Archives for category: International
« Older Entries

Washington Post: Putin Is Turning Russia into a Militaristic, Authoritarian Society

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2024 //
121

Robyn Dixon and other staff of The Washington Post wrote a stunning account of the “new Russia” that Putin is determined to create. It’s worth subscribing to read it in full. The “new Russia” is militaristic; dissent is forbidden; women are encouraged to have eight children; LGBT people and symbols are stigmatized; Stalin is revered.

Here are some excerpts from an important and upsetting article:

Vladimir Putin is positioning Russia as America’s most dangerous and aggressive enemy, and transforming his country in ways that stand to make it a bitter adversary of the West for decades to come.

Over more than six months, The Washington Post examined the profound changes sweeping Russia as Putin has used his war in Ukraine to cement his authoritarian grip on power.

The Russian leader is militarizing his society and infusing it with patriotic fervor, reshaping the education system, condemning scientists as traitors, promoting a new Orthodox religiosity and retrograde roles for women, and conditioning a new generation of youth to view the West as a mortal enemy in a fight for Russia’s very survival…

Russia’s leader-for-life is working to restore his country’s global power of the Soviet era — not as a Communist bulwark but as a champion of Orthodox Christian values and an opponent of liberal freedoms in permanent conflict with the West, in a world redivided by big powers into spheres of influence where authoritarianism is an accepted alternative to democracy. Flouting global norms and thumbing his nose at international institutions, Putin is forging military partnerships with other totalitarian regimes that also view the United States as a threat, including China, Iran and North Korea.

The new Russia claims to defend Orthodox values against Western cultural influences.

In November 2022, Putin signed a decree defining Orthodox values, puritanical morality and the rejection of LGBTQ+ identity as crucial to Russia’s national security. Putin has outlined a messianic mission to save the world from what he calls a decadent, permissive West, an approach he hopes will resonate in socially conservative nations in the Global South. The highly politicized judicial system and media heavily controlled by the Kremlin are being used to crack down on nightclubs and parties, and new patriotic mandates are being imposed on artists, filmmakers and cultural institutions.

The new Russia is militarizing society and indoctrinating a new generation of patriots.

Harnessing the war in Ukraine, Putin has engineered a deeply militarized society, rewarding war veterans and their children with places in higher education; introducing military training in schools; and elevating those involved in the war into leadership roles. Telegram channels tell women how to be good soldiers’ wives (by not complaining or crying); schoolchildren make drone fins, trench candles and custom socks for soldiers with amputed limbs. The education system has been imbued with patriotic fervor. Liberal humanities programs are shut down in favor of programs that promote nationalist ideology, and partnerships with Western schools have been canceled.

The new Russia is glorifying Stalin and rewriting history to whitewash Soviet crimes

Some people who had close contact with Putin in his early years as president described his fervent mission to rebuild Russia as a superpower and his admiration not only for imperial czars but also for the Soviet dictator and wartime leader Joseph Stalin, who engineered the Great Terror, the purges of the mid-to-late 1930s, sent millions to the gulag system of prisons and forced labor camps, and had about 800,000 people executed for political reasons. At least 95 of the 110 Stalin monuments in Russia were erected during Putin’s time as leader.

The new Russia is crushing all dissent and restricting personal freedoms.

Putin has squashed the political opposition in Russia making protests illegal, criminalizing criticism of the war, and designating liberal nongovernmental organizations and independent media, journalists, writers, lawyers and activists as foreign agents, undesirable organizations, extremists or terrorists. Hundreds of political activists have been jailed. Tens of thousands of Russians have fled in a historic exodus, with some worried they would be cut off from the world by sanctions, some afraid of being conscripted and sent to the front, and others fearing they would be persecuted for opposing Putin or the war.

Robyn Dixon goes into detail in another article that is part of the series “Remastering Russia.”

MOSCOW — As Vladimir Putin persists in his bloody campaign to conquer Ukraine, the Russian leader is directing an equally momentous transformation at home — re-engineering his country into a regressive, militarized society that views the West as its mortal enemy.

Putin’s inauguration on Tuesday for a fifth term will not only mark his 25-year-long grip on power but also showcase Russia’s shift into what pro-Kremlin commentators call a “revolutionary power,” set on upending the global order, making its own rules, and demanding that totalitarian autocracy be respected as a legitimate alternative to democracy in a world redivided by big powers into spheres of influence…

To carry out this transformation, the Kremlin is:

  • Forging an ultraconservative, puritanical society mobilized against liberal freedoms and especially hostile to gay and transgender people, in which family policy and social welfare spending boost traditional Orthodox values.
  • Reshaping education at all levels to indoctrinate a new generation of turbo-patriot youth, with textbooks rewritten to reflect Kremlin propaganda, patriotic curriculums set by the state and, from September, compulsory military lessons taught by soldiers called “Basics of Security and Protection of the Motherland,” which will include training on handling Kalashnikov assault rifles, grenades and drones.
  • Sterilizing cultural life with blacklists of liberal or antiwar performers, directors, writers and artists, and with new nationalistic mandates for museums and filmmakers.
  • Mobilizing zealous pro-war activism under the brutal Z symbol, which was initially painted on the side of Russian tanks invading Ukraine but has since spread to government buildings, posters, schools and orchestrated demonstrations.
  • Rolling back women’s rights with a torrent of propaganda about the need to give birth — young and often — and by curbing ease of access to abortions, and charging feminist activists and liberal female journalists with terrorism, extremism, discrediting the military and other offenses.
  • Rewriting history to celebrate Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator who sent millions to the gulag, through at least 95 of the 110 monuments in Russia erected during Putin’s time as leader. Meanwhile, Memorial, a human rights group that exposed Stalin’s crimes and shared the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, was shut down and its pacificist co-chairman Oleg Orlov, 71, jailed.
  • Accusing scientists of treason; equating criticism of the war or of Putin with terrorism or extremism; and building a new, militarized elite of “warriors and workers” willing to take up arms, redraw international boundaries and violate global norms on orders of Russia’s strongman ruler.

“They’re trying to develop this scientific Putinism as a basis of propaganda, as a basis of ideology, as a basis of historical education,” said Andrei Kolesnikov, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “They need an obedient new generation — indoctrinated robots in an ideological sense — supporting Putin, supporting his ideas, supporting this militarization of consciousness.”

Kolesnikov, speaking in an interview in Moscow, added: “They need cannon fodder for the future…”

As he fractures global ties and girds his nation for a forever war with the West, riot police in Russia are raiding nightclubs and private parties, beating up guests and prosecuting gay bar owners. Russians have been jailed or fined for wearing rainbow earrings or displaying rainbow flags. Dissidents who were imprisoned in Soviet times are once again behind bars — this time for denouncing the war.

The Kremlin has defended the crackdown as responding to popular demand…

“In Russian families, many of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had seven or eight children, and even more. Let’s preserve and revive these wonderful traditions,” Putin said in a November speech dedicated to “a thousand-year, eternal Russia.”

The emphasis is on a special and powerful state dominated by Putin, on centuries-old Russian self-reliance and stoicism, and the sacrifice of individual rights to the regime. Men give their lives in war or work. Women should give their bodies by birthing children.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Cruelty, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, International

Russians and Ukrainians March Together to Demand an End to Putin’s War

By dianeravitch
May 7, 2024 //
60

Now here is a wonderful protest. Russians and Ukrainians marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in a protest against Putin’s war in Ukraine.

They joined together to denounce the war, to oppose fascism in Russia, and to counter Russian propaganda. They mocked Putin as a modern-day Hitler. The two allied groups live in harmony in Brooklyn.

Categories Fascism, International, Resistance

Netanyahu Threatens to Expand an Already Disastrous War in Gaza

By dianeravitch
May 6, 2024 //
42

Benjamin Netanyahu has warned the people of Rafah in the Gaza Strip to evacuate, signaling that he intends to invade that city. Such military action would be a disaster for the people who are sheltering there and for Israel as well, whose military aggression has turned it into a pariah state.

Netanyahu’s initial response to the atrocities of October 7 was justifiable under the principle that a nation has the right to defend itself. The war has continued for seven months, with tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

Meanwhile, the Israeli hostages continue to die, many killed by Israeli bombs.

Nothing that I write here will affect what happens in the Middle East. Nor do campus protests affect what happens.

I have condemned both Netanyahu and Hamas for failing to stop the killing. Both remain intransigent. Both find reasons not to sign a peace agreement.

The culture of death and destruction must end.

I hope, I wish, I pray that Netanyahu steps back from the brink and pursues peace as tirelessly as he has pursued war and death.

Categories International

Are the Campus Protests Advancing Peace in the Middle East?

By dianeravitch
May 1, 2024 //
72

As I write this, I’m watching the New York Police Department remove protestors from Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. On CNN, a retired federal judge, who was a student at the university in 1968, compares then and now. She says that the students in Hamilton Hall will likely be charged with trespassing, vandalism, maybe disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. As defined by the ACLU, the university has the right to define time, place, and manner of demonstrations and protests. Breaking into a building, smashing windows, and occupying it are not expressions of free speech.

Columbia University has about 36,000 students; possibly 500 were protesting, not all of them students.

Which brings me to the question that is the subject of this post:

“Are the campus protests advancing peace in the Middle East?”

I believe the answer is a resounding “NO!”

I believe that students should be protesting against both Israel and Hamas, for different reasons. Neither wants peace.

Students are right to condemn the Netanyahu government for its relentless bombardment of Gaza, causing tens of thousands of deaths, destroying buildings, schools, universities, homes, hospitals, mosques, and other cultural sites. Students are right to demand an end to the killing and bloodshed.

But students should recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is not worthy of their acclaim. Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of the state of Israel. Both its 1998 charter and its 2017 charter make clear that its purpose is to eliminate the state of Israel:

“20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea…” (2017)

“27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.” (2017)

Students should demand the return of all the Israeli hostages, alive and dead.

Students should call for an early election in Israel to allow Israelis to hold the Netanyahu regime accountable, first, for its failure to protect the Gaza border from invasion; second, for its brutal tactics in Gaza; and third, for Netanyahu’s failed policy of placating Hamas, passing along subsidies to it, expecting that it would abandon terrorism. At the same time, he has tried to cripple the PLO, which is the government of the West Bank Palestinians and was a party to the Oslo accords, in which the PLO and Israel agreed to begin planning for two states. Netanyahu courted Hamas and undermined the PLO to prevent any movement towards a two-state solution.

This disastrous policy came to fruition on October 7. A senior Hamas official pledged to repeat the atrocities of October 7 “again and again” until Israel is destroyed.

