Donald Trump praises Saudi Arabia, largely avoids 9/11 criticism at LIV Golf pro-am

 Trump, despite all of the criticism that has come with the controversial new league in general and specifically this week, had plenty of kind words to say about Saudi Arabia, which is bankrolling the venture.

"I've known these people for a long time," Trump said, via ESPN. "They've been friends of mine for a long time. They've invested in many American companies. They own big percentages of many, many American companies and, frankly, what they're doing for golf is so great. What they're doing for the players is so great. The salaries are going to go way up."

This week’s tournament — which marks the third for LIV Golf — has drawn significant blowback from families of 9/11 victims. Trump National Golf Club Bedminster sits about 50 miles from New York City. Saudi Arabia has been connected to the attacks in 2001. Families have called on Trump and others to cancel the event, and have been protesting it outside the course. They sent Trump a letter condemning him for hosting the tournament, too.

Trump was asked about the 9/11 connection Thursday, but he declined to give much of a direct answer.

“Well, nobody’s gotten to the bottom of 9/11, unfortunately, and they should have, as to the maniacs that did that horrible thing to our city, to our country, to the world, so nobody’s really been there,” Trump told ESPN. “But I can tell you there are a lot of really great people that are out here today and we’re going to have a lot of fun and we’re going to celebrate.”

Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudi nationals, and the FBI released documents last year that alleged Saudi Arabian officials provided logistical support for at least two of the attackers, per CNN. Saudi Arabia has denied any involvement.

Trump once blamed Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks.

“Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis – it was Saudi. Take a look at Saudi Arabia,” Trump said in 2016 on "Fox & Friends," via Golfweek. “Open the documents. We ought to get [former President George W. Bush] or somebody to have the documents opened because frankly, if you open the documents, I think you are going to see it was Saudi Arabia.”

Still, Trump was one of several notable names — along with Charles Barkley and Caitlyn Jenner — to participate in the pro-am event Thursday.

Trump is a big supporter of the LIV Golf series and has been advocating for it on social media. That likely isn’t going to change anytime soon.

"The PGA was not loved by a lot of the players, as you know, for a long time," Trump told ESPN on Thursday. "Now they have an alternative. And nobody would've ever known whatever there was going to be a gold rush like this."

Political observer examines the troubled history of Rohingya in Myanmar

In this photo taken on July 4, 2021, members of the internally displaced Rohingya community gather by their makeshift shelters at the Baw Du Pha IDP Camp in Sittwe in Myanmar's western Rakhine state. Photo: AFP

As Myanmar stands poised to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2017 Rakhine crisis that saw a brutal onslaught against the Muslim Rohingya by the military forcing over 700,000 to flee to Bangladesh, Myo Swe, a political observer looks back at the long and troubled history of the country’s most oppressed minority.

Myo Swe tells Mizzima that the origin of the problem for Rohingya living in northern Arakan or Rakhine State revolves around statelessness, the early years of Burmese independence, and the actions of military coup-maker General Ne Win.

“There has been a debate where the Rohingya originated. As far as I have heard, the debate started during the time when two major political parties were competing during the tenure of Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League,” said Myo Swe.

“Under Prime Minister U Nu (from 1948 to 1958 and from 1960 to 1962), there were more than 140 ethnic groups including Rohingya in Burma. However, in 1962, then-General Ne Win staged a coup, and under Ne Win’s tenure, Pashu (Malay inhabitants), Rohingya and some ethnic groups were eliminated (from the ethnic group list), which reduced the number of ethnic groups to 135,” he said.

STATELESSNESS

This issue of government-imposed statelessness appears to lie at the core of the Rohingya issue, exacerbated by the 1982 Citizenship Law that did not recognize the minority, and a blinkered view of British Colonial history and texts that sought to ignore the mentions that indicate that generations of Rohingya had lived in the territory of Arakan or Rakhine.

What all this means, notes Myo Swe, is “we were brainwashed” and “religious riots and ethnic riots became a political tool,” aided and abetted by the Myanmar military.

“The Rohingya have been suffering human rights violations under the Burmese military government since 1978. The Rohingya were constantly fleeing to neighbouring country Bangladesh. In 1978, the Rohingya fled due to (the military) Operation Dragon King carried out by the (then Ne Win-led) government,” he said.

After the Burmese military regime began persecuting the political opposition following Aung San Suu Kyi's victory in the 1990 elections and the earlier 1988 Uprising, military operations targeting Muslims, who strongly favoured the pro-democracy movement, began in Rakhine State. The Rohingya-led National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) political party was banned and its leaders were jailed.

As Myo Swe notes, in 1991-92, under the Saw Maung-led junta, about 250,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh. They had been subjected to forced labour in the junta’s transport and business sectors without getting paid.

TIPPING POINT

For a while there was a lull before the storm.

“I hope everyone will remember an incident in 2012, under Thein Sein’s government, which was a small spark that started ignition. Following the news of Ma Thida Htwe, allegedly raped and beheaded by three Rohingya in Yanbye Township, Rakhine State, a few days after that incident, 10 Muslim travelers on a bus were killed by a mob in Taunggok, Rakhine State. This was when the Rakhine-Rohingya ethnic riots started,” he said.

This proved to be a significant watershed moment for the communities in Rakhine State.

“Due to the riots between the two ethnic groups in Rakhine State, from June 8 to June 13, 2012, about 1,192 Arakanese houses and 1,336 Muslims houses were burnt down including a school, nine Buddhist temples and seven mosques. Thirteen people from the Rakhine side and 16 people from the Muslim side were killed as well. It could be considered that the situation was exacerbated by the military’s incitement rather than taking responsibility for the damage of the lives and properties of the residents,” said Myo Swe.

Although at that time communications were poor, the world was shocked by citizen-shot videos released showing mobs hunting down people and seemingly beating them to death. Anecdotal evidence suggests the military stood by and did not intervene.

A state of emergency was declared in Rakhine State, allowing the military to participate in the administration of the region. The UN’s World Food Programme said in June 2012 that 90,000 (mostly Rohingya) who fled ethnic violence in Myanmar were in need of aid.

MASTERMINDS?

Burma or Myanmar – a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state - has long suffered due to groups stirring up hatred under the banner of nationalism. One does not have to look too far for the main culprit – the Myanmar military – yet civilian groups have stirred the pot, particularly one group.

“By looking at the situation, the main organization of incitement was led by the Patriotic Association of Myanmar [widely known as Ma Ba Tha, viewed as led by Ashin Wirathu, a Burmese Buddhist monk, and the leader of the ultranationalist 969 Movement in Myanmar], said Myo Swe.

He points to alleged connections between Ma Ba Tha and powerful military officers, noting that the group had the intention to spread religious propaganda among the citizens.

All this pressure and propaganda set the stage for the Myanmar military to take further action against the Rohingya minority.

TENSION AND CRACKDOWN

The excuse for the Myanmar military was provided in October 2016 by a poorly armed Rohingya militant group that attacked three Myanmar border posts on Myanmar’s border with Bangladesh.

According to government officials in the mainly Rohingya border town of Maungdaw, the attackers brandished knives, machetes and homemade slingshots that fired metal bolts, killing nine border officers, and a further four soldiers on the fourth day of fighting. A group calling itself the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) claimed responsibility.

Shortly after, the Myanmar military forces and extremist Buddhists started a major crackdown on the Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State in response. The crackdown resulted in wide-scale human rights violations at the hands of security forces, including extrajudicial killings, gang rapes, arson and other brutalities.

The military crackdown on the Rohingya drew criticism from the United Nations, human rights group Amnesty International, the US Department of State, and the Malaysian government.

ALLEGED ‘GENOCIDE’

Then in August 2017, the Myanmar security forces began what were termed "clearance operations" against the Rohingya in northern Rakhine State. Again, the actions of the militant group ARSA against government security posts provided a useful excuse for the military.

The operations escalated radically, killing thousands of Rohingya, brutalizing thousands more, and driving hundreds of thousands out of the country into neighbouring Bangladesh while their villages burned, with the Myanmar military claiming that their actions were solely attacks on rebels in response to the ARSA attack, according to media reports.

However, subsequent reports from various international organisations have indicated that the military operations were widespread indiscriminate attacks on the Rohingya population, already underway before the ARSA attacks, to purge northern Rakhine state of Rohingya, through "ethnic cleansing" and or through alleged "genocide”.

An August 2018 study estimates that more than 24,000 or more Rohingya people were killed by the Myanmar military and the local Buddhists since the "clearance operations" started in August 2017. Over 700,000 refugees – the vast majority Rohingya and some Hindus – fled to Bangladesh.

The case of alleged “genocide” against the Rohingya by the Myanmar military is currently being heard at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, after preliminary objections made by the Myanmar junta were recently dismissed, allowing the case to proceed.

NOBODY SAFE

Myanmar military brutality against this minority is clear. But, as Myo Swe notes, nobody is now safe.

“I believe we were so trapped in this ethnic and religious propaganda that we closed our eyes and ears over the oppression against an ethnic group, which should not have been done. Now, we have come to accept the fact that the military committed human rights violations against Rohingya just as they violated people by killing and raping in the mainland after the 1 February 2021 military coup.”

It was a mistake to have turned a blind eye to the oppression of a minority, he said.

“The Burmese military’s oppression against this ethnic group (Rohingya) has been ignored throughout successive Burmese governments. The problem was the democracy we had achieved (between 2010 and 2020) was just a sham,” said Myo Swe.

Now it is the Myanmar people as a whole who are under attack by the Myanmar military.

Given the experiences of the Myanmar people in the wake of the coup, the Myanmar people can more easily understand the oppression and discrimination targeting the Rohingya, he said.

“I hope injustice under the pretext of nationalism can be eradicated in the future,” Myo Swe adds.

IntelBrief: Violence in Myanmar: Executions, Genocide, and Protests Leave Junta Undeterred

 

Bottom Line Up Front

• Four pro-democracy activists, including a former lawmaker, were executed by the military junta in Myanmar (also known as Burma) following a widely critiqued closed-door trial for “terrorist acts.”
• Recently, soldiers from the military in Myanmar, known as the Tatmadaw, confessed to killing, torturing, and raping civilians; protests against the coup and ousting of Aung San Suu Kyi last year have led to widespread detention and death.
• The junta in Myanmar has also used the premise of fighting terrorism or militants as a rationale for its latest violent crackdown on the Rohingya community in Rakhine state.
• Despite the scale of violence visited by the junta on the people of Myanmar, there has been little international accountability; however, the landmark The Gambia v. Myanmar case at the International Court of Justice offers a path to some accountability.

Four pro-democracy activists, including a former lawmaker, were executed by the military junta in Myanmar (also known as Burma) following a widely critiqued closed-door trial for “terrorist acts.” The state news outlet Global News Light of Myanmar said that the accusations meant the men “gave directives, made arrangements and committed conspiracies for brutal and inhumane terror acts.” This appears to be the first use of capital punishment in decades though since seizing power the junta has not hesitated to violently suppress opposition leaders, protesting civilians, or minority groups like the Rohingya. United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has condemned the executions, saying, “Such reprehensible acts of violence and repression cannot be tolerated. We remain committed to the people of Burma and their efforts to restore Burma's path to democracy." Malaysia called the executions a crime against humanity and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) called them “reprehensible,” while Cambodia also denounced the killings. The U.S. State Department reiterated that there could be no “business as usual” with the junta and has called on China to exert more political pressure, though the regime in Naypyidaw challenged these criticisms with a defiant defense, perhaps emboldened by the relative lack of pressure it has faced from influential regional neighbors.

Recently, soldiers from the military in Myanmar, known as the Tatmadaw, confessed to killing, torturing, and raping civilians in an exclusive interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). There have been horrific accounts of the deliberate violence, they were ordered to perpetrate, including shooting civilians, burning entire homes and villages, sometimes with people in them, and raping women and girls to deter any support for the People’s Defense Force (PDF), a group of civilian militia groups fighting for a democratic transition. The BBC interviews recount a systematic and deliberate campaign of violence waged by the military, reflecting a culture of impunity enjoyed for decades. Last year, protesters decried the military coup, which ousted the democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi,x who has been detained since February 2021 and has been sentenced to more than a decade in prison on charges that Human Rights Watch has referred to as “bogus.” More than 1000 civilians have reportedly been killed since the coup, with the junta asserting that those who were killed or detained were “terrorists,” which bodes ill for those still in detention.

The junta in Myanmar has also used the premise of fighting terrorism or militants as a rationale for its latest violent crackdown on the Rohingya community in Rakhine state. Medecins Sans Frontieres reported that at least 6,700 Rohingya, including at least 730 children under the age of five, were killed in just the first month after violence broke out in August 2017. Since then, there have been widespread reports of systematic burning of villages, torture, and rape. The U.N. estimates that over a million Rohingya refugees have fled to neighboring Bangladesh since the 1990s, greatly stretching the capacities of the host nation and local communities in Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar. The Rohingya have been denied citizenship in their home state and the United Nations estimates that they are the world’s largest stateless population; in March 2022, Secretary Blinken labeled the crisis a genocide and affirmed that the campaign against the Rohingya fit the definition of that gravest of crimes.

Despite the scale of the violence visited by the junta on the people of Myanmar, the international community has done little to hold the junta accountable. In large part, this is due to China’s reluctance to pressure the junta over the atrocities. Instead, China has chosen to protect Myanmar from censure and sanctions in the United Nations Security Council, despite the efforts of several states to shine a light on the issue and hold Myanmar to account. The recent Press Statement from the Security Council could be read as an indication of some level of consensus between the members, but pales in comparison to the scale of violence perpetrated by the military. In October 2021 Myanmar pledged to abide by a regional peace plan developed by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and backed by the U.S. and China, but regional neighbors have asserted that recent events have made a “mockery” of the plan. China cites its “non-interference” policy, which stipulates that states must not intervene in one another’s internal affairs, for its unwillingness to condemn the executions. Beijing invokes this same defense to fend off criticisms of Chinese persecution of dissidents and its Uyghur population. Earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s trip to Myanmar was criticized for undermining ASEAN unity, and while it remains unclear if it emboldened the junta to carry out the executions, it certainly did not deter them.

While the international community has struggled to resolve the crisis in Myanmar, a small state has had an outsized impact in addressing the ongoing genocide. In November 2019, The Gambia, brought Myanmar to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over alleged violations of the Genocide Convention against the ethnic Rohingya population. In early July, the ICJ rejected Myanmar’s jurisdictional objections, paving the way for The Gambia v. Myanmar to go forward. In a press release, The Gambia’s Ministry of Justice welcomed the decision and reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing justice and accountability at home and abroad, and its pride in leading the international effort to address the Rohingya genocide. The landmark case highlights that while great power competition and regional dynamics have failed so far to deter the junta in Myanmar and stem the violence, there are other avenues available to pursue accountability.

The UN representative hopes to return to justice due to the ICJ decision

 Looking at the recent decision of the ICJ International Court regarding Myanmar, military leaders, Tom Andrews, UN Special Representative for Human Rights in Myanmar, said that all those who obeyed their orders must pay for the atrocities they committed. Although the ICJ rejected all objections of the Burmese military council to the case of committing genocide, which was charged in the ICJ, the military council responded by saying that they have to defend themselves in accordance with international law. Ma In Qin Naing has given a full presentation.

Before the announcement on July 25 that the military council had executed four opponents of the military coup in Myanmar, including two prominent democracy activists, on July 22 the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, issued a verdict regarding Myanmar. The ICJ rejected Myanmar's objection not to accept and hear the case brought by Gambia that Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya. Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun, who was authorized to speak at the Military Council, responded to the media on July 24 that he would defend himself in accordance with international law.

"Right now, everyone is saying that this decision will have an impact on Myanmar. However, if you really count, this decision has become a ruling. Since the judgment has become law, it will apply to all countries of the world. As for us, going forward, in accordance with the law, The Myanmar government will take a strong stand in accordance with international laws.

Tom Andrews, the UN Special Representative for Myanmar, told VOA that the ICJ's ruling on Myanmar is a real step forward, even though justice is slow for not only the Rohingya, but also Burmese people who are facing severe violence after the coup d'état. 'état.

“This is really welcome news. We fully expect this to happen. The military council's attempts to respond are meaningless. I hope that the International Court of Justice will have the authority and jurisdiction to proceed with this case. Access to justice has unfortunately been slow, but we must welcome and indeed celebrate this positive step forward.”

Power. . So what will be the impact of the ICJ's decision to reject Myanmar's objections and proceed with the genocide charge?

Tom Andrews. . The most important thing is that the military council and the soldiers and the security forces want everyone under their command to know that the world is watching. Justice is being delayed but they need to understand that they are going back to their time and they will be held accountable one day. So accountability, When it comes to action mechanisms, I see any positive movement as a welcome step. As a military council, the atrocities committed by them We should be very concerned about paying for crimes. The international community is watching and continuing to take action against them.

Power. . After Tom Andrews presented a report at the United Nations Human Rights Council late last month, how do you evaluate the current human rights situation in Myanmar?

Tom Andrews. . The situation is dire and getting worse. During my trip to Malaysia, I talked to many people who escaped from Myanmar. They shared their experiences of having a really scary time. They also told how they tried to run to get to the next place of safety. The situation in Myanmar is bad. The people I talked to online today are from Sagaing. Their villages were burned, being systematically attacked; They say that more atrocities are being committed. So the situation is not getting better, it is getting worse. What a terrible situation.

In the report on Myanmar that Tom Andrews himself presented to the UN Human Rights Council at the end of June, he warned that the consequences of the military coup on February 1, 2021 would be a disaster for children and a lost generation.

Special Representative Tom Andrews' summary of the report also states that there are more than 250,000 children who have fled their homes due to the military attack, 130,000 children in secure refugee camps, and more than half a million Burmese refugee children who have taken refuge in neighboring countries. Lui also said that there are 14,00 children who were extrajudicially arrested by the military council after the military coup, and that there are at least 61 children who are being held hostage.

He also said this about the special features of Tom Andrews's trip to Malaysia in June, where he is to submit a report on Myanmar to the upcoming UN General Assembly.

"I saw that the Malaysian Foreign Minister gave me hope. It is seen that he has the desire to lead the proposals for the implementation of the five ASEAN common agreements on Myanmar. This is a very welcome step. It is a very important step. If you look at Myanmar's neighboring countries, they have a lot of investment shares in the country. I think, They have the most stake in the current crisis and this will hurt them even more. Therefore, there are reasons for ASEAN countries to take drastic measures. Now, there are practical and specific recommendations from Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin on how to reconcile with Myanmar. Among them, the National Unity Government NUGIt was also a proposal to interact with, and it was seen that he actually did it himself. These are all positive steps. I hope that ASEAN will take more positive steps

 Listen :UN representative hopes to return justice due to ICJ decision.mp3

byVOA 

Iran arrests ‘spies linked to Israel’s Mossad’

 The Iranian police have arrested the alleged leader and four other members of a spy network they suspect is affiliated to Israel’s secret services, Iranian law enforcement authorities have said.

They did not give the nationality of those arrested but said on Thursday that they had received training for armed operations and sabotage.

KEEP READING

list of 3 items

list 1 of 3

Iran says suspected Israel cell members planning attack arrested

list 2 of 3

Iran says it has new ideas on nuclear deal after EU proposes text

list 3 of 3

Unprecedented price hikes put the squeeze on Iranian tenants

end of list

“The arrested five members of this spy network were given various pledges from [Israel’s] Mossad, including financial promises, to gather information from important areas across the country,” the law enforcement intelligence organisation said in a statement reported by the semi-official ILNA news agency.

In Israel, the Prime Minister’s Office, which oversees the foreign intelligence agency Mossad, declined to comment on the reported arrests.

Iran and Israel are longtime foes and are currently locked in a dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Israel accuses Iran of backing militant attacks against it, while Iran says Israel has carried out a number of killings of Iranian officials, including that of a senior officer in May. Israel does not confirm nor deny such actions.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Minister of Intelligence Esmaeil Khatib said Tehran had foiled subversive actions from the “Zionist regime” – its term for Israel.

Iranian security forces have successfully carried out a number of operations against Israel over the last few months, he said without specifying what they consisted of.

Last week, Iran’s security forces said they had arrested a network of agents working for Israel who entered Iran from Iraq’s Kurdish region to carry out sabotage and what they called “terrorist operations”.

Nournews, an outlet affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, had said the arrested agents were on their way to blow up an unspecified “sensitive centre” in Isfahan, which among other things houses the country’s main nuclear facilities,

The Natanz nuclear facilities in Isfahan were targeted by two major sabotage attacks in 2020 and 2021, which Iran condemned as “nuclear terrorism”.

The developments come amid intensified tensions with arch foe Israel, which has pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon at any cost as indirect talks with the United States to restore the 2015 nuclear deal have stalled since March.

Observers have pointed out that as tensions between Iran and Israel continue to grow, further escalation might be a possibility.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

Washington is the Problem, Not the Solution BY RAMZY BAROUD

 To judge US President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Israel and Palestine as a ‘failure’ in terms of activating the dormant ‘peace process’ is simply a misnomer. For this statement to be accurate, Washington would have had to indicate even a nominal desire to push for negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership.

Political and diplomatic platitudes aside, the current American administration has done the exact opposite as indicated in Biden’s words and actions. Alleging that the US commitment to a two-state solution “has not changed”, Biden dismissed his Administration’s interest in trying to achieve such a goal by declaring that the “ground is not ripe” for negotiations.

Considering that the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly announced its readiness to return to negotiations, one can only assume that the process is being stalled due to Israel’s intransigence. Indeed, none of Israel’s top leaders or major parties champion negotiations, or the so-called peace process, as a strategic objective.

However, Israel is not the only party to blame. The Americans, too, have made it clear that they moved on from that political sham altogether, one which they have invented and sustained for decades. In fact, the final nail in the ‘negotiating solution’ coffin was hammered by the Donald Trump Administration, which has simply backed every Israeli claim, thus shunning all rightful Palestinian demands.

The Biden Administration has been habitually blamed by Palestinians, Arabs and progressive voices within the Democratic Party for failing to reverse Trump’s prejudiced moves in favor of Israel: for example, moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, shutting down the US consulate in East Jerusalem, accepting the unfounded Israeli claims regarding its jurisdiction over illegal Jewish settlements built over occupied Palestinian land, and so on.

Even if one assumes that the Biden Administration is capable of reversing some or all of Trump’s unlawful actions, what good would that be in the greater scheme of things? Washington was, and remains, Israel’s greatest benefactor, funding its military occupation of Palestine with an annual gift of $4 billion, in addition to many other schemes, including a massive and growing budget allocated for Israel’s Iron Dome alone.

As horrific as Trump’s years were in terms of undermining a just resolution to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Biden’s policies are but a continuation of an existing pro-Israel American legacy that surpasses that of Trump by decades.

As for Israel, the ‘peace process’ has served its purpose, which explains the infamous declaration by the CEO of the Jewish settlement council in the occupied West Bank, known as Yesha, in 2018, “I don’t want to brag that we’ve won. (…) Others would say it appears that we’re winning.”

However, Israel’s supposed ‘victory’ following three decades of a fraudulent ‘peace process’ cannot be credited to Trump alone. Biden and other top US officials have also been quite useful. While it is widely understood that US politicians support Israel out of sheer interest, for example, the need to appease the influential pro-Israel lobby in Washington DC, Biden’s, support for Israel stems from an ideological foundation. The US President was hardly bashful when he repeated, upon his arrival at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport on July 13, his famous statement, “You need not be a Jew to be Zionist.”

Consequently, it may appear puzzling to hear Palestinian officials call on the US – and Biden, specifically – to pressure Tel Aviv to end its 55-year occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Mohannad al-Aklouk, the Palestinian representative at the Arab League, for example, repeated the same cliched and unrealistic language of expecting the US to “exert practical pressure on Israel”, “set the stage for a fair political process based on international law”, and “meet its role as a fair sponsor of the peace process”. Strangely, Mr. al-Aklouk truly believes that Washington, with its dismal track record of pro-Israeli bias, can possibly be the savior of the Palestinians.

Another Palestinian official told The New Arab that PA President Abbas was “disappointed with the results of Biden’s visit,” as, apparently, the Palestinian leader “expected that the US President would make progress in the peace process”. The same source continued to say that Abbas’ Authority is holding meetings with representatives from “powerful countries” to replace the US as sponsors of the once US-sponsored negotiations.

Abbas’ political stance is confusing. The ‘peace process’ is, after all, an American invention. It was a unique, self-serving style of diplomacy that was formulated to ensure Israel’s priorities remain at center stage of US foreign policy in the Middle East. In the Palestinian case, the ‘peace process’ only served to entrench Israeli colonization of Palestine, while degrading, or completely sidelining, legitimate Palestinian demands. This ‘process’ was also constructed with the aim of marginalizing international law as a political and legal frame of reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Instead of questioning the entire ‘peace process’ apparatus and apologizing for the strategic plunders of pursuing American mirages at the expense of Palestinian rights, the Palestinian Authority is still desperately clutching on to the same old fantasy, even when the US, along with Israel, have abandoned their own political farce.

Even if, supposedly, China, Russia or India would agree to be the new sponsors of the ‘peace process’, there is no reason for Tel Aviv to engage in future negotiations, when it is able to achieve its colonial objectives with full American support. Moreover, none of these countries have, for now, much leverage over Israel, therefore are unable to sustain any kind of meaningful pressure on Tel Aviv to respect international law.

Yet, the PA is still holding on, simply because the ‘peace process’ proved greatly beneficial in terms of funds, power and prestige enjoyed by a small but powerful class of Palestinians that was largely formulated after the Oslo Accords in 1993.

It is time for Palestinians to stop investing their political capital in the Biden Administration or any other administration. What they need is not a new ‘powerful’ sponsor of the ‘peace process’ but a grassroots-based struggle for freedom and liberation starting at home, one that galvanizes the energies of the Palestinian people themselves. Alas, this new paradigm cannot be achieved when the priorities of the Palestinian leadership remain fixated on the handouts and political validation of Washington and its Western allies.

Donation Politics: Biden’s Global Hypocrisy Starts at Home BY RICHARD FALK

 A few days ago among the many solicitations for funds to support Democratic candidates around the country in the 2022 elections came one that caught my eye with this obviously phony seductive line “I’d like to give you a call, Richard.” Reading the next line, none other than the U.S. President apparently with much time to waste, was supposedly eager to learn my views on what government might do better on my behalf, purporting even to be on a first-name basis with me despite the utter absence of any prior contact. To dumb down the President for the sake of a hypocritical sales pitch struck me as distasteful, but also revealing.

The approach became even more personal a day or two later when the same lure line was attributed to Jill Biden, cast in the role of a political party team player. The First Lady went on to expatiate upon the cynical view that Democrats are so desperate for a chance to interact with the President that they would fall for any come on, however absurd. In her  astonishing words: “Throughout the years, I’ve learned that there are at least three things that can make Joe smile from ear to ear: Our kids and grandkids, chocolate chip ice cream, and getting to talk one-on-one with Americans like you, Richard.”

And continues, “Having the chance to hear your hopes and dreams grounds Joe and motivates him to keep fighting the hard battles. That’s why Joe would love nothing more than to give you a call soon.” Then come what the message was really about—nothing more or less than a crass appeal for money coupled with a sly ‘confession’ that, after all, receiving a call from Biden was as unlikely as Donald Trump committing civil disobedience as a consequence of becoming an ardent anti-nuclear activist.

I didn’t have to read much further for these suspicions to be crudely confirmed. The price of admission to Biden’s specious ‘inner circle’ of solicited political feedback dupes was disclosed. It turned out if I wanted to be among those who might receive such a call, all I had to do was ‘to chip in’ as little as $7 to get on line to receive a call from the President. This more plausible message no longer seemed to resemble what Biden claimed when he reached out to me, which had I been less jaded, I would have interpreted as an unconditional wish by a conscientious leader who was seriously interested in learning my views on national policy issues, and not just another baited hook for donations.

Surely, a real call from Biden was worth more if indeed swallowing the donation bait was a genuine assurance that the call would indeed be forthcoming. This low price of admission sent an unmistakable signal that I would wait until at least until the age of 90 before the phone rang and Biden was waiting on the other end. If the price of admission had been pegged at $10,000 or more it would have been a plausible means of reaching out to the real ‘good Democrats,’ which for those in the know had in any event become a synonym for ‘rich Democrats’ rather political loners like myself who some sloppy hack had added to the DNC rolodex.

When it became clear that this was just a different, and deceptive, way to plead for funds, the mysterious prospect of actually receiving the phone call faded far into a zone of extreme improbability. This was a discrediting revelation being conveyed to prospective donkey donors like myself by subtly letting us know that after receiving a donation we became eligible to receive the phone call but only fools would hold their breath in anticipation. I now understood that all my donation would have achieved was to add me to what I imagined must be a lengthy list from which, perhaps during a lull in Biden presidential activities, a few contributors would be chosen to fulfill the literal commitment of the solicitation. In effect, you were being asked to buy a million-to-one lottery ticket with a tiny fraction of a chance of being chosen, and even this might be fanciful as I doubt that even Biden would be so at loose ends as to risk receiving a harangue delivered by someone like myself. The fact is that this personalized solicitation was basically always about money never about soliciting views. Given the dependence of many valuable civil society initiatives on public funding and private trust, the Democratic Party should be ashamed to be giving responsible appeals for support a bad name associated with deception and manipulation.

Actually, I would not have welcomed such a call if by some dark twist of fate I had received it, nor would Mr. Biden have liked what I might have said if given the chance, especially so shortly after his clumsily mismanaged visit to Israel and the Saudi Arabia. For Biden to ingratiate himself to his Israeli hosts by proclaiming himself to be a non-Jewish Zionist bonds him with the only prior such public affirmation of which I am aware, that of the white supremist, Richard Spencer [See Tony Greenstein’s extraordinary, scrupulously researched comprehensive critique of Zionism for confirmation: Zionism During the Holocaust: The Weaponization of the Holocaust (expected publication, 2022).]

If this is what being a ‘good Democrat’ has come to mean, then the opposition party may be in worse shape than even I imagined. Of course, Biden would disavow such an association, but his hyped identification with Israeli ethnocracy should be deeply disturbing to every American, regardless of party, who affirms the fundamental aspirational identity of the United States as a multiethnic democracy, the only future with any hopes of recovery from the horrors of January 6^th and a Supreme Court that foists the regressive views of the radical right majority views on the American people. I have enough faith in Biden’s leadership skills to be confident that he would have hung up long before I got to my most serious political concern: the lethal passivity of pro-democracy political forces in the U.S. in responding to the growing strength of a pre-fascist movement on the extreme right.

Of course, the cynical depths of appealing for political funds on the basis of an entirely contrived intimacy and a false claim of wishing to gain valuable feedback from representative ‘good Democrats’ is more than a cheap shot to empty the pockets of gullible folks with little cash to spare. It offers us an apt metaphor for the overall debasement of electoral politics by its spotlight shining on the essential source of societal corruption—namely money. What is conveyed to a concerned citizen is that the quest for money even in miniscule amounts is so overwhelmingly what politics has become as to destroy the trust of those who truly wish for some sort of interactive process that would induce a presidential leader to take serious account of the views of ordinary citizens, rather than do the bidding of special interests who have earned the right of presidential access and responsiveness solely by as a result of their sizable donations. For instance, most Americans favor a more balanced approach to relations between Israelis and Palestinians instead of as agenda set by AIPAC, or less military spending and a host of other issues that Biden would certainly rather not hear about from disgruntled citizens, and if he did receive this sort of angry response, it would surely replace the Joe’s supposedly big smile with an angry smirk. Whether it is Wall Street or defense contractors, it is no secret that the public wants less inequality and more social protection, but it will be forthcoming no matter which party controls Congress and how DINOS are allowed to represent the Democratic Party.

It is, at best, a perilous time to champion a politics of planetary liberation. Yet without such a politics, the country and the world will continue to experience intensifying human insecurity that push open more widely the portals of political extremism. At least Nero made music while Rome burned. I prefer a leader who fiddles to the Biden hucksterism of the soft sell. We need to ask ourselves with a sense of urgency, ‘where is the outrage?’ and ‘why are the streets empty?’ Bob Dylan’s message of the sixties rings truer than ever: ‘The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind.”

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global law, Queen Mary University London, and Research Associate, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB.