The Beinart Controversy over the End of the Two-State Solution and Juan Cole On Palestinian Statelessness-By Juan Cole

(Worth reading article on Palestinian issue. f.sheikh)

Hannah Arendt points out that with regard to the Nazis this policy of denaturalizing people, or leaving them without citizenship rights, was a demonstration project. That is to say the Nazis began by thinking that Gypsies and Jews and other groups are flotsam and the scum of the earth and a kind of infection in the body politic, and by taking away their citizenship, they demonstrated that they’re scum. So Goebbels said that depriving the Jews of citizenship made the Jews the scum of the earth and he said, you know, let’s see – everybody’s criticizing us how we treat our Jews, but will they take them? Does America want them? Does Britain want them? And of course they didn’t once they were stateless. So by marking them as non-German as taking away German Jews’ citizenship, the Nazis were then demonstrating the wothlessness of their Jews….

I want to make an argument about the character of the Palestine issue. I’m not going to argue that it’s a unique problem but I am going to argue that it’s almost unique in contemporary affairs, and that there are some aspects of it that explain why it is so seemingly intractable. I’m going to start with an increasingly important field of study, citizenship studies. There are journals now devoted to it; it’s become a big thing in academia. My colleague at the University of Michigan, Margaret Somers, wrote an important book on citizenship not so long ago. And as she points out, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958 wrote: “Citizenship is man’s basic right, for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen.” So Warren is drawing here implicitly on the work of Hannah Arendt but this is the key point that I want to make today. Citizenship is the right to have rights. People who lack citizenship in a state ipso facto have no right to have rights ….

If we came to the Palestinians, their situation of citizenship is obviously deformed. There’s no state. They’re lacking an entire section of the column. And then their market is not very robust and of course in Gaza there is no market to speak of, the Israelis have Gaza under siege. There’s no airport, there’s no harbor, and the Israelis don’t permit the Palestinians in Gaza to export most of what they make, some strawberries, off of which the Israelis take a cut. But mostly the export market doesn’t exist in Gaza. So the market and the separation wall and the politics of the neighboring states are such that the Palestinians don’t have a strong relationship to the market, they don’t have a state at all, there are a lot of NGOS, and so for the Palestinians, the NGO sector is the one place where there’s a little glimmer maybe of some citizenship. But that’s weird. And that’s unexampled in the world. There’s no other group of people that look like that. In the world, right now…

So when you’re stateless, you don’t have the right to have rights. So everything is unstable. It’s a little bit like being a child of an alcoholic abusive family. They suffer from everything always being interrupted. You never know what’s going to happen, you can’t make plans, let’s go for a picnic today but then the picnic doesn’t happen because the parent got drunk. Well, if you’re stateless you don’t really know what’s going to happen to you. Your property is unstable, your rights are unstable. Even if you were stateless and you get citizenship, your citizenship is unstable. So Jordan gave citizenship to the West Bank Palestinians at one point and then because of the Rabat Accords after Israel conquered it, they took the Jordanian citizenship back away. They just denaturalized about 30 or 40 thousand Palestinians from Gaza in Jordan.

I don’t think that the world will put up with Apartheid forever. So there will be increasing boycotts, increasing pressure, increasing economic problems. Ultimately it seems to me very likely that you end up with a single state. I’m not arguing for it, I’m not saying it’s desirable, I’m not saying it’s the best outcome but I think somebody has to give citizenship to the Palestinians. Increasingly, the only one that could plausibly do that is the Israelis and the Israelis increasingly own all of Palestinian territory so they’re responsible for the people that live on that territory even though they don’t think they are. I don’t really care how this problem is solved, from my point of view, it’s all the same to me. The important thing, as you can tell is that I insist, the Palestinians must end up with the right to have rights.

Full article

Robert Mueller’s useless cry in wilderness-Brief thought by F.Sheikh

It is not just too little too late, but it is a useless cry in wilderness by Robert Mueller to complain against the commuting of sentence of Roger Stone by President Trump. It is not unexpected, and I am sure Robert Mueller was acutely aware of it when President Trump openly dangled the prospect of pardon during investigations. It was obstruction of justice, but Robert Mueller turned out to be too timid to take on the President. He was afraid to touch any family member of the President who lied to congress, investigators, and on disclosure documents, but he charged some others with the same crimes. He left his investigations with gaping holes, incomplete and without obvious conclusions. He provided AG Barr the opportunity to fill the gaps as he wished and draw his own conclusions. In congress his testimony was incoherent and refused to elaborate further than incomplete report he has written.

Why complain now? He got easily intimidated by the president and was not as courageous as many had thought at his appointment as a special prosecutor. He followed the law as long as others were concerned, but he did not follow the law when it come to the President and his family members.

History tells us that ideological ‘purity spirals’ rarely end well-Katrin Redfern

Nobody is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart, for his purity, by definition, is unassailable.

Author James Baldwin’s words, written in the America of the late 1950s, captures perfectly a feeling in the air that is currently troubling public discourse in many Western countries. Increasingly, questions once treated as complicated inquiries requiring scrutiny and nuance are being reduced to moral absolutes. Just look at Trumpism.

This follows a now dismally familiar pattern: two camps are identified, the acceptable “for” and the demonised “against”. The latter are cast beyond the pale, cancelled and trolled. Identity politics has become a secular religion and, like any strict sect, apostates are severely punished.

This can lead to a “purity spiral”, with the more extreme opinion the more rewarded in a pattern of increasing escalation. Nuance and debate are the casualties, and a kind of moral feeding frenzy results.

Are purity spirals inevitable? It is natural for humans to form “in” and “out” groups. Identifying a common enemy is often the key to group solidarity. Nationalist politicians and the marketing teams who serve them know how effective such strategies can be with ill-informed electorates. Equally, if an individual can manifest virtues valued by the group, this fosters a sense of self-worth and belonging.

Unsurprisingly, we have been here before. History demonstrates the ease with which ordinary people commit atrocious acts, particularly during crises. When you believe you are morally superior, when you dehumanise those you disagree with, you can justify almost anything. Take the example of one of the most consequential purity spirals, the Puritan Revolution in 17th-century England.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

Supreme Court’s Decision on President Trump’s Tax Returns & November Elections-By F. Sheikh

It was a shrewd but fair decision by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court basically ruled that the President is not above the law and has no immunity from subpoena, but at the same time he has the right like everyone else to fight the subpoena in the lower court and the lower court has to decide it. In the case of congress, the court ruled that congress has the right to subpoena the tax records, but it has to justify it by meeting certain standards. This gave President Trump enough time to fight it out in lower courts without releasing taxes before elections. The Supreme Court was able to extricate itself from politically hot situation.

In the long term, it may not be so good for the President. If he loses elections, and he has some illegal activities in tax returns, he may be in hot waters legally in 2021 and beyond when he has no Presidential immunity protection.

Vice President Joe Biden is in a stronger position and may put a pressure on Donald trump by refusing to debate him unless he releases his tax returns. President Trump may still may not release the tax returns, but it may further highlight the issue in voter’s mind.

We all think that in 2016, it has already played out and did not make a difference. But there is one crucial difference-in 2016 many independent minded voters gave him benefit of doubt and had a hope that as being a businessman and developer, he may bring progress, especially in building infrastructure. This time these independent minded voters (not blind die-hard followers) will not give him benefit of doubt as they have already seen his performance, especially his incompetent management and inability to mentally grasp complex issues facing the nation.    

F.Sheikh