Both sides must eventually accept a plan to cease hostilities. Both sides must eventually agree to an exchange of Israeli hostages for Hamas prisoners. Both sides must eventually agree to a two-state solution. Other states—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK— must guarantee the borders and security of the two states, as well as the reconstruction of Gaza.

The only way this war will end is if both parties agree to sit down and negotiate a settlement. Are the pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian demonstrations making such negotiations more or less likely? My own view is that the protestors’ one-sided embrace of Hamas makes Hamas less willing to negotiate because with every passing day, they win the public opinion war.

Politically, the demonstrations hurt President Biden. Sympathizers of the protesters may choose not to vote. Michigan, with its significant Muslim population, may go to Trump. The irony is that Trump, the beneficiary of the protests, sought a total ban on Muslim immigration after his inauguration, and he is very close to Netanyahu and his far-rightwing coalition.

If I could send one message to all the demonstrators, it would be this: Seek peace, not a Hamas victory. Put pressure on both sides to end this terrible war and to pursue a just and stable peace.

Categories Extremism, Higher Education, International

Qatari Spokesman: Both Sides Are Blocking Peace Deal

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2024 //
11

In a historic first, a Qatari Minister agreed to be interviewed by Israeli journalists. The interview is fascinating because the minister is directly involved in negotiations between Hamas and Israel. The interview appeared in Haaretz. You will find more critical views in Haaretz than in American media.

DOHA – Dr. Majed Al-Ansari, adviser to the Qatari prime minister and spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, has become a well-known figure in recent months. 

In a special interview – the first he has given to an Israeli news outlet, he says – Al-Ansari discusses Qatar’s frustration with both Hamas and Israel’s conduct in talks to reach a cease-fire/hostage release deal, and the need to reach an agreement as soon as possible to prevent further harm to the hostages.

The conversation in Doha, which took place after the Qatari prime minister said he was “re-evaluating” the country’s role in negotiations, occurred amid reports in Israel that another proposal is being examined by both Israel and Hamas, amid fierce demonstrations within Israel designed to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to show greater flexibility and go for a deal.

The interview with Al-Ansari took place at a complex located not far from where Israel’s delegation has gathered in recent months for negotiations.

The decision to be interviewed by Haaretz at this moment (alongside an interview with Israeli news outlet Kan), and to allow a journalist with Israeli citizenship to have his passport stamped at the local airport, indicates a change in direction: Amid a tainted relationship with Netanyahu, Qatar is showing increased openness to engaging in direct dialogue with the Israeli public.

In your opinion, is it still possible to reach a hostage release deal?

“Well, you know, we’ve been working tirelessly from day one on this. We reached out directly on October 8 to both sides. As soon as we knew that there were hostages, as we knew that there were lives at stake, we immediately reached out to both sides, and since that day, our negotiations have not stopped. Looking for every possible way, every possible venue for every idea. 

“Also in the first deal that collapsed after seven days, we understood that we needed a more robust agreement between both sides that would return all the hostages back home to their families and help us save lives on both sides, and we were hoping to see much more flexibility, much more seriousness, much more commitment on both sides, all through the the process, from day one.

“And I think we’ve been positively engaging with the negotiating teams here in Doha. We believe that there was a lot of sincerity in the process itself, in offering ideas and understanding ideas and taking back ideas. Sadly, that did not materialize to this day, and that certainly led us to reassess our mediation, reassess the commitment to both sides, and reassess the seriousness of both sides.”

Al-Ansari declines to assess the chances that talks will move foward. 

“Let me tell you what I can share on this. We are now at the point where the talks have effectively stopped and both sides are entrenched in their positions, and therefore it would be very difficult to get any calculations on the numbers or other things right now. But if there is a renewed sense of commitment on both sides, I’m sure we can reach a deal that would be able to bring more people home to their families.”

When you say you are re-evaluating your role in the talks, do you really think it’s possible that Qatar will step back from the part it plays in the mediation efforts between Israel and Hamas?

“Well, in the end, our role is based on finding a way to reach a deal between both sides, to reach peace, and to end this discomfort. We have been doing this since 2006 when the U.S. approached us and asked us to open a channel of communication with Hamas, especially and precisely for this kind of scenario. We’ve conducted countless mediations since then, especially since 2014.

“We absolutely understand that a paradigm shift has happened since the attacks of October 7 and this is a totally different reality. But we believe that the way towards peace is through talking, is through mediation, and through getting the hostages back to their families. This can only be done through our efforts in the mediation process with all our partners in the region.

“However, if we see that it’s a hopeless endeavor, then we need to reassess our position and see how we can be useful in the process itself. Because to be honest, we do not want to be used as part of prolonging this conflict.”

Do you feel that you’ve been used?

“Of course. As I said, we are reassessing the commitment of both sides, and one of the main reasons for this is that we’ve gotten all of these statements that contradict the show of commitment to the talks themselves.

One of the critics of your conduct is the prime minister of Israel.

“I don’t want to talk about certain individuals, because I think this is bigger than the people themselves. We were surprised by a lot of the statements coming out, because most of them came from people who know the process, who know our role in the process, and for years those people have worked with us on it, it has accomplished a lot of peace throughout the years and has accomplished the return of 109 hostages during the current conflict.”

