Israel belongs to Palestinians living in Gaza

Many professing solidarity with Palestinians say they have nowhere to go. It’s not true. They do, somewhere they actually should go, their homes in what is now Israel. The majority of families of Palestinians in Gaza were forced there by Israel in 1948.

The great thread by Hanine Hassan, “Who told you that the 1.5 million displaced Palestinians sheltering in Rafah have nowhere left to go? My family, now in Rafah, has a home in Jaffa, from which we were expelled by a fascist German family. The majority of our people in Gaza have homes to go to, all over Palestine.”

Prof. John Quigley has noted, “They are entitled to repatriation under international law, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which Israel has signed and ratified.”

There’s UN Resolution 194 dated December 11, 1948, “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return…”

The extremely pro-Israel Harry Truman said if Israel continues to reject the basic principles set forth in that UN resolution, the US government will regretfully be forced to the conclusion that a revision of its attitude toward Israel has become unavoidable.

UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte reported on September 18, 1948, “It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees, who have been rooted in the land for centuries.”

Bernadotte was shot six times the day before his report was to be issued. They shot his French assistant no less than 17 times. No one was ever brought to justice for killing the mediator.

The prospect of Palestinians going back to their homes continues to bring out the most murderous impulses in Israeli officials.

AntiWar.com reports, “Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir said on Sunday that Israeli forces should shoot Palestinian women and children in Gaza if they get too close to the Israeli border. … ‘We cannot have women and children getting close to the border… anyone who gets near must get a bullet, in his head,’ Ben-Gvir said during an argument with Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi about the IDF’s open fire policies, according to The Jerusalem Post.

“After his comments leaked to the press, Ben Gvir doubled down. In a post on X, the Israeli minister said he ‘does not stutter and does not intend to apologize. All those who endanger our citizens by getting near the border must be shot. This is what they do in any normal state.’”

Indeed, in 2018 the “Great March of Return” began, as Palestinians in Gaza tried to simply walk back to their homes. On August 31, 2023, The Palestine Chronicle reported: “Gaza to Resume Great March of Return Protests.”  Maureen Clare Murphy at the Electronic Intifada noted, Protests along the Gaza-Israel boundary resumed in August. Massive demonstrations dubbed the Great March of Return were held on a regular basis for nearly two years beginning in early 2018.

The protests were aimed at ending the Israeli siege on Gaza and allowing Palestinian refugees to exercise their right of return as enshrined in international law. Some two-third of Gaza’s population of more than two million people are refugees from lands just beyond the boundary fence.

More than 215 Palestinian civilians, including more than 40 children, were killed during those demonstrations, and thousands more wounded by live fire during those protests between March 2018 and December 2019.

A UN commission of inquiry found that Israel’s use of lethal force against protesters warrants criminal investigation and prosecution and may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Excessive use of force against Great March of Return protests is expected to be a major focus of the International Criminal Court’s Palestine investigation, should it move forward.

The recently slain Palestinian writer Refaat Alareer noted on October 08, 2023, “The very Israeli snipers that gunned down hundreds of Palestinian marchers in the Great Return March in 2018/19 were neutralized by Palestinian freedom fighters.”

In a recent piece in the New York Review of Books — “Gaza: Two Rights of Return — Most Palestinians in Gaza are now displaced at least twice over. They have a right to choose where to return” — Sari Bashi from Human Rights Watch writes as a Jewish woman married to a Palestinian man whose family was forced from their homes in 1948 and again during the current assault, “I’ll be relieved if my in-laws are merely allowed to return to northern Gaza and receive support to rebuild a house there.”

Courtesy: Information Clearing House

 

Palestinian state must for Mideast stability

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan said on Saturday that the only pathway towards security and stability in the Middle East, including Israel, was through the establishment of a Palestinian state, reports the Saudi Gazette.

Addressing a panel discussion at the Munich Security Conference about normalization of ties with Israel, Prince Faisal underscored the need to ensure a safe path to a two-state solution, saying, the greater the consensus in the international community on the two-state solution, the closer we will get to it.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry and Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib also attended the discussion.

The foreign minister said that Saudi Arabia has no relations with Israel. “Normalization of relations with Israel depends on the implementation of the Arab Peace Treaty. We do not talk to them directly,” he said.

Prince Faisal stressed that Saudi Arabia was now concentrating on a truce in the Gaza war. “We are focused on a ceasefire and on an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and we are focused on humanitarian access for the people of Gaza”.

“What Israel is doing in Gaza will not make it safer, but rather will push a new generation towards extremism,” he said while calling for all those, who obstruct the two-state solution, to be held accountable.

For his part, Sameh Shoukry said that Cairo confirmed to Tel Aviv that removing the displaced Palestinians from Rafah poses a threat to Egypt’s national security, saying that there are catastrophic consequences of displacing the people of Gaza.

He considered that the lack of will of the international community is what has been obstructing the two-state solution for years.

On her part, Hadja Lahbib called for bringing out a comprehensive plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stressing that the current crisis in Gaza cannot be resolved militarily.

The Belgian minister said that Israel must offer an alternative solution as long as it rejects the two-state solution, stressing that the two-state solution is capable of defusing the conflict in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Josep Borrell, high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said on Saturday that he discussed with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan the catastrophic situation in the Gaza Strip.

In a statement on his X account, Borrell stated that he also discussed with the Saudi minister the need for regional security and the practical steps that can be taken within the framework of our joint work on the two-state solution.

On Friday, Prince Faisal discussed with his British counterpart David Cameron the developments on the Gaza situation and the international efforts being made in this regard. Their meeting was held on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

Maulana's revelations bring no surprises

To some, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman triggered a political earthquake late Thursday when, during a television interview, he revealed that former army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa and spy chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed had organized and orchestrated the 2022 vote of no-confidence that resulted in Imran Khan’s ouster.

A day later, he corrected himself in a different interview, saying he had taken the ex-spy chief’s name by mistake, and that it was his successor that he had, in fact, been referring to.

“They were in contact with all political parties regarding the no-confidence motion, and they told us the way of going about it,” he had initially said.

The PDM parties went along with the plan, but they were merely rubber-stamping the move, the JUI-F chief claimed.

Maulana’s confession ended up causing quite a stir on social media, with most PTI sympathizers describing it as confirmation of their party’s long-held stance on the cipher conspiracy, under which they believe that army generals acted to topple the PTI’s elected government in collusion with/ or on the instructions of officials from the Biden administration.

On the other hand, the Maulana’s detractors were quick to dismiss him, with many speculating that he had only made a statement to secure a few positions in the next government for himself or one of his family members.

It certainly seemed hypocritical of him to claim that he never wanted a role in the no-trust vote and that he only went along due to peer pressure. He had, after all, been heading the PDM at the time.

Regardless, to those familiar with the security establishment’s behind-the-scenes machinations, this revelation outlined another link in the larger scheme of interference and control ongoing for the past many years.

From the ouster of Nawaz Sharif in 2017, to the pre-poll rigging before the July 2018 elections to keep him out; the post-poll creation of the PTI government with the help of independents; Gen Bajwa’s service extension; the subjugation of the media; and, finally, the ouster of Imran Khan’s government — Gen Bajwa remained active throughout, supported in his political adventures for most of that period by Gen Hameed, who served first as DGC and then as DG ISI.

It is time for both gentlemen’s actions during this extended period to be investigated thoroughly and, if their misconduct is proven, for them to be appropriately punished on each count. It ought to be noted that this current cycle of instability started with Nawaz Sharif’s ouster in 2017, and has only gotten worse since then.

It may be too late to rectify the original sin, but it is never too late to stop repeating mistakes. Recognizing this will put the country on a path to recovery.

Courtesy: Dawn

Pakistan: PTI decides to sit in opposition

According to Dawn, Pakistan Teheek-e-Insaf (PTI) of Imran Khan has finally decided to sit on the opposition benches in national and provincial assemblies. It also announced to launch countrywide protests against alleged rigging in the February 08 general elections.

A PTI source also told Dawn that the party’s incarcerated founder, Imran Khan, has tasked former National Assembly speaker Asad Qaiser with engaging political parties to muster support for the protest drive.

The party, which also issued a white paper against alleged rigging on Friday, has decided to kick off its demonstrations from Saturday.

A PTI delegation led by Qaisar met the leader of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and Qaumi Watan Party (QWP) on Friday, while a meeting with Pashtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party’s Mehmood Khan Achakzai is also scheduled to take place on Saturday.

Addressing a news conference after meeting with Aftab Sherpao, PTI leader Barrister Saif confirmed the decision to sit on the opposition benches in the Centre and Punjab Assembly.

In the second phase, these parties could form an alliance in the centre and provinces, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where PTI -backed independents are in a position to form the government with a two-thirds majority.

The PTI source added that even though the party has categorically announced it would not engage with the PPP and PML-N, efforts were underway for back-channel contacts with the former. If they do become allies, the PPP and PTI would have enough seats in the NA to form the government.

 

Pakistan Election Results, USIP Perspective

Days after Pakistan’s February 08 general election, the Election Commission of Pakistan released the official results confirming a major political upset. Contrary to what most political pundits and observers had predicted, independents aligned with former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) won the most seats at the national level, followed by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). No party won an absolute majority needed to form a government on its own, says a report released by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).

The resultant uncertainty means the United States may have to contend with a government that is more focused on navigating internal politics and less so on addressing strategic challenges.

On the one hand, the most likely scenario appears to be a coalition government that may struggle to muster the political strength to push through much-needed economic reforms and take on serious governance and security challenges.

On the other hand, several contenders have raised allegations of vote tampering that will call into question the credibility of a future government.

PTI-aligned candidates in particular claim that the delays in the final announcement of results are evidence of irregularities. Even before the election, it was clear that the electoral playing field was being tilted against the PTI.

The US State Department has noted allegations of interference in the electoral process and called for a full investigation. In its preliminary report, Pakistan’s polling watchdog, Free and Fair Election Network, noted that there was transparency at the polling stations, but it was compromised at the vote counting and tabulation stage.

Despite not winning the most seats, the PML-N is now trying to cobble together a coalition government with the PPP and MQM — as these parties together have a near majority of seats, which is required to form a government.

It has also nominated former Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif — Nawaz Sharif’s brother — to lead the coalition as the new prime minister.

For its part, the PTI has announced intent to form a government at the center as well as in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but it is unclear who it will ally with to get the majority required to form a government.

It is more likely that PTI-aligned candidates will sit in the opposition in the national assembly, as the party has made clear it will not ally with either the PML-N or PPP.

The victory of PTI-backed candidates defies the expectations of political pundits in Pakistan. It was widely anticipated that the PML-N would win and the PTI would lose the election.

At the heart of this projection was the state of the relationship between Khan and Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, which was seen to be backing the PML-N’s return to power and blocking Khan and his PTI.

Khan fell out with the military when his government was deposed in a vote of no confidence in 2022, which he charged was a regime-change operation orchestrated by the military with the United States.

His party has been in the line of fire since May 09, 2023, when its supporters attacked military establishments across the country. Khan himself has been in prison since last year due to several cases charging him with graft and improper handling of classified information, which meant he was unable to campaign for his party in the election.

Perhaps most significantly, leading up to the election, the PTI was also denied its election symbol (a cricket bat) by the Pakistani Supreme Court, which was widely seen as part of a broader campaign to tilt the electoral playing field against the party.

The fact that despite all these measures, PTI-backed candidates won such a large share is a remarkable outcome, making the 2024 election one of the most significant elections in contemporary Pakistani history.

One way to read the vote is that the Pakistani people have rejected the two traditional, dynastic parties — the PML-N and PPP — and embraced Khan’s aspirational, populist political platform.

Another way to read the outcome is that it is also a rejection of the military establishment’s role in politics, in particular its opposition to the PTI and the clampdown against the party since last year.

The results also point to Pakistanis’ discontent with the country’s overall trajectory and the electoral process being a solution to the challenges facing the country.

According to Gallup, Pakistanis are deeply pessimistic about the country’s economic future and they also question the fairness of the electoral process — before the election, seven in 10 Pakistanis said they lacked confidence in the honesty of the elections.

 

Pakistan: All the king’s men

KING’S parties — political parties believed to have been created and nurtured by unelected forces — have a long and chequered history in Pakistan.

While some parties have developed a genuine popular following, other projects have fizzled out rather quickly. Three king’s parties suffered the latter fate in last week’s elections.

The Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party (IPP), constructed by assembling PTI deserters, was being touted as the next big thing, particularly in Punjab. Yet this prediction failed spectacularly as it managed only two National Assembly seats, also putting in a dismal performance in Punjab. Chastened by the rout, IPP supremo Jahangir Tareen retired from politics. One wonders if the IPP will survive till the next election cycle.

The PTI-Parliamentarians did worse, winning no NA seats, while the Balochistan Awami Party, created by the powers that be in 2018 and comprising mostly ex-PML-N members, was also humbled in the polls.

As mentioned, cobbling together king’s parties is not a new phenomenon. For the longest time, the name of the Muslim League — Pakistan’s grand old party — was used by military strongmen, including generals Ayub Khan and Zia, to form parties that could give their projects a civilian face.

Gen Musharraf patronised the PML-Q in 2002, carving it out of PML. But whereas the party of the Sharifs has survived, the Q-League is not a potent political force. Today, there are countless factions of the Muslim League, many of them the products of military rule, or one-man parties. In other instances, electoral alliances were carved out to keep popular parties in check, such as the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad in 1988.

Yet some parties have earned their democratic stripes, despite being products of dictatorship. The PML-N is a prime example; Nawaz Sharif began his political journey in the Zia era, but today, has a genuine following. Other than parties custom-built by the gentlemen in Rawalpindi, other political forces, while not being the king’s men, have served the purpose at critical junctures.

The MQM is one example, as it has done the bidding of the establishment at various times, and been rewarded with ‘heavy’ mandates in Karachi.

The PPP also played ball with the powers, particularly in the turbulent 1990s. These alliances with unelected forces — while serving the short-term interests of these parties — have done long-term harm to Pakistani democracy.

The only way to stave off the continuous crises that afflict Pakistani politics is for powerful quarters to stop creating and patronising political parties, and to let representatives genuinely elected by the people chart the future course of this country.

Inorganic creations have short shelf-lives and limited appeal, and despite widespread manipulation of the system, are rejected by voters. Only those political forces thrive that either turn away from their creators, or look only to the people for legitimacy.

Dawn Editorial Dated February 16, 2024

Billions for War, little for people without food

Following the passage of a US$95 billion foreign aid package that includes funding for Israel's relentless assault on Gaza, economists and policy experts this week are expressing alarm over the failure of the US Congress to ensure a federal program for low-income parents and their babies — a gap that could leave 2 million children and parents without sufficient food.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has never turned away eligible families in its 50-year history, but analysts say that with Congress deadlocked over whether to fully fund the program, states may soon be forced to place up to 2 million families on waiting lists—jeopardizing access to this highly effective program during an important window for child development," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in December last year.

The program, which has been linked to a decrease in infant and maternal mortality in the past five decades, is currently being funded by a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that Congress passed in January to keep the government running until early March.

While lawmakers have not agreed on funding for WIC, which is estimated to cost US$6.3 billion in 2024 and faces a US$1 billion shortfall, the Senate on Tuesday did pass the US$95 billion foreign aid package, including US$14.1 billion for Israel.

Israel's bombardment of Gaza has killed more than 28,000 people since October, including more than 12,000 children.

The Senate's 70-29 bipartisan vote in favor of the package, wrot defense analyst William Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, "lays bare the skewed priorities of the federal government."

"Despite deep divisions, it is possible to get bipartisan support for a package that mostly involves funding weapons exports," Hartung wrote at Forbes on Wednesday.

"Don't expect any such emergency measure to address record levels of homelessness, or aid the 1 in 6 American children living in poverty, or accelerate investments in curbing the climate crisis. In the view of the administration and a majority of members of Congress, some emergencies count more than others."

At the Institute for Policy Studies, National Priorities Project director Lindsay Koshgarian pointed to WIC as a prime example of the kind of program the federal government should be prioritizing over military aid for Israel, which has garnered growing condemnation from US allies for its indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

"There's huge discrepancies in where the resources are going," Koshgarian told Al Jazeera on Wednesday. "It's an incredibly important program; there are many families that have depended on it. US$1 billion to make up the shortfall would be easy to come up with."

Last week, Democrats on the US House Education and Workforce Committee warned congressional leaders that they must ensure full funding for WIC, which "currently serves over half of all infants born in the country and continues to be a lifesaving nutrition intervention program that minimizes avoidable health and developmental issues for low-income, nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children."

"To prevent any disruption to a program that is crucial to supporting new parents and young children, it is vital that WIC is fully funded and continues to align with projected participation and food costs," wrote the lawmakers.

The 19th reported last month that state WIC agencies are currently spending money "assuming the needed funds will eventually be appropriated."

"By early March," wrote journalist Amanda Becker, "the fiscal year will already be half over, so there will be a shorter window of time to make up any budget shortfall, potentially leading to more people being waitlisted en masse than if the shortfall was spread across a full fiscal year."

At Forbes, Hartung called on the federal government to "put less emphasis on war planning and military buildups and more on reassurance and dialogue designed to set clear rules of the road and avoid a conflict."

"If peace in the Middle East is truly a goal of this administration," he wrote, "a radical shift in priorities is urgently needed."

Courtesy: Common Dreams