of his passes, he limited turnovers and avoided mistakes, cutting his interception rate to a career-low 1.2 percent in the process. His 16:4 touchdown-to-interception ratio was one of the league’s top 10 performances last fall.

He did that while throwing to a receiving corps headlined by Jeremy Kerley and Quinton Patton.

It’s tough to put his bad team/good performance 2016 into words, but our very own Stephen White may have done it best with a recent tweetstorm that highlighted how Kaepernick is still a special quarterback.

I can promise you won’t likely find many w/more knowledge about Kap’s performance, let alone football, than @sgw94.http://pic.twitter.com/yE78uFdfyB

— Joel D. Anderson (@byjoelanderson) May 13, 2017

The TL;DR of White’s commentary? Kaepernick is a multifaceted passer who makes strong reads downfield, plays smarter than most give him credit for, and performed better than could be expected given his surroundings.

Even if you’re taking his base numbers into account, his 90.7 passer rating ranked 17th among qualified starters in 2016, ahead of players like Joe Flacco, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning, and Cam Newton. In a world where Mike Glennon can snag a three-year, $45 million contract after throwing only 11 passes the last two seasons, the radio silence around Kaepernick is shocking.

Colin Kaepernick is used to playing behind a piecemeal offensive line

Part of the reason why the Seahawks need a reliable backup quarterback is because their cheesecloth O-line keeps getting Russell Wilson wrecked. Seattle ranked 28th in the league last fall after letting Wilson and his backups get sacked on more than 7 percent of passing plays. Wilson has used, uh, bubble water to stay remarkably resilient, but it's clear Pete Carroll needs a contingency plan as his star quarterback gets older.

San Francisco, somehow, was even worse. Kaepernick and Gabbert were sacked on 8.74 percent of dropbacks — good for 30th in the league. Like Wilson, Kaepernick is a mobile quarterback who understands when to pull down the ball and charge upfield. While Wilson’s rushing numbers dropped to career lows last season, Kaepernick remains a dangerous weapon who can mitigate a collapsing pocket after gaining nearly seven yards per carry in 2016.

Colin Kaepernick would have an immediate ally in Michael Bennett and the rest of the Seahawks roster

After his protests of the national anthem gained international press, Kaepernick may be the league’s most recognizable activist. Bennett, however, is not far behind. The All-Pro defensive lineman has been outspoken on issues ranging from the Israel-Palestine conflict to women’s rights to childhood obesity. He’s never shied from issues he deems important nor backed down from an argument.

Bennett, along with teammates Cliff Avril, Doug Baldwin, and Jeremy Lane, spoke out in support of Kaepernick’s national anthem protests last year. Lane even joined the movement by taking a knee before games and earned his head coach’s support.

"It's a totally individual decision," Carroll said. "I'm really proud of the progress we're making in the conversation."

"He was very composed and poised about it. We support our guys."

Later, the bulk of the roster would join the movement by linking arms during the national anthem before their season opener.

This offseason, Bennett and Richard Sherman told the press they thought the passer was being blackballed by NFL teams for speaking out. The day after Carroll confirmed the Seahawks were looking at Kaepernick, Bennett told 710 ESPN Seattle that his team would be the “perfect place” for the quarterback.

Not only would Kaepernick land in a locker room where he’s surrounded by allies, but he would also join an outspoken team used to dealing with a large media presence and questions about off-field issues.

The Seahawks need a reliable backup quarterback, and Colin Kaepernick is the best player on the market

The team’s current backup, TCU product Trevone Boykin, is a former undrafted free agent who’s in hot water after being arrested in Texas on public intoxication and possession of marijuana charges. The second-year player performed well in limited action last fall, but is an untested and unfinished product who has yet to start a game in his career. With Wilson a veritable sponge for big hits, Carroll needs a reliable presence who can take over a game and inspire confidence should the team’s starter miss the first game of his career.

Enter Kaepernick, the best available player in a free agent market that has been whittled down to names like Griffin, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Dan Orlovsky, and Charlie Whitehurst. He’s the best of a bad situation — and he’s still pretty damn good.

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-15/

CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House

Those were the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he dismissed last month’s Mideast peace conference in Paris as “useless,” instead focusing on the inauguration of US President Donald Trump just days later.

This new world, one both Trump and Netanyahu hope to create from what they see as the ruins of the previous presidency, will include not only the future relationship between Israel and the United States but the renewal of ties after eight years of perceived mutual loathing under President Barack Obama.

Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.

“We have known each other for years, but this will be his first meeting since being elected as President of the United States and mine as Prime Minister of Israel,” Netanyahu said at this week’s Cabinet meeting.

The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.

Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.

Iran

Netanyahu’s view:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — or Iran Deal — was inked in 2015. According to officials, the agreement extends the time it would take for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon from two months to more than a year.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.

Netanyahu lobbied hard against the deal that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying the agreement would only pave “Iran’s path to the bomb.” He presented his case before the UN General Assembly and went behind President Barack Obama’s back to present it to the United States Congress.

But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied

Trump’s view:

Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”

The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.

Members of Trump’s administration also have urged caution on scrapping the deal. During his confirmation hearings, Defense Secretary James Mattis said: “When America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.”

Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.

Settlements

Netanyahu’s view:

One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.

“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”

Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.

The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”

Last December, the UN Security Council issued its strongest condemnation to date, saying settlements have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation of international law.” The US, which has veto power, abstained from the vote.

Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.

Trump’s view:

In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.

Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.

But in the last fortnight, the Trump administration has begun to make noises suggesting it wants Israel to put the brakes on settlement activity, calling recent expansion announcements “not helpful.”

In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”

But the pro-settler movement in Israel remains buoyant. Israel’s Knesset just passed a law, known as the Regulation Law, which serves to legalize many dozens of settler outposts built on private Palestinian land.

The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.

Peace process

Netanyahu’s view:

The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.

Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.

Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.

“In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence,” said Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in 2009.

Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.

But Israel’s Prime Minister rejects such criticism. He says blame for the failure to move the peace process forward lies with the Palestinians and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Trump’s view:

Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.

He says he wants his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to lead his diplomatic efforts in the region. But Kushner is untested in foreign policy and a largely unknown quantity in the Middle East.

Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.

Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.

In response to the passing of the Regulation Law on settler outposts, Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of PLO’s Executive Committee said: “All Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal and a war crime regardless of any law passed by the Israeli Parliament or any decision taken by any Israeli judge. The Israeli settlement enterprise negates peace and the possibility of the two-state solution.”

US Embassy

Netanyahu’s view:

It was only last month while speaking to his Cabinet that Netanyahu made the clearest declaration yet on the embassy question telling ministers: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it is proper that not only should the American Embassy be here, but all embassies should come here.”

If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Such a move would overturn 70 years of international consensus, that Jerusalem’s status should be settled in a final peace agreement, and, some argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.

READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial

Trump’s view:

During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.

He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy’s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.

“The embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision,” said Trump. “I’m thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens.”

Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.

These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.

Also important is the fact that Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors have enjoyed a warming of relations in recent years, built around a common enemy, Iran. This backroom diplomacy would likely take a hit if the US Embassy changed its address.

Syria

Netanyahu’s view:

Israel has been keeping a close eye on Syria’s six-year civil war from across the border in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights — which the international community considers to be occupied territory.

“I don’t know if we can resolve (the Syria civil war) but we can help mitigate some of the suffering. That’s the best that Israel can do. Of course we don’t let the Syrian war or aggression from Syria spill over into our territory you know our position, my red lines — we keep them stringently,” Netanayuhu explained in December.

Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.

READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel

But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.

“Hezbollah is a main threat for the state of Israel. They are tied up in Syria today but they have not put down those arms that are pointing towards Israel,” says Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner.

In return for supporting an ally, Israeli officials say, Syria is smuggling advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Several times in recent months, Syrian state media has reported alleged Israeli airstrikes near Damascus. They’re believed to be targeting arms bound for Lebanon. Israel never comments.

READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on

Trump’s view:

Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.

He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.

In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.

But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.

During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.

“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

junker-town · 7 years

Text

Colin Kaepernick to the Seahawks makes too much sense to not happen

Kaepernick is a perfect fit for Seattle in more ways than one.

Colin Kaepernick hasn’t drawn much, if any, as a free agent. The outspoken passer left tens of millions of dollars on the table to leave a struggling 49ers franchise, only to be met by silences from NFL front offices and screeching hot takes from social media pundits along the way.

Seattle.

A spot with the Seahawks would make almost too much sense. Here are some very real reasons why.

Colin Kaepernick was much better than you thought last season

He did that while throwing to a receiving corps headlined by Jeremy Kerley and Quinton Patton.

I can promise you won’t likely find many w/more knowledge about Kap’s performance, let alone football, than @sgw94.http://pic.twitter.com/yE78uFdfyB

— Joel D. Anderson (@byjoelanderson) May 13, 2017

Colin Kaepernick is used to playing behind a piecemeal offensive line

Part of the reason why the Seahawks need a reliable backup quarterback is because their cheesecloth O-line keeps getting Russell Wilson wrecked. Seattle ranked 28th in the league last fall after letting Wilson and his backups get sacked on more than seven percent of passing plays. Wilson has used, uh, bubble water to stay remarkably resilient, but its clear Pete Carroll needs a contingency plan as his star quarterback gets older.

Colin Kaepernick would have an immediate ally in Michael Bennett and the rest of the Seahawks roster

Bennett, along with teammates Cliff Avril, Doug Baldwin, and Jeremy Lane spoke out in support of Kaepernick’s national anthem protests last year. Lane even joined the movement by taking a knee before games and earned his head coach’s support.

"It's a totally individual decision," Carroll said. "I'm really proud of the progress we're making in the conversation."

"He was very composed and poised about it. We support our guys."

Later, the bulk of the roster would join the movement by linking arms during the national anthem before their season opener.

This offseason, Bennett and Richard Sherman told the press they thought the passer was being blackballed by NFL teams for speaking out. Not only would Kaepernick land in a locker room where he’s surrounded by allies, but he would also join an outspoken team used to dealing with a large media presence and questions about off-field issues.

The Seahawks need a reliable backup quarterback, and Colin Kaepernick is the best player on the market

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-14/

CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House

Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.

The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.

Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.

Iran

Netanyahu’s view:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.

But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied

Trump’s view:

Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”

The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.

Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.

Settlements

Netanyahu’s view:

One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.

“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”

Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.

The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”

Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.

Trump’s view:

In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.

Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.

In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”

The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.

Peace process

Netanyahu’s view:

The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.

Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.

Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.

Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.

Trump’s view:

Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.

Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.

Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.

US Embassy

Netanyahu’s view:

If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.

READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial

Trump’s view:

During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.

Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.

These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.

Syria

Netanyahu’s view:

Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.

READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel

But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.

READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on

Trump’s view:

Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.

He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.

In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.

But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.

During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.

“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-13/

CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House

Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.

The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.

Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.

Iran

Netanyahu’s view:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.

But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied

Trump’s view:

Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”

The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.

Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.

Settlements

Netanyahu’s view:

One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.

“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”

Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.

The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”

Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.

Trump’s view:

In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.

Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.

In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”

The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.

Peace process

Netanyahu’s view:

The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.

Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.

Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.

Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.

Trump’s view:

Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.

Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.

Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.

US Embassy

Netanyahu’s view:

If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.

READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial

Trump’s view:

During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.

Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.

These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.

Syria

Netanyahu’s view:

Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.

READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel

But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.

READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on

Trump’s view:

Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.

He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.

In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.

But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.

During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.

“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-12/

CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House

Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.

The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.

Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.

Iran

Netanyahu’s view:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.

But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied

Trump’s view:

Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”

The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.

Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.

Settlements

Netanyahu’s view:

One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.

“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”

Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.

The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”

Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.

Trump’s view:

In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.

Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.

In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”

The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.

Peace process

Netanyahu’s view:

The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.

Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.

Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.

Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.

Trump’s view:

Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.

Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.

Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.

US Embassy

Netanyahu’s view:

If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.

READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial

Trump’s view:

During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.

He hinted that the prospect of moving the embassy��s location would be part of a great peace deal but gave little specifics in an interview published by Israel Hayom on February 10. This is more in line with previous White House administrations, which have all exercised the presidential waiver over the 1995 Act of Congress which calls for the embassy to be moved.

Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.

These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.