Al-Ansari did not directly name Netanyahu as the object of criticism at any point during the interview, but the strained relationship between the Israeli prime minister and Qatar’s leadership has become visible in recent months. Netanyahu’s public calls to urge Qatar to exert pressure on Hamas are seen in Doha as an expression of ill faith in their efforts thus far.

During a meeting with the families of hostages in January, Netanyahu claimed that Qatar was more problematic than the UN and the Red Cross, and said that he did not trust them. In February, he called on the leaders of Jewish communities in the U.S. to pressure Qatar to use its leverage over Hamas.”Qatar has the ability to put pressure on Hamas more than others. They host Hamas’ leaders, Hamas depends on them financially,” Netanyahu said at the time.

Do you feel that Netanyahu or other senior Israeli officials are trying to scapegoat Qatar because the deal is not progressing?

“Well, there is a lot of political posturing and I can say very clearly that our feeling is that a lot of these statements have to do with very narrow political ambitions, and that Qatar is being used as a political punching bag for those who are looking either to safeguard their political futures or to find more votes in the next elections. 

“Sadly, while we have in front of us and as the main driver behind everything we do human lives that are being lost as a result of this conflict, we believe at times that narrow political calculations deliver these statements, with disregard for the lives of both Israeli and Palestinians.”

In February, you harshly criticized Netanyahu, claiming that his calls to urge Qatar to exert pressure on Hamas were “an attempt to prolong the fighting for obvious reasons.” What did you mean?

“Well, as I said, these statements are impeding the mediation. I mean, I could tell you that since we started working with both sides on this for many years now. And our relationship, especially with the security establishment in Israel over mediation and over ending all of these conflicts and escalations that have taken place throughout the years, has always been productive. 

“We have always been able to engage in a very open way and engage very sincerely, but right now, what we are seeing is that every time we get close to a deal, every time we find new ideas to present to the table, there is sabotage talking place, and that sabotage is in the form of statements or actions that, of course, impede the message.”

From the Israeli side?

“From both sides. And this is why we were hoping that with our help, and with the help of the international community, we could pressure both sides.”

But do you also believe that Netanyahu prefers to continue the war rather than reach an agreement at this point in time?

Al-Ansari considers his answer. 

“If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. It the end, these statements do not show us a real commitment to end this conflict as soon as possible. 

“I don’t think [this current conflict is] in anybody’s interest. It’s not in the interest of the Israeli people, its not in the interest of the Palestinian people, not in the interest of all the peace-loving people in the region here for this war to continue, or for a regional spillover to result in the region. 

“It is all of our duty together to our peoples to end this conflict in a peaceful manner and to reach a situation where the security of the Israeli people and the security of the region as a whole is the paramount concern, not narrow political calculations.”

Al-Ansari expressed great concern in the inteview over the possibility that an Israeli operation in Rafah will cause harm to the Israeli hostages and the mass killing of innocent people in the area.

“We have the same point of view that we have always had all through this process: Every escalation on the ground impedes the process. Every escalation on the ground puts the hostages lives at risk. Every escalation on the ground means more death for civilians in Gaza. 

“We know for sure that such an operation will result in countless civilian deaths, and we have voiced our concern along with our partners in the U.S., and Europe, all around the world, that this needs to stop now.

“This needs to stop now and there is no other option than sitting around the table and getting a deal done.”

Qatar-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh speaks to journalists in Doha in December.Credit: Iranian Foreign Ministry/AFP

Is Hamas interested in a deal?

“We were hoping to see more commitment and more seriousness on both sides. We are, with the help of our international partners, hoping that we can pressure both sides to an agreement, but right now we are seeing from both sides a lot of lack of commitment to the process itself and to the mediation.”

Senior Israeli officials portray Qatar as a terror-supporting country.

“We did not enter into a relationship with Hamas because we wanted to. We were asked by the U.S. We reviewed that request in 2006. 

“At the time, it was very clear to us that this was a role that could only be done by us. That there was very little appetite for everybody else to enter into that arena, and that if we shy away because of narrow political calculations from our side – although we understood the heat that would come as an result of this – this would mean less chance for peace, and more conflict and more escalation in the Palestinian territories and Israel. 

“As a result, we took – and, I think, our leadership – a brave decision to take on the political responsibility of being mediators and the channel of communication between both sides. That has accomplished and affected [things] so many times right now, so it has proved its success, and it is the only option we have right now.”

How does Qatar define Hamas’ attack against Israel on October 7? Is it terrorism? Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

“We have made it very clear since the beginning of this that we condemn any targeting of civilians in any way, anyhow, for any reason. There is absolutely no possible justification for killing civilians in any kind of conflict, regardless of who is doing the killing or who is being killed. A human life is a human life. Whether it is Israeli, Palestinian, or anywhere else. 

“We cannot accept in our country – this is a peaceful country, one of the most peaceful countries in the world. We cannot accept the images of civilians being killed as the result of political conflict, military conflict or otherwise, and therefore we have made it very clear that we condemn these attacks and we condemn the killing of civilians, as we are condemning now the killing of Palestinian civilians in the war.”

Al-Ansari rejects the claims made by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials that Qatar needs to increase pressure on Hamas in the negotiations and that it is not doing enough to encourage the organization to be flexible and adopt the proposals that have put on the table thus far.

“One needs to understand the role of a mediator in any kind of mediation. If you are impartial in mediation, then obviously it will succeed.

“You need tactical neutrality, you need to be able to show both sides that you are addressing their concerns, that you understand their point of view and you are working to reach a situation where both sides can sit at the table and agree on a formula that will not be the formula that both sides are asking for. 

“Your job is not to push one agenda over the other. Your job is to find a way of reaching a deal that will protect people’s lives.

“I don’t think that language is suitable within the mediation process. We are applying all the pressure that we can as mediators on both sides. We don’t have special leverage over Hamas or special leverage over Israel. The only leverage we have is the fact that we are willing to undertake the mediation and pay the political cost for this mediation. 

“But we have been doing all that we can. I mean, if you talk to our negotiating team, they have been working 24/7, day and night, for more than six months now, with very little time off. The only time they get to go back to their families is when the talks stop. We have been totally invested in this process and we hope that we find the same sincerity and the same commitment from both sides as we have seen in our negotiating team.”

Have you asked yourself, with hindsight after October 7, whether the money you transferred to the Gaza Strip for many years was a mistake? Was the money ultimately used for terrorist activities?

“First of all, let’s clarify a couple of things: One is we have never been passive mediators. The easiest way of doing mediation is by doing absolutely nothing except for exchanging messages between both sides. 

“When we mediated for peace in Lebanon, part of the deal that we reached was Qatar committing to reconstruction in south Lebanon. When we mediated between the separate and central government in Khartoum, part of the agreement that was reached was Qatari reconstruction and social programs, and development programs in that form.

“And when we started mediating between Hamas and Israel, part of the commitment from our side was to help reconstruct Gaza and to provide the Palestinians with a future of hope, living in peace and prosperity, and that was done, of course, through the reconstruction committee in Gaza. 

“When it comes to our aid to Gaza, it was done in complete coordination with the Israeli government and institutions, and the consecutive administrations that have come through since we started these programs agreed that construction funding would be done through two avenues. 

“One was buying fuel – which was done in coordination with the international agencies where fuel was bought in Israel – which then goes into Gaza. There were technicalities that guaranteed that none of that fuel gets misplaced. It goes directly to the electricity stations, and it’s sealed and opened there. And the fuel guarantees that the two million people living in Gaza have electricity for more than a couple of hours, which would happen if that fuel did not go in.

“The other side of it was the humanitarian system that was given to the most needy families, which amounted to $100 per family – which barely sustains the life of a family of three in any place in the world. That money was also carried out through Israel and in coordination with the Israeli government and across Israeli institutions. 

“Every family was vetted by the Israeli side before it got the funding, and proof of receipt of the funding was sent back immediately to the Israeli side, and that process was overseen by Israeli institutions for many years. As a matter of fact, we were asked to increase that aid, and on a number of times, we were asked to continue that aid when we were reconsidering providing aid to Gaza by the Israeli government. 

“I would be very surprised if people who had been party to this process throughout the years would criticize the process itself when they were overseeing it as it was happening. 

“You know, as I said, many times before: If you are going to attack Qatar by saying that Qatar funded Hamas – our partner in this funding was the Israeli government. And therefore questions need to be also asked over, but then, we believe in our role.

“We believe in the aid that was entered into Gaza and we believe that it has helped sustain the lives of innocent individuals and civilians in Gaza, and that as a result of having that reconstruction and that aid, lives but also hope in Gaza were saved. For people without hope.”

Still – did the money end up in the wrong hands?

“We are completely confident in the process that was in place. We believe that the checks that were in place were sufficient and that, as I said, the oversight by the Israelis and international agencies guaranteed that none of that money was leaked anywhere, and as I said, we stand by our policy, a policy based on humanitarian reasons.”

Al-Ansari speaks in general terms only when he tries to explain how Qatar sees the leadership in Gaza the day after the war.

“We have a long-standing commitment to the two-state solution as the only way to end this conflict. We believe in the two state solution, we believe in the peace process. We have been party to the Arab peace solution and the other peace initiatives. And I believe that the only way forward out of this is not more conflict, because our main concern here is the security of the people in the region – the security of our people, and the people of Israel and the Palestinians is based on finding an end to this conflict. 

“There were a lot of ideas that were thrown out throughout the past years. What we see right now makes it very clear that we need an end result, we need to end this conflict and we need to provide the Palestinians with hope and Israelis with security, for all of us in the region to enjoy the security and the prosperity that we need.”

So you don’t see it happening in the near future, as opposed to the possibility that Saudi Arabia may join the agreements?

“If there is a partner for peace, and if from the terrible events of what we have experienced now we can come up with a new chance for peace – everything is possible.”

Categories Extremism, International

World Leaders Call on Hamas to Release Hostages and Accept Ceasefire Deal

By dianeravitch
April 26, 2024 //
5

Haaretz reported that world leaders urged Hamas to accept a peace proposal:

WASHINGTON – U.S. President Joe Biden released a statement alongside the leaders of 17 other countries – all with citizens held captive in Gaza – calling upon Hamas to release the hostages in order to bring an immediate and prolonged cease-fire.

“We call for the immediate release of all hostages held by Hamas, now for over 200 days. They include our citizens. The fate of the hostages and the civilian population in Gaza, who are protected under international law, is of international concern,” the leaders said in the statement.

“We emphasize that the deal on the table to release the hostages would bring an immediate and prolonged cease-fire in Gaza that would facilitate a surge of additional necessary humanitarian assistance to be delivered throughout Gaza and lead to the credible end of hostilities,” the leaders continue.

The leaders say “Gazans would be able to return to their homes and their lands with preparations beforehand to ensure shelter and humanitarian provisions,” noting “we strongly support the ongoing mediation efforts in order to bring our people home. We reiterate our call on Hamas to release the hostages.”

“Let us end this crisis so that collectively we can focus our efforts on bringing peace and stability to the region,” they conclude. 

Beyond Biden, the leaders include heads of state from Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Thailand and the U.K.

The Hostages Families Forum welcomed the statement from the world leaders, and expressed their gratitude to them for “putting the issue of the hostages as a top international priority.”

They called the statement a result of “diplomatic efforts carried out by the families of the hostages over recent months, alongside cooperation from decision-makers worldwide, aimed at bringing home all the hostages, the living for rehabilitation and the murdered for burial.”

A senior U.S. official noted the collection of leaders on the statement is “quite extraordinary,” noting a previous similar effort failed given some disagreements. This statement, however, earned widespread support given the current situation on the ground and the fact that a deal remains on the table that would bring an immediate cease-fire with the release of women, wounded, elderly and sick hostages.

“The key, really, is hostages,” the senior official said, acknowledging the recent proof-of-life video of U.S. citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, which the Biden administration received 48 hours prior to its publication.

“This is a daily, hourly focus of ours. That is no exaggeration,” the official said, further detailing Biden’s hour-plus meeting with released four-year-old hostage Avigail Mor Idan and her family. “She played in the Oval Office, as a four- year-old does,” the official said.

“Until she was out of Gaza, we were not 100 percent confident she would ever get out of Gaza, so it always has the feeling of this might never come together,” the official acknowledged.

The senior U.S. official rejected allegations that Israel is the main obstacle to securing a deal, placing the onus squarely on Hamas. “There have been times in which the Israelis, for one reason or another, did not want to put whatever issue might be on the table. If I was answering your question six weeks ago, I might have a different answer,” the official acknowledged.

Hamas reiterated on Thursday its demand Israel end the Gaza war as part of any deal to release hostages held there, with Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas official, telling Reuters that U.S. pressure on Hamas “has no value”.

Since Biden’s last conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, immediately after the Iran attack, the U.S. believed the latest proposed deal was “extremely forward leaning” and Israel had fully agreed to a proposal that “had all indications would lead to as close you can get to a breakthrough.”

Hamas responded with what the senior official deemed “not a constructive response at all,” adding, “the core truth is there’s a deal on the table. It meets nearly all the demands that Hamas has had,” calling it “the road map to the end of the crisis.”

“This negotiation has a structure, has a detailed document, has the elements of the deal that are all there. It’s really down to one guy to accept the deal,” the official said.

Categories International

Haaretz: Hamas Releases a Hostage Video from Gaza

By dianeravitch
April 25, 2024 //
19

American media covers the pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, but ignores the protests in Israel, usually led by the families of the hostages who were seized on October 7. Rescuing the hostages was one of the main goals of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, but that goal has taken a back seat to the other goal—eliminating Hamas. Prime Minister Netanyahu seems determined to pursue the destruction of Hamas, but the brutality of the invasion guarantees the emergence of new terrorists.

Yesterday, Hamas released a video featuring one of the hostages. Such videos must be seen with the understanding that the hostage is in captivity and is not free to say what he wants. Yet his plea to rescue the hostages is heartfelt. Many of the hostages, he says, have already died. Some were killed by Israeli bombs, some by the negligence or brutality of their captors.

And yet this young man’s voice must be heard. This terrible, violent, vengeful war must end. The killing must stop. The only solution is a two-state solution. Despite Hamas’ determination to eradicate the state of Israel, Israel will survive.

The only way the war will end is through pressure by other nations on the combatants and negotiations.

The fact that Israel was protected from Iran’s massive bombardment of drones and missiles by not only the U.S., the UK, and France, but by Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab nations suggests hope for a new Middle East. There is a new longing for peace, stability, and regional cooperation. This new world can’t emerge until the violence ends.

This is an excerpt from Haaretz, a valuable source of news in Israel:

Harsh Goldberg-Polin was seriously wounded in Hamas’ attack at the Nova festival on October 7, and appears in the video with an amputated arm. Hundreds of protesters march in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in what they’re calling a ‘rage demonstration’ prompted by the video’s release.

Hamas released a video on Wednesday showing Israeli hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin who was kidnapped to Gaza on October 7 – the first sign of life from his time in captivity. 

Goldberg-Polin had attended the Nova festival at Kibbutz Re’im with friends and sought refuge in a shelter when Hamas stormed the outdoor rave. He sustained serious wounds and is seen in the video with an amputated arm.

He was born in California to Rachel and Jon and moved to Israel in 2008. He celebrated his 24th birthday four days before he was kidnapped. 

Shortly after the video was released, hundreds of protesters, including friends of Goldberg-Polin, marched towards the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem, lit a bonfire, and called for his release. At least two protesters were arrested. Police deployed skunk water against demonstrators blocking streets.

The video, approved for release by Goldberg-Polin’s family, begins with Goldberg-Polin introducing himself and recounting his abduction. “I went out to have fun with my friends, and instead, I found myself fighting for my life with severe wounds all over my body after trying to shield myself and others because there was no one to protect us that day,” he said.

He addressed the prime minister, saying, “Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government, you should be ashamed for abandoning me and thousands of citizens on that day. You should be ashamed. For almost 200 days, we’re here, and all the IDF’s attempts to rescue us have failed.” 

Goldberg-Polin further stated that “Air Force bombings killed around 70 hostages like me, and you should be ashamed that every deal that comes to the table, you and your government reject. Don’t you want to end this nightmare already?”

“Benjamin Netanyahu and members of the government, while you sit and celebrate holidays with your families, think of us, the hostages who are still here, in hell beneath the ground. Without water, without food, without sunlight, without the medical treatment I so desperately need,” Goldberg-Polin added. 

“I demand from you, Prime Minister, and your government and cabinet: Every day we’re here is another day you abandon us, another day you allow our blood to be shed. Do what’s expected of you already, and bring us home now. Or is that too much for you? It’s time to clear out your offices, and go home,” he said.Open gallery view

In the end of the video, Goldberg-Polin addressed his family, saying: “One last thing, and most importantly: Mom, Dad, Libby, and Orly, I love you very much and miss you terribly, and I think of you every day I’m here. I know you’re doing everything possible to get me home as soon as possible. I need you to stay strong for me and keep fighting until each one of the hostages comes home safely. I expect and hope to be with you soon, after all this is over. I won’t be here anymore, but I hope I’ve given you some peace of mind this holiday.”

Categories Cruelty, International

Timothy Snyder on Putin’s Paranoia

By dianeravitch
March 30, 2024 //
3

Timothy Snyder, the Yale University scholar of European history, tries to disentangle Putin’s lies about the terrorist attack on a concert hall in the suburbs of Moscow. ISIS-K claimed responsibility but Putin blames Ukraine. Of course.

Snyder writes:

            A week ago, four men associated with Islamic State attacked civilians in a concert venue near Moscow known as Crocus City Hall.  Islamic State (IS-K) claimed responsibility for the horrifying mass murder, and released videos recorded the terrorists’ perspective (don’t watch them).  Russia has since apprehended four men, who seem to be the perpetrators. 

            Russia has been engaged with Islamic State for some time.  Russia has been bombing Syria since 2015.  Russia and Islamic State compete throughout Africa for resources.  All four of the accused are Tajiks, a people subjected to discrimination inside Russia.

            These are the facts, subject to further verification and interpretation — and inherently unpredictable, as facts always are.  What was entirely predictable (and predicted) was that, regardless of the facts, Putin and his propagandists would place the blame for the attack on Ukraine and the United States.  On the internet (and in the Russian and Serbian press) this version is present.

            It is not hard to see why.  If Ukraine and the West are guilty, then Russian security services do not have to explain why they failed to stop Islamic terrorists from killing so many Russians, because Islamic terror vanishes from the story.  And if Ukrainians are to blame, then this would seem to justify the war that Russia is prosecuting against Ukraine.

Aftermath of Russian ballistic missile strike on Kyiv, 25 March

            Russian officials make a highly circumstantial argument: the terrorists’ car was stopped near Bryansk, which is in western Russia, and so vaguely near Ukraine, which means that the four Tajiks in a Renault were intending to cross the Ukrainian border, which means that they had Ukrainian backers, which means that it was a Ukrainian operation, which means that the Americans were behind it.  The reasoning here leaves something to be desired.  And the series of associations rests on no factual basis.

            The suspects were in a car near the west Russian city of Bryansk.  This much seems to be true.  The first version of the story was that they were headed for Belarus, which would make more sense, given the route.  Anyone with local knowledge would make a still more telling point. Because of the special relationship between Russia and Belarus, the Russian-Belarusian border is porous.  Once inside Belarus, it is relatively easy to pass into the European Union, because the Belarusian regime enables human smuggling into Lithuania and Poland.  Four Tajiks in a Renault would have been, in this sense, welcome in Belarus.  They would have had a decent chance to pay a smuggler to get them into the Schengen zone and thereby escape.

            The idea that the suspects were headed for Ukraine seems to be entirely invented and is extremely implausible.  As of this writing, none of the suspects seem to have said anything about Ukraine, despite the fact that they have been tortured, presumably with such a confession in mind.  And the notion of a Ukrainian escape route makes no sense.  The Russian-Ukrainian border is a place where Russian security forces are concentrated.  It is a site of combat.  It is the last place terrorists would want to go.  Four Tajiks in a Renault would have needed some very, very high-level Russian protection to get anywhere near the Russian-Ukrainian border. 

            Russian propagandists have told the population that it was not Islamic State but Ukraine who is to blame.  ISIS is just a “fake.”  The propagandists need not give reasons, and don’t.  In the press, one finds the wildest chains of association.  Britain is to blame for the attack (goes one claim) because one of the suspects was once in Turkey and the Turkish president knows the head of British foreign intelligence.

            Only Putin is permitted to set the theoretical tone for the argument for Ukrainian involvement, and yesterday (25 March) he gave that a shot.  His version went like this: Ukrainians are Nazis; Nazis do bad things; a bad thing happened; therefore Ukraine is to blame.  One does not have to be a logician to find the holes.  They are disturbingly large.   While it is true that Nazis do bad things, it does not follow that all bad things are done by Nazis. 

            And the factual premise is empirically false. One should not have to say this at this point of the war, but the Ukrainians are not the Nazis in this conflict.  The Ukrainian far right has never done well in elections, and is far less prominent than in any European state you care to name, let alone the United States.  Ukrainians have an active civil society, a vibrant press, multiple political parties, and freedom of speech.  Ukraine’s president won a free and fair election.  He is also, incidentally, Jewish.  The Ukrainian minister of defense, for that matter, is a Muslim.  The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces was born in Russia, where his parents still reside.  This kind of political and social pluralism is unusual by any standards.

By contrast, Russia under Putin is a one-man dictatorship. If “Nazi” stands for dictatorship, suppression of speech and the press, then Russia is the Nazi state.

Open the link to finish the essay.

Categories Evil, Extremism, International

Thom Hartmann: Was the Terrorist Attack in Moscow Akin to the Reichstag Fire of 1933? Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

By dianeravitch
March 24, 2024 //
16

Thom Hartmann wrote an ominous column about the possible origins and consequences of the terrorist attack in Moscow that killed scores of people at a concert.

He fears that Putin may use this horrific event as a pretext to step up his attacks on Ukraine and do to Ukraine what he did to Chechnya, which was to reduce the would-be breakaway region to a wasteland.

In his article, he recalls the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used as a pretext to initiate his dictatorship, crush democratic institutions, and round up dissidents.

He draws other analogies of leaders who were warned of pending catastrophes, but chose to ignore the warnings in order to solidify their hold on the population and secure their power.

In that group, he includes President George W. Bush, who ignored warnings about 9/11, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored warnings about a likely attack by Hamas from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has written about the IDF “spotters,” the young women who watched activity at the Gaza border and warned their superiors about the military exercises they observed; they were ignored. Almost every one of these unarmed 18-and 19-year-old women were killed or taken hostage.

Hartmann wrote:

Like Hitler, Netanyahu, and Bush all did, Putin just claimed that up is down, that the terrorist attack he knew was coming was an unprovoked surprise, and that it came from Ukraine, not ISIS-K…

Friday, a group of ISIS extremists claimed credit for the attack on a Moscow theater that killed at least 133 people and left the building a smoldering ruin. But Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his public comments today, didn’t mention ISIS-K: instead, he placed the blame on Ukraine….

We’ve seen this movie before, both here, in Israel, and Germany, and it never ends well…

Ukraine, of course, has denied any involvement or knowledge of the attack. But don’t be surprised if Putin uses this as an excuse to massively bomb Kiev the way he utterly destroyed Grozny the capital of Chechnya, to subdue that nation. The attacks could begin as early as this coming week.

If that happens, it could provoke a stronger response from EU countries who see Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Moldova as being next on Putin’s menu: both he and his spokesmen have already said as much. 

And that could lead to a major escalation of the Ukraine war beyond the borders of Ukraine and into Poland or the Baltics, triggering Nato’s Article 5 mutual defense provision, which would instantaneously draw the US directly into the conflict.

All because Republicans have convinced Putin that they can prevent further US aid, so he believes now is a good time to use the time-tested “pretext of an unexpected attack” strategy to go from a “military operation” to an all-out war. 

In fact, just yesterday afternoon his official spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that the country is now officially “at war.”

That Ukrainian conflict, particularly if Putin-aligned Republicans like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Mark Johnson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc. are able to continue to prevent the US from helping Ukraine push Russia into a stalemate, could make China’s dictator Xi Jinping think it’s a great time to attack Taiwan.

And that, particularly since we recently stationed troops on Taiwanese territory, throws us straight into WWIII, regardless of Republican obstructionism and isolationist rhetoric.

I hope I’m wrong. Praying, frankly, that I’m wrong.

Categories Corruption, Evil, Extremism, Fraud, History, International, Lies

Watch A Remarkable Interview of Former Ambassador Michael McFaul

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2024 //
4

I have recently been watching online interviews conducted by veteran reporters at The Washington Post.

The best of them so far was the interview of Michael McFaul, former Ambassador to Russia by David Ignatius.

McFaul speaks with great authority about Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Putin, and the war in Ukraine. McFaul talks about the importance of passing new aid to Ukraine and appeals directly to Speaker Mike Johnson to let the funding bill come to a vote.

Ignatius asks him what additional sanctions might be imposed on Russia to deter its brutal invasion of Ukraine. He says the U.S. and Europe should transfer to Ukraine the billions of Russian assets that are now frozen.

When asked about the future of Russia, McFaul says that Russia is in decline now because it has driven out a million of its “best and brightest,” who have fled to other countries. If Putin had turned to democracy in 2000, he said, Russia would now be one of the richest nations in the world.

Michael McFaul on Russian presidential election and Alexei Navalny’s legacy  

The death of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny has sparked worldwide condemnation and renewed questions about political freedom in Russia. On Monday, March 4 at 1:00 p.m. ET, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul joins The Post’s David Ignatius to assess Navalny’s legacy, Russia’s upcoming presidential election and the ongoing war in Ukraine.  

By Washington Post Live

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2024/03/04/michael-mcfaul-russian-presidential-election-alexei-navalnys-legacy/

Download The Washington Post app.

Transcript: World Stage: The Future of Russia with Michael McFaul

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2024/03/04/transcript-world-stage-future-russia-with-michael-mcfaul/

Categories Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Innovation, International, Justice
« Older Entries