Sunday, October 29, 2017
#Bin_Salman_Visited_Israel - Israeli official confirms: Saudi Crown Prince Bin Salman visited Tel Aviv last month
An Israeli official told AFP on Friday that Saudi Crown Prince Emir Mohammed bin Salman secretly visited Tel Aviv in September.
The official, who requested that his identity remains anonymous, refused to reveal the nature of bin Salman’s meetings in Tel Aviv, the people he met, as well as the results of his discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israeli official’s statement confirmed the accuracy of what the official Hebrew radio broadcast earlier, when it revealed that “an emir from the Saudi royal court visited the country secretly on 7 September and discussed with senior Israeli officials the idea of pushing forward regional peace.”
During that time, journalist Ariel Kahana, who works for the nationalist and right-wing weekly Makor Rishon, tweeted: “Bin Salman visited Israel with an official delegation and met with officials.”
A few days later, the famous Saudi blogger Mujtahidd wrote: “The journalist Noga Tarnopolsky, a specialist in Israeli affairs who possesses international credibility, has confirmed Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Israel.”
Immediately after, the hashtag #Bin_Salman_Visited_Israel topped the most circulated Twitter hashtags in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20171021-israeli-official-confirms-bin-salman-visited-tel-aviv-last-month/
YEMEN HUMANITARIAN SITUATION SHOCKING
The United Nations (UN)’s aid chief says the humanitarian situation in Yemen, which has been under a Saudi-led war for two and a half years, is “shocking.”
Wrapping up a five-day visit to Yemen, Mark Lowcock, the UN’s head of humanitarian affairs and emergency relief, said in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, on Saturday that the war had to end through a political process.
“I came to Yemen to better understand the deteriorating humanitarian crisis, including the fastest-growing cholera epidemic the world has ever seen, the world’s largest food insecurity and conditions of widespread population displacement,” Lowcock said. “It’s been shocking to see the terrible impact of this man-made conflict.”
“The UN calls on all parties... to uphold the highest standards of international humanitarian law and respect human rights with respect to everyone, including detainees and journalists,” he added.
Leading a number of its allies, Saudi Arabia started the war on Yemen in March 2015 to restore a former Riyadh-allied government.
More than 12,000 people have died since the military aggression began. The invasion has also rendered much of Yemen’s health infrastructure destroyed, making it especially vulnerable to a cholera epidemic that struck the country in April. The disease has so far claimed 2,000 lives.
The Saudi-led coalition has also imposed an all-out blockade over Yemen, despite its dire need for humanitarian assistance.
The UN has described the situation in Yemen as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
http://www.shiitenews.org/index.php/yemen/item/31274-yemen-humanitarian-situation-shocking-un-official
Woman tells of harrowing life as lesbian Muslim in Pakistan - Beatings, death threats and rejection
By Natasha Salmon
A woman has bravely revealed what it is like to be a Muslim lesbian after moving from Pakistan to the UK.
Zayna, not her real name, who is 40, said she has been beaten, humiliated and threatened because of her sexuality.
As reported by the Manchester Evening News, she refused to deny her true identity despite physical and mental abuse as people believed she had misinterpreted the messages of the Quran. She said that while studying for her PhD she was kicked out of university because fellow students feared she was ‘dangerous’.
Also at an Islamic School when her colleagues found out about her sexuality she was told to leave or face police action.
The graduate said she insists she is still a Muslim and both her sexuality and religion are both equally important to her.
Zayna now lives in Longsight, Manchester, and spoke out in support of other LGBT Muslims.
She said: “I was born a Muslim and I want to die a Muslim. But if someone wants to kill me then why? Just because I’m a lesbian?
“I am a strong brave person but so many people like me don’t have that courage. I realised I need to come out and tell everyone about my story.”
Zayna grew up in Karachi, Pakistan, and was the only child of conservative Muslim parents.
She described herself as a tomboy and realised she was gay as a young teenager on her 13th birthday.
She said it was “very hard” and she was told “you are not Muslim if you are a lesbian”.
But Zayna believes the Quran’s messages about homosexuality have been misinterpreted by some Muslims.
The first abuse she received was when her father found out she had been spending time with another girl as a teenager, he assumed the pair had been with men and beat her.
She said: "My father came upstairs and wanted to kill me and beat me like anything.
"He told me how to behave. That was the first time I felt unsafe in my own home.
“I still have that horrible pain in my lower back and can’t walk properly.”
Zayna’s father died when she was in her early 20s and she spent years nursing her mother, who eventually died of lung cancer.
During her time as a teacher at an Islamic school, Zayna started a relationship with another teacher but the two were discovered by colleagues.
They were told to leave or else they would be reported to the police as prostitutes. At the time she was also a PhD chemistry student and when people at the university found out she was told to leave.
Homosexuality is frowned upon in Pakistan and the country’s law prescribes criminal penalties for same-sex sexual acts including a fine or imprisonment.
Zayna started a management masters degree in the UK and began to embrace the UK's gay culture and joined LGBT International and a Birmingham-based LGBT group, Finding A Voice.
She has since had several relationship with women and has "peace of mind" that she is no longer in danger.
India stuck in cycle of poverty and unemployment
By Wang Jiamei
India ranked 100th out of 119 developing countries on the global hunger index (GHI), behind North Korea, Bangladesh and Iraq but ahead of Pakistan, according to a recent report issued by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The country was ranked 97th in last year's report.
This underlines India's high level of inequality rather than insufficient grain production. The persisting hunger problem also shows that even though the government has to spend a lot to feed its people, it is still not enough. This also prevents the country from allocating more fiscal resources toward infrastructure and other areas needed to develop the economy.
The worsening hunger problem is of course worrying and embarrassing for India, which has been the world's fastest-growing economy over the past three years, especially given that the country is totally capable of producing sufficient food to feed its population. Since 2015, India has overtaken Thailand to become the world's largest rice exporter, with its annual rice exports exceeding 10 million tons, according to media reports.
But it is the uneven distribution of wealth that has left millions of people too poor to get enough food. According to a study released by UK-based charity Oxfam in January, India's richest 1 percent hold a 58 percent share of the country's total wealth. There are quite a number of reasons behind India's high level of wealth inequality, such as the problematic land policy and the limited coverage of the social welfare system. But the most important factor is the country's lack of industrialization, which results in severe under-employment and unemployment, especially in rural areas.
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, India's agriculture, industry and services contributed 17.9 percent, 24.2 percent and 57.9 percent of its GDP in 2014, but employed 47 percent, 22 percent and 31 percent of the labor force, respectively. While India's heavy reliance on the services sector may seem similar to the economic structure of some Western countries, it is hard to ignore the country's lack of industrialization. Half of the Indian working population are employed in the agriculture sector, and the country's modest industrial sector can't generate more jobs. Without enough employment opportunities, the poor obviously don't have enough money to buy food. Against such a backdrop, the Indian government rolled out the "Make in India" program, which aims to create 100 million new jobs by 2022 and to allow the manufacturing sector to play a bigger role in domestic job creation.
As the GHI ranks countries based on four key indicators - undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting and child stunting - the IFPRI report indicated that more than a fifth of Indian children aged below five weighed too little for their height and over a third were too short for their age. It goes without saying that malnourishment in school-age children could have a negative impact on their education, and a less-educated working population certainly doesn't bode well for a country's future development.
With the IFPRI report and the worsening hunger index ranking, some have blamed the government for not doing enough to feed the people. "$18 billion for a bullet train from Mumbai to Ahmedabad but not enough money for Indians' basic food to keep them from being hungry," one netizen wrote.
Regardless of whether the Mumbai to Ahmedabad train could boost the economy along the route, the comment to a certain extent adds to the pressure on the Indian government to open its wallet wider for the social welfare system. And the government also faces pressure from the fiscal deficit. According to media reports, India's fiscal deficit from April-August hit 96.1 percent of the budget estimate for the fiscal year ending in March 2018.
In light of this, if the hunger problem continues in the country, the government will face greater pressure to strengthen social protection by increasing expenditure in this area, thus restricting the financial resources available for economic development and infrastructure. With industrial manufacturing hindered by poor infrastructure, it will be hard to accomplish the "Make in India" program, not to mention more job creation for the poor.
The 21st Century finally has begun: the "New Era" for China and the world
By Evandro Menezes de Carvalho
President Xi Jinping's report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China echoed worldwide. In announcing the emergence of a "New Era" because of the "great success of socialism with Chinese characteristics," Xi is making history in the 21st century. The West watched his speech with a mixture of awe and admiration.
For Xi, this New Era means, first of all, that, “The Chinese nation, with an entirely new posture, now stands tall and firm in the East.” The era of humiliation to which the Chinese were subjected to in the 19th century as a result of innumerable foreign invasions and the Opium Wars, and the era of internal strife for the consolidation of Chinese territory and people's sovereignty in the 20th century, are now history. China of the 21st century, as a result of the successful process of reform and opening up led by the Communist Party, is preparing itself to stand high on the podium of the world economy. China “has stood up, grown rich, and become strong; and it now embraces the brilliant prospects of rejuvenation,” Xi said, recalling the inspiration that motivates his government to carry out his mandate of realizing the Chinese Dream from day one. In this New Era, Xi further sees China “moving closer to center stage and making greater contributions to mankind.” In this statement, there is the expression of China's confidence in its future and, at the same time, the affirmation of its commitment to the future of humanity. And in this sense, Xi’s speech was received worldwide with admiration.
The government is aware that this New Era depends on the realization of the two centennial goals, the first one being the construction of a "moderately prosperous society" in 2020, and the second one is to build a "great modern socialist country" by the middle of the 21st century. Faced with the uncertainties of the international scenario and the challenges of the domestic economy, the targets are audacious. However, the political will of the CPC leaders to see these goals realized seems to be even greater than the obstacles they will face. And there is enough reason to believe in it. China's GDP is currently 11.2 trillion dollars and the country contributes more than 30 percent to the global economic growth. The prognosis is that China will become the world’s largest economy by 2025.
For all this, the international press has surrendered to the evidence that, at the present, the most influential man in the world is not the US president, but the president of China. Of course, Donald Trump's erratic, narcissistic, and isolationist style contributes to that perception if we compare him with the discreet and trustworthy style of Xi Jinping, reinforced by China’s efforts to support multilateralism based on "mutual benefits." From the Western perspective, the signs are totally changed. As the US pulls back from the world, China continues to open up. This fact, by itself, can be considered evidence that we are, in fact, entering a "new era."
But President Xi's statement of greatest global impact was that one through which he introduced socialism with Chinese characteristics as "a new trail for other developing countries to achieve modernization." And he went even further by offering "Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to solving the problem facing mankind." China shows itself to the world as an alternative model to be followed, thanks to its model of governance and the cultural and historical heritage it possesses, but with a fundamental difference in leadership style compared to that one exercised by the Western powers: “It offers a new option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving their independence." Thus, China commits itself to respecting the choices of each State, that is, it promises not to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
It is worth remembering that in the 1990s it was believed that the model of Western democracies would spread throughout the world as the only model worthy of being followed with the end of the Cold War. But the subsequent facts have shown that it was not the end of history, but that the end of the Western narrative. Larry Diamond, in an article written for Foreign Affairs under the title "Democracy in Decline," admitted that "democracy itself seems to have lost its appeal. Many emerging democracies have failed to meet their citizens’ hopes for freedom, security, and economic growth, just as the world’s established democracies, including the United States, have grown increasingly dysfunctional." The fact is Western democracies are suffering a legitimacy deficit, aggravated by the economic crisis of 2008 that had US as its epicenter. Since then, we have witnessed an increase in poverty, violence, religious and racial intolerance, and xenophobia in Western democracies.
The main question is to know which one of the models - whether Western democracy or socialism with Chinese characteristics - is capable of providing citizens with the economic and social well-being they wish. Earlier this year, Oxfam (Oxford Committee for the Fight Against Hunger) published a report which shows that only eight people have wealth equivalent to that of the world's poorest half of the population. It means that eight people accumulate wealth equal to 3.6 billion people. Six of those world's wealthiest individuals come from the United States, one from Spain and the other from Mexico. In Brazil, where I live, six Brazilians concentrate wealth equivalent to half of the Brazilian population. The social abysm between the super-rich and the poorest threatens not only the social stability of the country, which is marked by inequality, but also world peace itself. The democracies that embraced capitalism without State have failed. This is the fact. It’s enough to ask the opinion of those 3.6 billion people about this topic. Only the wealthy Westerners will not agree. It is the concentration of income and the posture of the Western wealthy people that are driving democracies to decline. This is the central problem.
President Xi Jinping is aware of the risks to China with the increase of social inequality. This is the reason why he states that "the principal contradiction facing Chinese society ... is the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life." Socialism with Chinese characteristics will be tested in this aspect. Unlike the “American dream,” which is driven by excessive individualism, the Chinese dream is guided first and foremost by the collective interest. The main critique made by capitalists against socialism is that this model does not stimulate innovation and creativity. And capitalists use it as an example why the Soviet model failed. But current capitalism is finance-based and no longer based on production. Moreover, the idea of meritocracy, a key concept to the capitalists, is an illusion in the face of the hereditary transmission of wealth and gains often obtained by illicit means. Fighting corruption is an important part of the Chinese model and it will avoid this type of dysfunctional system.
If Chinese socialism recognizes and rewards citizens in favor of others rather than for individual success at the cost of others, then we will have definitely begun a New Era. Green, ethical, collaborative, and shared development may be important values of this new era and they are concepts compatible with Chinese socialism. This project of society is worthy of engagement. After all, the world cannot exist only for the benefit of eight people.
Ahead of possible Mueller indictments, Donald Trump is attacking Hillary Clinton
By
In the next day or two, according to CNN, the first arrests could be made in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible collusion between the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government.
We don’t yet know who could be charged or what they would be charged with. But it’s a potentially monumental advancement of the probe that has consumed so much of President Trump’s first year in office.
How is Trump, who has dismissed the investigation as “fake news” as often as he can, responding? He spent Sunday morning tweeting about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Trump is playing up two counter-scandals that have become favorites in the conservative media: an Obama-era uranium deal involving Russia, and the revelation that Clinton associates paid for a salacious dossier of opposition research on Trump during the 2016 campaign.
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop previously put it:
The important thing to remember is: Regardless of their veracity, neither of these other issues has any bearing on whether the Trump campaign improperly coordinated with the Russian government to sway the 2016 presidential campaign.
The attacks on Clintonworld for reportedly funding opposition research on Trump during a presidential campaign are a particular stretch. Funding opposition research is not the same as colluding with a foreign government, and the dossier in question is far from the only source of allegations about Trump and Russia.
Here is how Vox’s Zack Beauchamp broke it down:
So ahead of potentially the most significant development in the Trump-Russia probe, Trump is relying on an old standby — Hillary Clinton — to try to change the subject.
For good measure, the president also has an alternative theory about what’s going on here:
Barack Obama called for jury duty in Illinois and plans to serve
Former US president Barack Obama has been summoned for jury duty in the state of Illinois and is planning to serve, a court official says.
Details have not been released but he is expected to appear in Cook County next month.
Mr Obama, 56, owns a home in Washington DC and also in Chicago and could be called for civil or criminal cases.
Ex-presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush also appeared for jury selection after leaving the White House.
Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School and lectured at the University of Chicago's law school for 12 years before he joined the Senate. He also worked as a civil rights lawyer.
"He made it crystal-clear to me through his representative that he would carry out his public duty as a citizen and resident of this community," Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying.
Mr Evans said that the former president's security was a priority. A spokesman for Mr Obama has not commented.
Jurors in the county get paid $17.25 (£13) for each day served.
If chosen, Mr Obama would not be the first high-profile person to appear on a jury in Cook County - celebrity Oprah Winfrey sat on a jury for a murder trial in 2004, NPR reports.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41792432
Puerto Rico governor seeks to cancel $300-million Whitefish contract
Ante las informaciones que han trascendido, le solicitamos a la Junta de Gobierno de la @AEEONLINE que cancele contrato de Whitefish Energy.
Puerto Rico's governor is demanding that the island's power company cancel the $300-million contract with Whitefish Energy Holdings amid increased scrutiny of the Montana company following Hurricane Maria.
Sunday's announcement by Gov. Ricardo Rossello comes as federal legislators are seeking to investigate the contract awarded to the small company from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's hometown.
"In the light of the information that has transpired, we ask the @AEEONLINE Board of Governors to cancel the contract for Whitefish Energy," Rossello tweeted.
Neither Whitefish nor power company officials immediately returned calls for comment.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-puerto-rico-governor-seeks-to-cancel-1509290481-htmlstory.html
GOP Doesn’t Seem To Hate Debt So Much Now That It Wants A Tax Cut
By S.V. Date
Republican leaders support tax cuts adding trillions to the national debt now, but had dire warnings about it under the Obama administration.
The first is that top Republicans spoke with grave concern about budget deficits and a growing national debt. They issued dire warnings that the red ink was mortgaging the nation’s future and inviting economic calamity.
The second thing those years all had in common: A Democrat happened to occupy the Oval Office. It was Jimmy Carter in the ’70s, Bill Clinton in the ’90s and Barack Obama most recently.
But what about the other years, when Republican presidents were in the White House?
Deficits and debt, for whatever reason, seemed far less threatening then.
When Vice President Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush decided in 2002 to pursue a second round of massive tax cuts, Cheney put it this way: “Deficits don’t matter.”
It was a repeat of the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts sparked deficits that persisted nearly two decades. And it appears to be the template today, as Republicans prepare to add trillions of dollars to the national debt by slashing taxes again, this time under President Donald Trump.
“The opposition to deficits for Republicans is a tactic, not a deeply held value,” said Jared Bernstein, once the top economic adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden. “They toss those concerns aside in a D.C. minute when there’s an opportunity to cut taxes.” Last week the House passed a budget framework already passed by the Senate that permits $1.5 trillion in new debt from the tax cuts. That figure could increase substantially if some Republicans get their wish to use alternative methods of “scoring” the legislation that would lower its price tag for the purpose of meeting that cap. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center said the proposal will cost $2.5 trillion over a decade, while the bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a $2.2 trillion cost, based on the details available thus far. Republican leaders argue the tax cuts will really cost nothing, because the economy will grow so fast that more money will flow into the treasury despite the tax rate reductions. “Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said last month. Those arguments do not impress Maya MacGuineas, the CRFB’s president, who calls them “bogus” and “free-lunch-enomics.” “Clearly, this is a massive budget buster,” she said. “Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.”
The gospel of tax cuts
The view that they do, though, has been part of Republican orthodoxy for decades.
At Reagan’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1980, even as he slammed Jimmy Carter’s administration for having run up a $60 billion deficit that year, the then-candidate told his Detroit audience: “Every major tax cut in this century has strengthened the economy, generated renewed productivity and ended up yielding new revenues for the government by creating new investment, new jobs and more commerce among our people.”
Reagan won that November and quickly pushed through a massive, across-the-board tax cut in 1981. It represented nearly 3 percent of the size of the economy and remains the largest in U.S. history.
The premise was that tax rates were so high ― at the time, top individual rates were well above 50 percent ― that lower rates would actually generate additional tax revenue because businesses would be more inclined to invest and grow if they could keep more of the profits in their pockets. This theory was expressed in graphic form in economist Art Laffer’s now-famous curve, which showed government revenue peaking at a particular tax rate, with lower revenues coming in at tax rates both higher and lower.
The problem then, and now, was the inability to know precisely what that optimal rate was. Reagan and his top economic advisers, after realizing their initial cuts were too steep, approved tax hikes in every subsequent year of his first term. This included the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which remains the largest tax increase in history.
Those Reagan tax increases are typically glossed over in Republican mythology about the party’s iconic leader, but his rationale ― that tax cuts lead to more tax revenue, not less ― has become gospel.
George W. Bush used that argument to justify his tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which wound up adding several trillion dollars to the national debt in the subsequent decade and a half. Were it not for those tax cuts, in fact, the public debt (that portion not held by government agencies) today would only be half the size of the economy, rather than 77 percent, despite two wars and the financial crisis and recession.
Trump and Republican congressional leaders are making that same Reagan tax-cut argument now, even after spending eight years blasting Obama for the large run-up in the national debt during his two terms in office (caused in large part by the financial crisis that presented Obama a first-year deficit of $1.2 trillion as he took office).
“We’re going to give the president an opportunity to reduce our annual deficit, which is completely out of control,” Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, now that chamber’s majority leader, said of Obama to NBC News in 2011.
“We have a debt crisis right in front of us, and what brings down great empires, past and future, is debt,” Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, now the House speaker, told CNN in 2012.
“It’s a disaster. Our national debt will be at 21 trillion soon,” Trump said to “Fox & Friends” in 2013. “It’s totally out of control.”
“There’s always been Republican hand-wringing about debt and deficits when Democrats were presidents,” said Stan Collender, a longtime congressional budget committee staffer. “Always.”
“It literally gets worse every day we wait”
While Republicans are arguing again that these latest tax cuts will bring in more tax revenues than they cost, the historical record says the exact opposite.
Rudolph Penner, who ran the Congressional Budget Office during much of Reagan’s tenure and is now a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said even the theoretical rationale behind the Laffer Curve makes no sense after decades of successive tax cuts. “At current rates, it’s very hard to believe that we’re above a maximum revenue point,” Penner said.
Which means the new cuts will instead add to the debt ― in Penner’s view, irresponsibly ― beyond the amount it would have increased anyway. “I am a deficit hawk. And it’s getting scarier and scarier how few of us remain,” he said.
The danger, according to Penner and others, is that when interest rates start to rise ― which eventually they must ― the country’s annual cost just to service the debt will consume an ever-larger percentage of the available tax revenues.
The only ways to deal with that are by dramatically slashing spending, raising taxes or trying to restructure the debt. Any of those will have consequences that only get more severe the longer the nation lets it go.
“It literally gets worse every day we wait,” he said.
One wild card in the equation is that the United States, despite its increasing debt load, remains the world’s largest economy and the world’s “reserve currency” ― meaning that investors the world over still see this country as the safest bet. China, for instance, is the second-biggest economy, but because of its massive infrastructure campaign in recent decades it has government-controlled debt significantly larger than its gross domestic product.
While that may give leaders in Washington more breathing room, it is not a license to ignore the problem, said MacGuineas, from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
“The worry is that we’ll borrow ourselves into not being the world biggest economic power,” she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)