Seems no end to tyranny faced by Gazans

Now is the time for the United States, and in its wake the international community, to make a decision. Will the endless cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians continue, or are we going to try to put a stop to it? Will the United States continue to arm Israel and then bemoan the excessive use of these armaments, or is it finally prepared to take real steps, for the first time in its history, to change reality? And above all, will the cruelest Israeli attack on Gaza become the most pointless of all, or will the opportunity that came in its aftermath not be missed, for a change?

A Palestinian state may no longer be a viable solution because of the hundreds of thousands of settlers who ruined the chances for establishing one. But a world determined to find a solution must pose a clear choice for Israel: sanctions, or an end to the occupation; territories or weapons; settlements or international support; a democratic state or a Jewish one; apartheid, or an end to Zionism. When the world stands firm, posing these options in such a manner, Israel will have to decide. Now is the time to force Israel to make the most fateful decision of its life.

There is no point in appealing to Israel. The current government, and the one that is likely to replace it, does not and never will have the intention, courage or ability to generate change. When the prime minister responds to American talks about establishing a Palestinian state with words indicating that he “objects to coerced moves,” or that “an agreement will only be reached through negotiations,” all one can do is both laugh and cry.

Laugh, because over the years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done all he can to foil negotiations; cry, because Israel is the one employing coercion – the nature of its policy toward the Palestinians is coercion carried out in one big unilateral, violent, aggressive and arrogant move. All of a sudden, Israel is against acts of coercion? Irony hides its head in shame.

It is pointless to expect the current Israeli government to change its character. To expect a government led by Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisenkot or Yair Lapid to do so is also painfully futile. None of them believe in the existence of a Palestinian state that is equal in its sovereign status and rights to Israel.

The three of them together and each one separately will at most, on a really good day, agree to the establishment of a Bantustan on part of the land. A genuine solution will not be found here. It’s best to leave Israel to wallow in its refusal.

But the world cannot afford to let this opportunity pass. This is the world that will soon have to reconstruct, with its funds, the ruins of the Gaza Strip, until the next time Israel demolishes it.

It is the world whose stability is undermined as long as the occupation persists, and is further undermined every time Israel embarks on another war.

This is the world that agrees that the occupation is bad for it, but has never lifted a finger to bring it to an end. Now, an opportunity to do so has cropped up. Israel’s weakness and dependence following this war must be exploited, for Israel’s benefit as well.

Enough with words, enough with the futile rounds of talks held by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the barbed words uttered by President Joe Biden, they lead nowhere.

The last Zionist president, perhaps the last one to care about what is happening in the world, must take action. One could, as a prelude, learn something from the amazingly simple and true words of European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, who said, “Well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms to Israel.”

However, the issue is not just ending the war, but mainly, what will happen when it’s over. If it depended on Israel, under any government, we would return to the warm bosom of apartheid and to living by the sword.

The world cannot accept this any longer and cannot leave the choice to Israel. Israel has spoken: No. The time has come for a Dayton Accords-like solution. It was a forced and imperfect agreement reached in Bosnia-Herzegovina that put an end to one of the cruelest wars, and in contrast to all predictions, it has held for 29 years. The agreement was imposed by coercion.

 Courtesy: Information Clearing House

 

United States: Exploring impact of gas export

It is being said that the boom in the US natural gas exports comes at the expense of domestic households. It has also become a major point of contention in the heated debate over the Biden administration’s decision to halt permitting for new gas export terminals.

Proponents of the exports argue these overseas sales keep prices down for the domestic consumers by calming global markets and incentivizing US oil and gas companies to produce more fuel. 

Reportedly, US natural gas prices hit a 40-month low last week at just US$1.91 per mmBtu as the combined effect of mild weather, strongly rebounding production and sizable inventories continue to weigh on prices.

August Pfluger told The Hill that despite nearly a decade of gas exports, we have had a competitive advantage worldwide while prices have remained very, very low inside the US.”

Pfluger, who represents the Permian Basin, one of the major sources of gas being exported, sponsored a bill approved by the House on Thursday that would strip the president of the authority to approve or disapprove new gas exports.

Proponents hope the measure, which is unlikely to advance in the Democrat-controlled Senate, would open the floodgates for both terminal construction and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

Export opponents, on the other hand, contend that they make the US gas supply — and the prices Americans pay for the fuel — less stable by tying them to the increasingly tumultuous world beyond the country’s borders. 

“Whether it’s a coal crisis in China, a cold snap in Asia, unrest in the Middle East, a pipeline explosion in Europe — anytime global gas markets sneeze, we’re going to catch a cold,” said Clark Williams-Derry of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Williams-Derry argued that the gas companies’ price gouged American consumers by tying the US to global gas markets — and thereby to the surging prices that, for example, accompanied the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

As formerly cheap US gas supplies went to suddenly gas-starved — and wealthy — European countries since 2022, total US spending on gas surged by around US$120 billion dollars, or about US$975 per American household, he wrote.

“We’ve already dug ourselves into the crazy hole,” he said. “And now we’re going to be exporting 25% or more of our gas.”

The buildout in export terminals has forced US consumers into competition with entire countries, said Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), a diverse trade group of factories and manufacturers united in their demand for cheap domestic gas.

According to IECA, Williams-Derry has underestimated the cost of gas exports to American households. In testimony to Congress last week, it argued that gas exports had driven up prices in 2022 alone by the equivalent of US$137 billion — and fueled inflation throughout the entire economy. 

IECA has been vehemently opposed to oil and gas exports since well before the first gas terminal was completed in 2016 in the United States. 

Before such terminals were built, Cicio said, gas producers sold to utilities or companies — while now they have the opportunity to sell to entire countries, or at least to major state-owned companies. One paused project has signed deals with Germany and China’s state-owned gas company.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s the middle of winter here — peak demand, inventories are low, prices are high — those countries will buy it away, drive up the price of gas and electricity,” Cicio said.

Since the war in Ukraine began, the IECA has argued for what it calls a “safety valve” — a congressional or administrative rule that would limit exports if the gas supplies are low in the country.

But export proponents, including oil and gas companies and congressional lawmakers who represent key gas-producing areas, contend that unlimited exports are in the public interest — and that restricting them would negatively impact American prices.

While many export terminals — those that have already received their Department of Energy permits — would still be built whatever the Biden administration decides regarding new permits, Pfluger, the Texas congressman, argued that the announcement of a coming pause would send dangerous ripples through the industry.

“When you signal to the industry that there could be some political instability or turbulence, then that leads to more volatility in the price than anything else,” Pfluger said.

By suggesting that gas exports would be bottlenecked and even decline, he said, the administration was signaling drillers and pipeline builders to begin slowing down as well — thereby driving up prices.

“These projects don’t happen overnight,” Pfluger said. “You can’t turn them on and off like a light switch.”

Supporters of unlimited exports argue that if gas producers in regions like the Texas Permian or the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania don’t have ready access to foreign markets, they won’t produce as much gas for Americans either.

Benjamin Leibowicz, who teaches energy policy and mathematics at the University of Texas at Austin, pushed back on the idea that that exports lead to cheaper domestic prices, however, saying it doesn’t make sense in the short term.

“If there are more gas consumers and higher demand, that translates to higher prices,” he told The Hill — though he emphasized that he, too, thought this would spur more drilling.

Gas export terminals open American gas production to a globe full of potential consumers, most of them live in regions where gas is far more expensive than it is in the US. 

In both Europe and Asia, for example, gas prices in December were nearly about five times what they were in the US 

That represents an opportunity for American gas producers who would like to get more money for their fuel. 

But it also puts American consumers accustomed to paying US$2.50 per unit of gas in competition with Europeans willing to pay US$11.5, or East Asians willing to pay US$13. 

As early as 2009 — seven years before the first tanker of LNG set sail from the Gulf Coast to Europe — economists predicted a “strengthening relationship” between European and American gas prices if LNG trade picked up. 

That’s essentially what happened, the U.S. Energy Information Agency concluded in 2023. The agency found that higher LNG exports decreased domestic supplies of natural gas, “increasing domestic natural gas prices.”

That finding, in addition to climate concerns, was a major reason why Democrats called on the administration to halt the expansion of gas exports — or at least, that expansion’s long tail.

“I’m just seeing record profits for LNG, but I don’t see the benefits coming into Americans in my community,” Catherine Cortez Masto told David Turk, deputy secretary of the Energy Department, in a hearing last week.

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.