Syria

Netanyahu’s view:

Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.

READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel

But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.

READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on

Trump’s view:

Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.

He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.

In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.

But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.

During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.

“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/16/cnn-donald-trump-and-benjamin-netanyahu-meet-at-white-house-11/

CNN: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at White House

Netanyahu, enraged by the move, has made no secret of his dislike for Obama while championing the arrival of Trump.

The Iran deal, the peace process and the constant speculation over moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are all likely to be on the agenda.

Here’s how the two men shape up on the big talking points ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.

Iran

Netanyahu’s view:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed to the deal that saw sanctions eased on Iran in return.

But as he has made clear on a number of occasions, Netanyahu sees Iran as an existential threat, hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

READ: Rouhani warns Iran will not be bullied

Trump’s view:

Netanyahu believes he has found an ally in Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of the Iran Deal, calling it “one of the worst deals ever.”

The new US President has already slapped sanctions on Tehran for a ballistic missile test but neither he nor Netanyahu have offered a clear alternative to the deal.

Trump faces a conundrum whereby European allies want the deal to remain in place, while Israel wants a harder line.

Settlements

Netanyahu’s view:

One issue on which Israel virtually stands alone is settlements — the Israeli cities, towns and communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“On the issue of settlements, no one takes more care than me and the Likud government,” the Prime Minister said at his weekly Cabinet meeting on January 22.

“We will continue to take care of (the settlements) with wisdom and responsibility for the benefit of the settlements and the state of Israel.”

Six thousand new settler homes as well as a brand new settlement have been announced by Israel in the last four weeks.

The international community condemns settlements as illegal, which Israel disputes. Previous US presidents have described settlements as an “obstacle to peace.”

Following the decision, Israel accused the US and the Obama administration of betrayal.

Trump’s view:

In Trump, Israel hopes it will find a slightly more sympathetic ear.

Trump has previously donated to a settlement, Beit El, and nominated pro-settlement figure, David Friedman, to be the next US ambassador to Israel.

In a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper, Trump described himself as “not somebody that believes that going forward with … settlements is a good thing for peace.”

The law is now expected to be contested in Israel’s Supreme Court.

Peace process

Netanyahu’s view:

The bedrock of the peace process, as understood by the international community, is the two-state solution.

Successive US presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported this goal.

Equally, both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed their commitment to two states living side by side.

Fast-forward to 2017 and many in the international community wonder whether Netanyahu’s actions on settlements mean he has any intention to stick to that position.

Trump’s view:

Trump has called a successful resolution of the peace process “the ultimate deal.” But it’s eluded US presidents since the founding of the state of Israel almost 70 years ago.

Any efforts to broker peace will come up against entrenched positions.

Israel’s far right now talks openly about annexing the West Bank, a threat which Palestinians are taking seriously.

US Embassy

Netanyahu’s view:

If the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, it would be seen as effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As far as the international community is concerned, East Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state.

READ: Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial

Trump’s view:

During his campaign, Trump pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he appears to be tapping the brakes.

Significantly, in addition to being popular among many Israelis, Trump is also riding a wave of popularity among many Arab leaders, who felt neglected by the Obama administration.

These countries are urging Trump not to make a unilateral decision, fearing unrest on the streets throughout the Middle East.

Syria

Netanyahu’s view:

Occasional spill over from the war has been met with force by Israel’s army.

READ: Injured Syrians find treatment in Israel

But Israel’s real concern isn’t the occasional rogue shell, it’s what the resurgence in the fortunes of President Bashar al-Assad might mean for arguably one of Israel’s most dangerous foes.

READ: Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on

Trump’s view:

Trump has yet to set out any clear policy on what he wants to achieve in Syria in terms of ending the violence.

He has been praised by President Assad, who believes Trump could become an ally and help in the fight against ISIS.

In terms of refugees, last month Trump stated he will “absolutely do safe zones in Syria,” for refugees fleeing the violence.

But his travel ban, against seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria, has caused huge controversy both at home and abroad.

During his first televised interview as President, Trump said that Germany and other European countries had made mistakes by allowing millions of refugees across their borders.

“I don’t want that to happen here,” he told ABC News.

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes