Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘political Artical’ Category

Jews in Israel agree on ethnic cleansing. Statistics might be higher for Jews Not living in Israel?

Note: re-edit of the article of 2016 “Nearly half of Israeli Jews believe in ethnic cleansing, survey finds”

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin called the findings a ‘wake-up call for Israeli society’

Lizzie Dearden @lizziedearden 

Almost half of Jewish Israelis believe Arabs should be “expelled or transferred” from Israel, a survey has found. (Is that why Israel built Walls of Shame around its borders that its constitution never delimited?)

A study carried out by the Pew Research Centre found that around one in five adults questioned “strongly agreed” with the controversial statement, which amounts to ethnic cleansing under some definitions.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the act as “attempting to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic group”, while a United Nations report in 1993 additionally specified the use of “force or intimidation”.

(Actually, the Palestinians are Not different ethnically, and yet they have got to be transferred for economic reasons in order to acquire free lands and resources)

(Most of the Jews in Israel are from various ethnic background, so how this definition can stand if Not believing in religious myths and acquired privileges?)

Pew-Research-Israel.jpg

In Pew’s survey, 48 per cent of Jewish respondents said Arabs (Israel and Western colonial powers that established Israel try Not to say Palestinians in order Not to give them an particular identity) should be removed from Israel, while a similar share disagreed with the statement.

While 54 to 71% of Jews who defined themselves as ultra-Orthodox, religious or “traditional” supported such a step, only about 36% of the secular community did (They have vested interests in cheap labor?).

“While religious identity influences Israeli Jews’ views on the expulsion of Arabs, the survey finds that even after taking this and other demographic factors into account, Jews’ views on the expulsion of Arabs are most strongly correlated with their political ideology,” the Pew Research Centre report noted.

“The further to the left on the political spectrum, the more Jews are likely to oppose the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, just rhetorically.”

Those supporting the cleansing tended to be Russian-speaking, rather than Hebrew or Yiddish, male, and with a Jewish education to secondary level or below.

(Racist behavior emanating from internal feeling of Not being to the level)

Pew-Research-Israel-2.jpg

Reuven Rivlin, the President of Israel, called the findings a “wake-up call for Israeli society”.

“It pains me to see the gap that exists in the public’s consciousness – religious and secular – between the notion of Israel as a Jewish state and as a democratic state,” he added. (This President would have liked that 99% of the Jews agree on the transfer of the Palestinians?)

“A further problem is the attitude towards Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

Israeli Arab is the Israeli government’s definition of non-Jewish citizens and many members of the minority, who are predominantly Muslim, identify as Palestinian.

In the same survey, almost 80% of Jewish Israelis said Jews deserved preferential treatment in Israel, while a similar proportion of Israeli Arabs claimed they had seen discrimination against Muslims (and Christians).

The research appeared to show that all religious and ethnic groups had lost hope for a two-state solution, with half of Palestinians saying co-existence was possible compared to 40 per cent of Jewish Israelis.

The most recent round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed in 2014, just before a 7-week war in Gaza, and tensions have worsened in recent months with a resurgence of violence that has seen an estimated 28 Israelis and 172 Palestinians – mostly attackers – killed.

Pew conducted through face-to-face interviews in Hebrew, Arabic and Russian with more than 5,600 Israeli adults from October 2014 to May 2015 for the research.

The survey used the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics’ definition of the Israeli population, which includes settlers living in the West Bank as well as Arab residents of East Jerusalem.

Note: Another urgent survey is needed, after the Trump pronouncement on Jerusalem and the realization of the Israelis that No effective preemptive wars are feasible anymore

THE ANGRY ARAB: US Violated Unspoken Rule of Engagement with Iran

When did the USA administrations felt like speaking with the people in ME?

By As`ad AbuKhalil  
Special to Consortium News

Something big and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran’s top commanders, Qasim Suleimani.

The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian “resistance-axis” in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence presence in the Middle East.

Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented Israel in the past from killing Suleimani.  But with the top commander’s death, the Trump administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East has been removed.

The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hezbollah and Iran did not retaliate against previous assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in Syria.

The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to U.S. interests.

Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.

For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders or commanders of Iran.

During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would unleash a series of tit-for-tat.

But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.

Different Level of Escalation

The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation.

In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd Forces in Iraq.

Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS. (Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted a finger in the fight against ISIS.)

On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump.  Here is a man who pledged to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil — turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear the primary responsibility.

And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S. forces.

The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus. 

There is not much a president — even a popular president like Barack Obama in his second term — can do to change the course of empire.

It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry.

The pressures to preserve the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future.  But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors — until this strike.

Trump’s Obama Obsession

Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama.  He decided to violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint.

Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the U.S.

Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani.  On the one hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.

On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside Iran.

Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside Iran.

Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).

Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.

Iran Sending Messages

In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future conflict would not spare their territories.

That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and secretively) with the Iranian government.

Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi Kingdom regimes — which constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals — are also eager to distance themselves from U.S. military action against Iran.

And Kuwait quickly denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S. attack).

The Iranian response was very measured and very specific.  It was purposefully intended to avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically implied that it would be left to Iran’s allies to engineer military responses. He also declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.

Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the assassination.  The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah, although Nasralla, due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his party in the July 2006 war, may have attained a higher status.

It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and self-restraint.  But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S. is yet to complete.

As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the “Historical Dictionary of Lebanon” (1998), “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism (2002), and “The Battle for Saudi Arabia” (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Note 1: The US military base in Iraq, Ain Assad, was demolished by the Iranian missiles, and scores of US military personnel were injured and dispatched to Germany and Kuwait. The Netherland decided to vacate its soldiers from this base to Kuwait: They experienced the fright of a lifetime.

Note 2: Hezbollah of Lebanon delivered a final warning to Israel: Any assassination of its members anywhere around the world by Israel, Hezbollah will retaliate. And Hezbollah delivered on its promise and did retaliate on the assassination of 2 of its fighter in Damascus. Israel had vacated all its military bases in the Galilee and the civilians went into shelters for 3 days waiting for the attack.

Note 3: So far, Syrian regime avoided any clear declaration for retaliation on assassinations on its soil or the frequent Israel missiles destroying weapon depots in Syria.

A plausible settlement for the “Deal of Century” to both Palestinians and Israelis

Note: The created State of Israel by the colonial powers has all the blueprints of a colonial occupation of a land by force. The State of Israel, with all the determination of the colonial powers to keep it alive and floating financially, politically and militarily, has gone way too far in its brutality, its calamitous myths, and unwavering decision to wipe out the culture and identity of the Palestinian people.

This article, (dated on November 13, 2008) is a temporary resolution until the far-right Israelis desist from their occupation mentality and reach a reasonable state of common status of living together with Palestinians on equal rights. Until then, Israel is our existential enemy.

There are reams and reams of plans and counter plans and resolution suggested to containing this everlasting unjust and uncalled for reality of the 20th century monstrosity that permitted the establishment of the State of Israel by displacing its original inhabitants (the Palestinians), as so many monstrosities in this century.

There are two viable solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, short of exterminating one party or the other or most probably both, that has been spreading death, disabilities, miseries, indignities and humiliation since 1920.

The Israeli Olmert PM has lately declared that the time to facing truth has come.

Since the Madrid convention in 1990 among the “Arab States” (excluding Syria) and Israeli delegations and mediated by the US Administration, during the Bush Sr. tenure as President, for a resolution of this conflict, it was becoming evident that the “Biblical” strategy of Israel, for further expansion and pre-emptive wars, is no longer tenable, especially after its total failure in 2006 of invading Lebanon.

A resolution was contemplated but the US had an old battle plan to invade Iraq before resolving this conflict.

The Bush “Son” Jr. administration dusted off this war plan and invaded Iraq. This invasion has failed miserably but Israel is no longer necessary for the strategic interest of the US in the Middle East:  The US has military bases in the Arab Gulf States and Saudi Kingdom, and it has many heavy weight allies among the Arabic States.

And the price of oil on the market is far cheaper than physically securing its exploitation and distribution in Iraq or elsewhere or even resuming plans to intimidating China and blackmailing her by outdated military presence in Iraq.

The return of the heavy investments of the US in Israel has been reflecting sharp negative rates of return for decades, politically, economically, and socially within the US society and foreign policies.

My plan is of two phases:

The first phase is recognizing the State of Palestine by the United Nation, a State self-autonomous, independent and all.  It is of primordial interest by the world community and the Jewish State that the Palestinian people recover their dignity and rights as a full fledged State and be permitted to exercise the complex task of administering and governing a State.

At least from a psychological necessity, the Palestinian people should feel that persistent resistance and countless “martyrs” for re-establishing their rights as legitimate and independent people have brought fruits, as any genuine national resistance ultimately should.

The second phase is the merging of the two States of Palestine and Israel into a confederate State with a central government and several self-autonomous “cantons”.  I can envisage the following cantons: West Bank, Gaza (including Escalon), Galilee (including Haifa and Akka), Judea (around Jerusalem and Bethlehem), the “East Shore” (Tel Aviv, Yafa), and the Negev (including Akaba).

I have this impression that the tight religious extremists on both sides would opt to move to Gaza and Judea, and the very secular citizens would move to the East Shore or Galilee, and the economically minded people might reside in the Negev backed by strong financial incentives.

The second phase will witness the return of the Palestinian refugees as ordered by the UN resolution of 193 in 1948 and the refugees would have the right to select the canton of their preferences.

I can foresee that the key offices in the central government would be equally, including genders, shared by the Palestinians and Israelis on a rotation imposed law.

The representation in the cantons would be proportional to the general census of the period (at 5 years intervals).  The representation among sects, factions, or other types of social divisions within each “people” would also follow the proportions in the census.

I suggest to the interest of the future “Palesrael” State that Israel let Lebanon structure and experience, without foreign interventions, study the pitfalls and strength of such a system of co-existence and avoid the unnecessary miseries of minor civil wars and countless frustrations in its future unfolding.

It would be inevitable that the State of “Palesreal” be guaranteed a neutrality status (No pre-emptive wars within and outside its borders) by the world community and the regional powers.  It is evident that this could be plausible after Syria recover all its lands and settles on a political constitution that safeguard its autonomous decisions.

Then, it is hoped and strongly desired that the State of Lebanon would secure this neutrally status.  Amen.

And what Morsi of Egypt SUPPORTERS do? They DELIBERATELY FIRE ON JOURNALISTS COVERING CLASHES

Note: Late Egypt president Mohamed Morsi died last week at 67 while in court. He supposedly was elected and lasted a single year before a military coup led by Sisi “deposed” him. Morsi had no official burying: just attended by his close family members. The State had declared a national curfew and emergency level. Morsi was mourned by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders such as Erdogan of Turkey, Qatar, Hamas Mich3al… Morsi’s wife died also the next day of heart failure: she was his close cousin too.

Reporters Without Borders strongly condemns the actions of President Mohamed Morsi’s supporters who deliberately fired on journalists and attacked them as they were covering last night’s clashes outside the presidential palace in Cairo.

Al-Hosseiny Abu Deif, an experienced newspaper reporter, was rushed to hospital after being hit in the head by a rubber bullet fired at close range at around 1 a.m. today and is said to be in a critical condition.

A witness told Reporters Without Borders that Morsi supporters deliberately targeted Deif, who works for the newspaper Al-Fagr.

Five minutes before Abu Deif was shot from a distance of just two metres, he showed colleagues photos of the president’s supporters with sophisticated weapons.

Abu Deif camera was stolen after he was shot, as colleagues went to his aid.

“Witnesses say the president’s supporters deliberately targeted and attacked journalists. We call on President Morsi to order an investigation into the circumstances of these attacks and to punish those responsible.

As president, he must ensure the safety of all of his fellow citizens, including journalists.

“We also call on the president to rescind the 22 November decree granting himself extraordinary powers, and not hold a referendum on the draft constitution in its current form.

The Constituent Commission must amend the draft in order to provide more protection for freedom of expression and information.”

Other journalists were injured during the night as they covered the clashes.They included :

Mohamed Azouz of the government newspaper Al-Gomhuria,

Osama Al-Shazly of the daily Al-Badil,

Islam Abdel Tawab of Al-Alam Al-Yawm,

Sahar Talaat, a correspondent for Radio France Internationale’s Spanish service and

Ahmed Khair Eldeen, a ON-TV journalist.

Two journalists with Turkey’s TRT television, reporter Mehmet Akif Ersoy and cameraman Adil Ahmet, were attacked earlier yesterday in Tahrir Square and their equipment was damaged.

Read the letter about the Egyptian constitution that was sent to President Morsi yesterday.

Note: Morsi was a strong supporter of Israel, as USA wanted him to be in order to be elected, a farcical election since actually he didn’t get the majority of the votes against his challenger of the former political system. Morsi was supported by Turkey and Qatar and he sided with the exclusion of Syria from the Arab Summits. Morsi was a bad omen for many countries.

Again, what is Trump/Kushner infamous “Deal of century”?

The Trump administration will unveil the first phase of its long-awaited blueprint for Middle East peace next month at a conference in the region designed to highlight economic benefits that could be reaped if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, the White House said on Sunday.  (The political terms are Not yet exposed)

The plan, which has been two years in the making, envisions large-scale investment and infrastructure work in the Palestinian territories but the central political elements remain mostly unknown.

However, the Palestinian leadership said they weren’t consulted about the US-led economic conference.

 

Israel “Root Cause for World Instability”? Mahathir Mohammad, PM of Malaysia

KUALA LUMPUR, (PIC) +-

Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohamed has described Israel as a terrorist nation and the root cause of instability in the world.

Addressing youths at Al Sharq Annual Conference 2019 in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian leader stressed that the time had come for the international community to stand together and end Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

“Apartheid, genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and all the evil that mankind can inflict on others can be compiled in Palestine — courtesy of the barbaric, arrogant, terrorist nation called Israel.”

“Until and unless the international community is committed to finding a solution to bring an end to the occupation of the land belonging to the Palestinians, the region and the rest of the world will not have much of a chance for stability and order,” he said in his keynote address before opening the conference, held the first time in Malaysia.

His remarks received overwhelming applause from the participants.

Mahathir also said the senseless murder of innocent people continued in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2001 and 2003 which had seen more tumult than stability in the region before the Arab Spring came about.

“Nations like Syria, Libya and Yemen today provide images of a human tragedy while the rest of the world watch helplessly.”

“Their sufferings did not originate from internal strife but rather interference and interventions from external powers which obviously were doing it out of self-interest, disguised under the veil of democracy and human rights,” he said.

The premier underlined that ancient civilizations or rather these cradles of civilization were pummeled to pulp by present day powers that have styled themselves as the leaders of modern-day civilization.

“There is nothing civilized in their actions or behavior. The only thing they can showcase is technology capable of producing weaponry that are extremely efficient in maiming, killing and murdering people by the thousands,” he stressed.

Note: The root of evils started with the colonial powers which spread to the USA and are continued to be applied in this Zionist State.

Read more at
https://english.palinfo.com/40102
@Copyright The Palestinian Information Center

What made violent crime drop sharply in the last two decades?

Is Legalized abortion law the main factor in the decline in violent crimes?

In the first half of the century, incidence of violent crimes in the USA was fairly steady. Why?

Infantile mortality was very high due to lack of vaccination and treatments for curable diseases.  All those unwanted children from single parent families died prematurely. and the pool of potential criminals, living in poor and uneducated families and in poor neighborhoods was manageable.

By 1960, violent crime rate increased steadily, so did the economy and the employment rates.

During the period of the civil rights movement, in the 60′s and early 70′s, conviction rates declined, as were sentences duration for most of the crimes committed. Why?

Judges and political climate didn’t want to be labelled racist or believing in apartheid (fear of being viewed as racist and backward) since more crimes, proportionally, were committed by Blacks and Hispanics living in poor neighborhoods.

Between 1980-2000, the period witnessed a 15-fold increase in the number of convicts on drug charges, and sentence duration increased accordingly.

By 2000, the US prison system had more than 2 million convicts, a 4-fold increase as of 1972.  Mind you that a prisoner costs $25,000 per year to keep him behind bars and away from the streets…

As of early 1990, crime rates of all categories, especially violent crimes, started to decline sharply and steadily. Criminology experts had warned that crime epidemics will get out of control, and they needed so time to realize that it was the opposite trend that was taking its steady course.

Between 1991 and 2001, crime experts extended many explanations for this aberrant trend of crime decline. Here are a few of the explanations with frequency of citations in the media:

1. Innovative policing strategies:  52 citations

2. Increased reliance on prison: 47

3. Changes in crack and other drug markets: 33

4. Aging population: 32

5. Tougher gun-control laws: 32

6. Strong economy: 28

7. Increased number of police force: 26

8. Increase use of capital punishment: 24

9. Concealed-weapon laws

10. Gun buybacks policies…

Only 3 of the above 10 explanations had significant effects on crime decline, mainly factors 2, 3, and 7.

There are strong correlation, if not causative explanation, among the trends of increased reliance on prison, prison duration, increase conviction rates and the number of law and order effective in order to round-up, capture, process, and prosecute criminals.

Consequently, it can be said that the increase in police forces was associated with a political policy of increasing conviction rates and expanding the prison system. These factors accounted for almost one-third of the crime drop.

In that period, cocaine and heroine prices dropped, and it was no longer worth sacrificing years in prison for small returns on crimes…

The main factor that was behind the decline and accounted for two-third was never mentioned or even contemplated.

This factor needed about 17 years of incubation (gestation) before it generated its powerful effect, and it is the legalized abortion law that took effect in 1973 in all US States.

A few large cities in States such as New York, Illinois, California… that had legal abortion laws before 1973, all had witnessed decline in crime rates before all other States.

All those unwanted children, born from single mothers or living in single families in poor neighborhoods and uneducated parents, were not born and had not to be raised to emulate their predecessors, as highly potential criminals in the waiting and the making.

That is what the analysis of Steven Levitt showed from torturing huge data-bases on the subject. Read Freakonomics.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

March 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,375,624 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 720 other followers

%d bloggers like this: