Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Monday, June 27, 2016
Republican ex-Treasury chief Paulson slams Trump, to vote for Clinton
Henry Paulson, a Republican who was U.S. Treasury secretary
during the 2008 financial meltdown, on Friday called a Donald Trump presidency
"unthinkable" and said he will vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Paulson joins a growing list of establishment Republicans
who say they will not cast a ballot in the Nov. 8 election for Trump, the
party's presumptive nominee and a political neophyte whose populist rhetoric
runs counter to many long-held Republican principles.
"When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for
Donald Trump," Paulson, who was chief executive of Goldman Sachs before
becoming Treasury chief under Republican President George W. Bush, wrote in an
opinion piece in the Washington Post.
"I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope
that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen
our economy, our environment and our place in the world," he said.
Paulson accused Trump, who has touted his business acumen
as a real estate developer during his campaign, of taking "imprudent
risk" and then disavowing his debts when ventures fail.
He also took aim at Trump's opposition to trade agreements,
which Paulson said have created U.S. jobs and fostered innovation and
competitiveness.
"Simply put, a Trump presidency is unthinkable,"
Paulson said.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
Brent Scowcroft, a national security adviser to two
Republican presidents, endorsed Clinton on Wednesday, and Richard Armitage, a
deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, said last week he would support
her.
Paulson, who helped steer a $700 billion bailout of the
financial system through Congress during the financial meltdown, said Trump is
a "phony" who is unfit to be president.
"I can't help but think what would have happened if a
divisive character such as Trump were president during the 2008 financial
crisis, at a time when leadership, compromise and careful analysis were
critical," he said.
(Reporting by Eric Beech)
Could Brexit Breathe New Life Into Left-Wing Politics?
By Slavoj Žižek On 6/24/16
Late in his life, Freud asked
the famous question “Was will das Weib?”, “What does a woman want?”, admitting
his confusion when faced with the enigma of the feminine sexuality. A similar
perplexity arouses today, apropos the
Brexit referendum—what does Europe want?
The true stakes of this
referendum become clear if we locate it into its larger historical context. In
Western and Eastern Europe, there are signs of a long-term re-arrangement of
the politica. Until recently, the political space was dominated by two
main parties which addressed the entire electoral body, a Right-of-centre party
(Christian-Democrat, liberal-conservative, populist) and a Left-of-centre party
(socialist, social-democratic), with smaller parties addressing a narrow
electorate (ecologists, neo-Fascists). Now, a singular party is emerging which
stands for global capitalism as such, usually with relative tolerance towards
issues such as abortion, gay rights, religious and ethnic minorities; opposing
this party is a stronger anti-immigrant populist party which, on its fringes,
is accompanied by directly racist neo-Fascist groups.
Poland is a prime
example—after the disappearance of the former Communists, the main parties are
the “anti-ideological” centrist liberal party of the former prime-minister
Donald Tusk (now President of the European Council) and the conservative
Christian party of Kaczynski brothers (identical twins one of whom served as
Poland’s president from 2005-2010 and the other as its prime minister
2006-2007). The stakes of Radical Center today are: which of the two main
parties, conservatives or liberals, will succeed in presenting itself as
embodying the post-ideological non-politics against the other party dismissed
as "still caught in old ideological specters"? In the early 90s,
conservatives were better at it; later, it was liberal Leftists who seemed to be
gaining the upper hand, and now, it’s again the conservatives.
The anti-immigrant populism
brings passion back into politics, it speaks in the terms of antagonisms, of Us
against Them, and one of the signs of the confusion of what remains of the Left
is the idea that it should take this passionate approach from the Right: “If
the leader of France's
National Front Marine le Pen can do it, why we should also not do it?”
So should the Left then return to advocating for strong nation-states and
mobilize national passions—a ridiculous struggle, lost in advance.
Europe is caught into a
vicious cycle, oscillating between the Brussels technocracy unable to drag it
out of inertia, and the popular rage against this inertia, a rage appropriated
by new more radical Leftist movements but primarily by Rightist populism. The
Brexit referendum moved along the lines of this new opposition, which is why
there was something terribly wrong with it. Look at the strange bedfellows that
found themselves together in the Brexit camp: right-wing “patriots,” populist
nationalists fuelled by the fear of immigrants, mixed with desperate working
class rage—is such a mixture of patriotic racism with the rage of “ordinary
people” not the ideal ground for a new form of Fascism?
The intensity of the emotional
investment into the referendum should not deceive us, the choice offered
obfuscated the true questions: how to fight trade “agreements” like the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ( TTIP) which present a real
threat to popular sovereignty and how to confront ecological catastrophes
and economic imbalances which breed new poverty and migrations. The choice
of Brexit means a serious setback for these true struggles—it's enough to bear
in mind what an important argument for Brexit the “refugee threat” was. The
Brexit referendum is the ultimate proof that ideology (in the good old Marxist
sense of “false consciousness”) is alive and well in our societies.
When Stalin was asked in the
late 1920s which political variation is worse, the Right one or the Leftist
one, he snapped back: “They are both worse!” Was it not the same with the
choice British voters were confronting? Remain was “worse” since it meant
persisting in the inertia that keeps Europe mired down. Exit was “worse” since
it made changing nothing look desirable.
In the days before the
referendum, there was a pseudo-profound thought circulating in our media:
“whatever the result, EU will never be the same, it will be irreparably
damaged.” But the opposite is true: nothing really changed, except that the
inertia of Europe became impossible to ignore. Europe will again waste time in
long negotiations among EU members that will continue to make any large-scale
political project unfeasible. This is what those who oppose Brexit didn’t
see—shocked, they now complain about the “irrationality” of the Brexit voters,
ignoring the desperate need for change that the vote made palpable.
The confusion that underlies
the Brexit referendum is not limited to Europe—it is part of a much larger
process of the crisis of “manufacturing democratic consent” in our societies,
of the growing gap between political institutions and popular rage, the rage
which gave birth to Trump
as well as to Sanders in the US. Signs of chaos are everywhere—the recent
debate on gun
control in the US Congress descended into a sit-in protest by the
Democrats—is it time to despair?
Recall Mao Ze Dong's old
motto: “Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.”
A crisis is to be taken seriously, without illusions, but also as a chance to
be fully exploited. Although crises are painful and dangerous, they are the
terrain on which battles have to be waged and won. Is there not a struggle also
in heaven, is the heaven also not divided—and does the ongoing confusion not
offer a unique chance to react to the need for a radical change in a more
appropriate way, with a project that will break the vicious cycle of EU
technocracy and nationalist populism? The true division of our heaven is not
between anemic technocracy and nationalist passions, but between their vicious
cycle and a new pan-European project which will addresses the true challenges
that humanity confronts today.
Now that, in the echo of the
Brexit victory, calls for other exits from EU are multiplying all around
Europe, the situation calls for such a project—who will grab the chance?
Unfortunately, not the existing Left which is well-known for its breathtaking
ability to never miss a chance to miss a chance.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Why did Pagliano get immunity? Why won't Hillary be indicted?
Did Obama reply to at least 2 of Hillary's unsecured emails?
rich white guys can't own this
“They say that you need to ride the rails for a while to understand the traveling blues. They're wrong. To understand the traveling blues you need to be locked down somewhere. In a cell. Or in the army. Someplace where you're caged. Someplace where smokestack lightning looks like a faraway beacon of impossible freedom.” --Lee Child
Water as an instrument of Apartheid in the Occupied Territories
[2 PHOTOS]
Control of the occupied territories by Israel is all about the control of water and other resources. Israel controls all of the water in the West Bank including aquifers under Palestinian territory and currently 83% is piped to Israel or used in the settlements, which is illegal under international law. This leads to ongoing shortages for Palestinians adding extreme hardship for the entire population. Israel’s water distribution policy is highly discriminatory - one obvious aspect of the wider policy of apartheid imposed on Palestinians.1
[PHOTO]
While Palestinians are starved for water, the Israeli settlement of Ariel has lush lawns and swimming pools, and settlements in the Jordan valley have wide-spread irrigation.
Israel's Total Control Over the West Bank
Military Order 92, issued on
15 August 1967, granted complete authority over all water related issues in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) to the Israeli army.
Military Order 158, of 19
November 1967, stipulates that Palestinians cannot construct any new water
installations without first obtaining a permit from the Israeli army and that
any water installation or resource built without a permit will be confiscated.
Military Order 291, of 19
December 1968, annulled all land and water-related arrangements which existed
prior to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. 3,5
These and other Israeli
Military Orders remain in force today in the OPT and apply only to
Palestinians. They do NOT apply to Israeli settlers in the OPT, who are subject
to Israeli civilian law.
Amnesty International has
documented many cases of the Israeli Army using closed military zones to limit
access to water for Palestinians and as a collective punishment by turning off
access to water in local populations. 2
Map shows how water in Gaza and the West Bank are integrated into the Israeli National Water Grid. 3
"And when I talk about the importance to Israel’s security, this is not an abstract concept… It means that a housewife in Tel Aviv can open the tap and there's water running to it, and it's not been dried up because of a rash decision that handed over control of our aquifers to the wrong hands." 107 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 17 May 1998. Amnesty 1 "Israel must hold on to the West Bank to make sure that Tel-Aviv’s taps don’t run dry." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff to Israeli Army (1978 to 1993) and subsequently Minister of Agriculture and Environment (cited in Lonergan and Brooks, 2004). "There is no reason for Palestinians to claim that just because they sit on lands, they have the rights to that water." Mr. Katz-Oz, Israel’s negotiator on water issues 6 |
Israeli Water Apartheid in
the Occupied Territories
Of the water available from
West Bank aquifers, 73% is shipped to the State of Israel. Within the borders
of the West bank 300,000 illegal Jewish settlers use 10% while 2.5 million
Palestine’s have access to only 17% of their own water.
While 10-14% of Palestine’s
GDP is agricultural, 90% of them must rely on rain-fed farming methods.
Israel’s agriculture is only 3% of their GDP, but Israel irrigates more than
50% of its land.
Palestinians on the West
Bank and Gaza have constant shortages of water. These extreme water shortages
have created a colossal public health disaster. There are sharp increases in
dehydration, digestive diseases, amoebic infections and diarrhea. Children
are particularly vulnerable. Without adequate amounts of water people cannot
clean utensils, bottles, cisterns and tanks properly. 13
Israeli settlements [in the
West Bank] have a continuous s supply of fresh water. They have community
swimming pools, flower gardens and broad expanses of green lawn. Meanwhile,
approximately 140 Palestinian communities, have no running water at all.
Palestinians have 83 cubic
meters of water per person per year available while Israelis have 333 cubic
meters per person per year. This means that each Israeli consumes as much
water as four Palestinians.
Since Israel occupied the
West Bank in 1967, it has denied its Palestinian inhabitants access to the
water resources of the Jordan River, preventing them from physically
accessing the river banks. Israel consumes the vast majority of the water
from the River despite only 3% of the river falling within its pre-1967
borders. Israel now diverts one quarter of its total water consumption
through its National Water Carrier from the Jordan River.
Palestinians had more water
available per person before the 1967 invasion and occupation of the West bank
and Gaza than they do now.
Israel does not allow new
wells to be drilled by Palestinians and has confiscated many wells for
Israeli use. Israel sets quotas on how much water can be drawn by
Palestinians from existing wells.
When supplies of water are
low in the summer months, the Israeli water company Mekorot closes the valves
which supply Palestinian towns and villages so as not to affect Israeli
supplies. This means that illegal Israeli settlers can have their swimming
pools filled and lawns watered while Palestinians living next to them, on
whose land the settlements are situated; do not have enough water for
drinking and cooking.
Israel often sells the water
it appropriates from the West Bank back to the Palestinians at inflated
prices. [Palestinians pay four times the rate charged to Israelis].
During the 1967 war 140
Palestinian wells in the Jordan Valley were destroyed to divert water through
Israel’s National Water Carrier. Palestinians were allowed to dig only 13
wells between 1967 and 1996, less than the number of wells which dried up
during the same period due to Israel’s refusal to deepen or rehabilitate
existing wells.
The Gaza strip relies
predominately on wells that are being increasingly infiltrated by salty sea
water because, until they unilaterally disengaged in 2005, Israeli
settlements over-pumped the groundwater. UN scientists estimate that Gaza
will have no drinkable water within fifteen years. 1,4,5
|
International Law
The Fourth Geneva Convention
imposes obligations on an occupying power in relation to the inhabitants of
the occupied territory, who are entitled to special protection and humane
treatment. Depriving the local population of its water resources is an
egregious violation of this convention.
Under numerous treaties (8)
and international law it is illegal for Israel to expropriate the water of
the Occupied Palestinian Territories for use by its own citizens, and doubly
illegal to expropriate it for use by illegal Israeli settlers. The settlements
are illegal themselves under international law (article 49 4th Geneva
convention)
Israel is in violation of
international law for collective punishment including destroying water
infrastructure and storage.
It is illegal under
international law to distribute water in a discriminatory way.
Also under international
law, Israel owes the Palestinians reparations for past and continuing use of
water resources. This should include interest due to loss of earnings from
farming. 2,8,9
Examples of Settler Violence
In Madama village 50km north
of Jerusalem, settlers from Yizhar settlement have repeatedly vandalized the
villagers’ only source of water. They have poured concrete into it,
vandalized the connecting pipes and even dropped disposable diapers and other
hazardous waste into the springs. Three villagers have been attacked by
settlers while trying to repair the water source. 7
Constant settler attacks on
the West Bank community of Yanoun, located next to the Itamar settlement,
peaked in October 2002 when masked settlers charged into the village with
dogs and caused significant damage to the water network, several roof tanks,
and the local spring, which is the main source of water for the community. 10
|
"There is no water in the village, so we have to bring it from far away and it’s expensive. I have nine children. We spend a lot of money on water and we have to make do with very little, just for drinking and cooking and don’t have enough for the other needs. We need more water for washing, washing the clothes and cleaning the house. I can’t wash and clean as often as needed. We can’t afford it. It’s a daily struggle." Iman Jabar, a resident of al-‘Aqaba village, whose home has a demolition order pending against it, told Amnesty International. 1 "The deterioration and breakdown of water and sanitation facilities in Gaza is compounding an already severe and protracted denial of human dignity in the Gaza Strip. At the heart of this crisis is a steep decline in standards of living for the people of Gaza, characterized by erosion of livelihoods, destruction and degradation of basic infrastructure, and a marked downturn in the delivery and quality of vital services in health, water and sanitation." Maxwell Gaylard, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 3 September 2009. 2 |
Water and the Wall
Many of the most important
underground wellsprings in the West Bank are located just to the east of the
Green Line dividing Israel from Palestine. Israel has built the Wall not only
to annex land but also to annex many of these wells in order to divert water to
Israel and illegal West Bank settlements.
The Wall is not only an
Apartheid Wall, but also a water wall. Some of the largest Israeli settlements
(such as Ariel and Qedumin) are built over the Western mountain aquifer,
directly in the middle of the northern West Bank agricultural districts. This
is exactly where the wall cuts deepest into Palestinian territory to surround
and annex this vital water source.
The building of the Wall has
caused the village of Falamya in Qalqiliya district to lose its main source of
water. In Jayyous, a village near Falamya, all of its seven water wells have
been annexed or destroyed by the Apartheid Wall.
In the West Bank,
approximately 50 groundwater wells and over 200 cisterns have been destroyed or
isolated from their owners by the Wall. This water was used for domestic and agricultural
needs by over 122,000 people. To build the Wall, 25 wells and cisterns and
35,000 meters of water pipes have also been destroyed.
In 2003, the losses incurred
by Palestinian farmers due to the Wall diverting water resources has been 2,200
tons of olive oil, 50,000 tons of fruit, and 100,000 tons of vegetables. 12
The Wall is obstructing many
water run-off flows in the Qalqiliya region that normally divert water to
prevent flooding. During the heavy rains in February 2005, Israeli soldiers
refused to open drainage pipes in Qalqiliya, which led to heavy flood damage to
crops and homes there. The Wall also caused severe flooding in Zububa and other
villages.
Under the conditions brought
about by the siege imposed by Israeli occupation forces, civilians in the
occupied territories are suffering from lack of access to necessary resources
for the maintenance of their daily needs and basic health.
[3 PHOTOS]
The Israeli Defense Force
(IDF) regularly destroys Palestinian access to water. The photos above show
examples of roof top storage tanks shot by a sniper in Aida refugee camp in
2001.
A water pump and well in the
Zaytoun neighborhood of Gaza City destroyed in an Israeli attack in January.
Destroyed cisterns and
orchards in Beit Ula. 2
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)