How Mitch McConnell killed the US Capitol attack commission

Hugo Lowell

The story of how Republicans undermined the 6 January inquiry is informed by eight House and Senate aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Days before the Senate voted down the creation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol attack, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, was adamant: he would oppose the bill, regardless of any amendments – and he expected his colleagues to follow suit.

The commission that would have likely found Donald Trump and some Republicans responsible for the insurrection posed an existential threat to the GOP ahead of the midterms, he said, and would complicate efforts to regain the majority in Congress.

McConnell’s sharp warning at a closed-door meeting had the desired effect on Friday, when Senate Republicans largely opted to stick with the Senate minority leader. All but six of them voted to block the commission and prevent a full accounting into the events of 6 January.

But it also underscored the alarm that gripped McConnell and Senate Republican leadership in the fraught political moments leading up to the vote, and how they exploited fears within the GOP of crossing a mercurial former president to galvanize opposition to the commission.

The story of how Republicans undermined an inquiry into one of the darkest days for American democracy – five people died as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and sought to hang Mike Pence – is informed by eight House and Senate aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The prospect of a commission unravels

Surrounded by shards of broken glass in the Capitol on the night of 6 January, and as House Democrats drew up draft articles of impeachment against Trump, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, made her first outreach to canvas the prospect of a commission to investigate the attack.

In the immediate aftermath of the insurrection, Pelosi had reason to be hopeful. Spurred on by the threat felt by many Republicans to their personal safety, a swelling group of lawmakers had started to agitate for an inquiry to reveal how Trump did nothing to stop the riot.

But what was once heralded as a necessary step to “investigate and report” on the attack and interference in election proceedings unravelled soon after, with the commission swiftly reduced to an acrimonious point of partisan contention in a deeply divided Capitol.

The main objection from House and Senate Republicans, at first, centered on the lopsided structure of Pelosi’s initial proposal, that would have seen a majority of members appointed by Democrats, who would have also held unilateral subpoena power.

And only weeks after the riot, the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, was already advancing the complaint for his ultimate opposition: that the scope of the commission did not include unrelated far-left violence from last summer, a political priority that stalled talks.

With little progress three months after the Capitol attack, Pelosi made a renewed effort to establish a commission on 16 April, floating a revised proposal that mirrored the original 9/11 commission with the panel evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

Pelosi briefed her leadership team that included the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, the House majority whip, Jim Clyburn, the assistant speaker, Katherine Clark, and notably, the chair of the House homeland security committee, Bennie Thompson, about the proposal the following Monday.

During that meeting, Hoyer first raised the prospect of also extending equal subpoena power to Republicans – a concession that would allow Democrats to meet all of Republicans’ demands about the structure of the commission – which Pelosi adopted a few days later.

By the penultimate week of April, Pelosi had deputized Thompson to lead talks as she felt the homeland security committee was an appropriate venue, and because the top Republican on the committee, John Katko, was one of only three House GOP members to impeach Trump.

With the House on recess, Thompson made enough progress in negotiations to brief Pelosi and her leadership team on 8 May that he secured a tentative deal on the commission, though Katko wanted to wait on an announcement until Liz Cheney was ousted as GOP conference chair.

Advertisement

Tensions within the House Republican conference had reached new highs the previous week after Cheney continued her months-long criticism of Trump’s lies about a stolen election at a party retreat in Florida, and Katko was wary of injecting the commission into the charged moment.

“As soon as the vote on Liz Cheney is taken, he will be prepared to do a joint statement,” Thompson said in remarks first reported by CNN.

Minutes after House Republicans elevated Elise Stefanik to become the new GOP conference chair on 14 May, Thompson and Katko unveiled their proposal for a bipartisan 9/11-style commission.

McConnell cracks down on the bill

The ouster of Cheney solidified Tump’s outsize influence on the Republican party, and set the scene for the weeks to come.

McCarthy almost immediately sought to distance himself from the commission and was non-committal about offering his endorsement. Asked whether he had signed off on the deal, McCarthy was direct: “No, no, no,” he told reporters in the basement of the Capitol.

By the following Tuesday, top House Republicans were urging their colleagues to oppose the commission bill, with McCarthy positioned against an inquiry on the basis that its scope focused narrowly on the Capitol attack.

As Hoyer had anticipated when he suggested that Pelosi also offer equal subpoena power to Republicans, McCarthy struggled to demonize the commission, and several House Republicans told the Guardian that they found his complaints about the scope unconvincing.

Kevin McCarthy on Capitol Hill on 20 May. Photograph: Ken Cedeno/Reuters

The Senate minority leader, meanwhile, had until then denounced Trump, who he faulted for inciting the insurrection, and publicly seemed open to a commission. But as it became clear the scores of House Republicans would vote for the bill, his calculus quickly changed.

Advertisement

Two days after the Senate returned for votes on 17 May McConnell informed Senate Republicans at a private breakfast event that he was opposed to the commission as envisioned by the House, and made clear that he would embark on a concerted campaign to sink the bill.

Underpinning McConnell’s alarm was the fact that Democrats needed 10 Senate Republicans to vote in favor of the commission, and seven had already voted to impeach Trump during his second Senate trial – a far more controversial vote than supporting an inquiry into 6 January.

Cognizant that Senate Democrats may find three or four more allies in uncertain Republicans, McConnell cracked down.

After announcing at the breakfast event that he would oppose the commission, McConnell railed against the bill as being “slanted and unbalanced” on the Senate floor, in biting remarks that represented a clear warning as to his expectations.

He kept up the pressure all afternoon on that Wednesday, so that by the evening, McConnell had a major victory when Senator Richard Burr, who voted to impeach Trump only four months before, abruptly reversed course to say that he would reject the commission.

In the end, only six Senate Republicans – Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski and Ben Sasse – voted to move forward on the commission.

As the final vote hurtled towards its expected finale, the Senate minority whip, John Thune, who also switched his position to side with McConnell, acknowledged McConnell’s arguments about a commission jeopardising Republican chances to retake majorities in the House and Senate.

Summarising his concerns, Thune said: “Anything that gets us rehashing the 2020 elections I think is a day lost on being able to draw a contrast between us and the Democrats’ very radical leftwing agenda.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/29/mitch-mcconnell-us-capitol-attack-commission-senate-republicans 

Music Video - P!NK - All I Know So Far

#DailyShow #TrevorNoah #SouthAfrica - Black Coffee, Nomzamo Mbatha, Zozibini Tunzi and More South African Guests | The Daily Show

Video Report - Sicknick's partner: Vote against Jan. 6 commission 'speaks volumes'

Video Report - CNN's Michael Smerconish calls out the politics of Covid-19 origin theories

Video Report - Acosta shares his fear for after the Memorial Day weekend

Music Video - Lebanese Singer - Haifa Wehbe

Lebanese Singer Samir Sfeir Deported From Saudi Arabia After 50-Day Detention

Sfeir, who had residency in the kingdom for five years, said he is now banned from returning. A prominent Lebanese singer and composer known for his strong opinions said he has been deported from Saudi Arabia after a 50-day detention — mostly in solitary confinement — because of opinions expressed online in support of Lebanon’s president and his ally the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Samir Sfeir arrived in Beirut Thursday from Saudi Arabia. He looked haggard and grizzled — having lost his trademark long black bob. He also said he was forgiving of the authorities in Saudi Arabia, telling The Associated Press in a telephone call that he is holding no grudge.

Sfeir, who had residency in the kingdom for five years, said he is now banned from returning.

“I was bothered by the manner. I wish they just told me to leave and not come back. I would have done it,” he said.

Sfeir said he was “a political prisoner” in the Kingdom and his captors only questioned him on political issues, including his links to Hezbollah and President Michel Aoun. No charges were pressed, he said.

“My investigator told me that I am making political statements,” Sfeir said. “In their system, they don’t have such thing. They disapproved.”

After several interrogation sessions by different Saudi investigators, Sfeir was released and sent to Lebanon. Other than solitary confinement, Sfeir said he was treated respectfully. His wife, Marie, told a local TV station that Sfeir refused to eat in the first days of his detention and didn’t have his medicine.

There was no official comment from Saudi Arabia about the reasons and conditions of his detention and release.

Sfeir’s detention raised concerns at home that he was the latest victim of rising tension between Lebanon and its traditional ally, Saudi Arabia, which has increasingly used pressure, instead of assistance, in dealing with the small Mediterranean country where the Iran-backed Hezbollah dominates.

Only last month, the kingdom barred all fresh produce arriving from Lebanon from entering Saudi Arabia after drug smuggling was found in such shipments. It was a sharp measure that dealt a major blow to one of the main sources of foreign currency to the embattled Mediterranean country.Tension between the two regional powerhouses — Saudi Arabia and Iran — often translated into a deadlock in decision-making in Lebanese politics. Saudi Arabia, which is seeking new allies in Lebanon, has imposed sanctions on Hezbollah, labelled a terrorist group by the United States and other Gulf countries.Sfeir said he was the victim of an online smear campaign that used his old tweets and TV comments which he claimed were misrepresented to appear offensive to the kingdom. Sfeir said his investigators viewed some of his statements as offensive to Lebanon’s army.

Sfeir is known for his political statements in the media and on other platforms to criticize opponents of Aoun, and has expressed his unwavering support to Hezbollah as a defender of the country’s unity. He said the alleged smear campaign was launched after he posted a picture of himself receiving a vaccine in Saudi Arabia — something his detractors thought he did not deserve.

“Social media and electronic flies [armies] are ruining things,” he said. “They asked me many questions ... They said, I am not allowed to be offensive to any Arab country.”

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9580132/samir-sfeir-deported-saudi-arabia-lebanese-singer

Opinion | What Stands in the Way of Gaza Rebuild? Qatari Cash, Misguided Policies – and Hamas Itself

Joel Braunold

Hamas’ strength is a result of several factors – including a misguided policy on Gaza that has run its course. Stumbling from war to war isn’t a policy option, it’s a policy failure.

How did Hamas rebuild its arsenal and build miles of tunnels? Given the blockade by Israel and Egypt on Gaza, the common assumption is that Hamas has been finding ways to divert humanitarian assistance and Western aid, taking materials and goods and using them for nefarious means. In reality, it has been a failed policy towards Gaza that has led to the buildup of Hamas’ arsenal, where Palestinians suffer from a blockade that prevents adequate relief and recovery from arriving while enabling weapons to pass through a back door.

This accusation of aid divergence has been repeated by politicians in Israel and the United States and is now at the forefront of officials’ minds as they start to consider how to rebuild Gaza after this most recent round of fighting. The reality, however, of how aid is delivered into the Strip is not well understood, nor the major gaping holes in the security envelop which are far more likely to be the culprit than aid diversion.

Following the 2014 Gaza war, the United Nations created the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism (GRM), a temporary mechanism designed to deliver humanitarian assistance, including dual-use items such as concrete and rebar, in such a manner to prevent it from being diverted. The mechanism is extremely complex and requires sign off by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel for every project and every vendor. The materials imported are subject to rigorous inspection.

If this is where the story ended, the question of how Hamas rebuilt its arsenal would still be that it must have come through the GRM in some manner, in addition to some smuggling through tunnels into Egypt. However, this is not the end of the story.

In order to buy quiet, Israel has allowed Qatar to deliver suitcases full of money into Gaza to pay for Hamas workers, do direct cash transfer to needy Gazans, and purchase fuel for the power plant. Throughout 2018 and 2019, at times of high tensions, Israel has permitted these untraceable $100 bills into the Strip, with no oversight of where the cash goes and where it ends up. The tax revenues from these transfers end up in Hamas’ coffers as well as whatever additional monies Hamas wishes to skim off the top.So, if Hamas has the resources to buy additional items, where could they be coming from if not through regulated crossing points with Israel? As Neri Zibler has documented, in early 2018 Salah al-Din Gate, a commercial border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, opened; it is staffed by Hamas on the Gaza side of the border. Despite it being vastly smaller than the Kerem Shalom crossing, Salah al-Din offers a commercial crossing point where there are few checks in place to determine what is and isn’t coming into the Strip. In addition, the gate offers a new crossing where Hamas can generate greater tax revenue, with one estimate pegging it at $500 million between March 2018 and February 2019.

So much concrete was flowing into Gaza through Salah al-Din that in 2019 the Israeli government took concrete off the list of dual-use materials as it was so readily available inside the Strip that it just seemed useless to prevent import from Israel as well.

Of course, it’s not easy getting all the materials you would want to rearm through a much smaller crossing point that is in the middle of the Egyptian desert, but with enough resources and will, it stands to reason that it is far more likely that Hamas obtained what it needed through the money it generated both through the crossing at Salah al-Din and the Qatari aid than hoodwinking the humanitarian community through the GRM.

As the United States aims to make good on the administration’s promise to rebuild Gaza in a manner that empowers the PA and not Hamas, there are few if any good policy options. U.S. law makes it near to impossible to act through the PA to facilitate rebuilding Gaza. All roads, it seems, lead back to the GRM system and finding a way to encourage Egypt, Qatar, the PA and Israel to implement a system that enables the rebuilding of Gaza that ensures timely assistance and larger scale projects so that dependence on Hamas is limited.

Standing in the way of such a policy of course is Hamas itself. Given its control of the crossing in the south and its lack of care of how much its citizens suffer, they are more than happy to return to the situation where it demands suitcases of cash as a protection racket.

Israel did not sleepwalk into this terrible policy environment. Since 2009, the Israeli government has done little to bolster the standing of the PA as evidenced from Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s statement that now is the time for “long-term processes that will weaken the extremists and strengthen and bring together moderates.”

The result is what the Biden Administration is now facing: a PA that is weak and seen as illegitimate in the eyes of the majority of its people, and an entity that is unable to be supported by the U.S. government directly. Even if the PA amended the prisoner payment system, it would also need to publicly suspend all International Criminal Court action before U.S. law would allow direct assistance to take place. Both of these moves would be deeply unpopular on the Palestinian street, especially as Hamas’ popularity after the recent war is at its peak. As families and business owners look to rebuild their shattered buildings, the international community should go further than just solve the geopolitics of limiting the ability of Hamas to find other ways to rearm or profit. They must design a system that, while strict in its vetting, enables and is attractive enough to an average Palestinian in Gaza to rebuild their lives using a secure assistance corridor and an ability to trade their goods with the world, rather than a gray market economy that puts money in the pockets of Hamas. If not, we will be left with the same situation as we are today. Hamas’ strength is a result of several factors – including a misguided policy on Gaza that has run its course. Blaming current vetting just distracts from the lack of a strategy. Stumbling from war to war isn’t a policy option, it’s a policy failure. We owe it to the next generation to do better. Joel Braunold is the Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace

Palestinians need their own voice, not afraid of Hamas, Fatah - opinion

 

By DAVID BRINN

We can see nuances in the situation we find ourselves in with the Palestinians, which enable us on the one hand to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza while at the same time criticize our government.

It was both tense and awkward. But it was necessary.

For the last few months, under the auspices of local interfaith association, my wife and I along with other Israelis have been participating on Zoom in mifgashim (meetings) with Palestinians.They are a continuation of face-to-face gatherings that we’ve been part of for years between Israelis from the Jerusalem area and Palestinians from the surrounding towns like Azariya. In-person came to a standstill during the pandemic, naturally, but the option of online meetings – though not as desirable as flesh and blood encounters – has enabled the geographic scope to broaden, with Israelis from around the country and Palestinians from Jericho, Ramallah and Bethlehem now able to participate.Politics are off-limits for the meetings – as difficult as that may sound – with the goal to learn more about each other’s lives, customs, holidays, backgrounds and families. Connections are made through that familiarity, and the common themes we share being parents, employees, tenants – and human beings – begins to compete with the canyon of cultural gaps, and of course the elephant in the room: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But when we gathered online this week for the first time since the recent war, the elephant was too big to ignore. Instead of focusing on wedding customs, Passover, Ramadan or family histories, the Jewish and Muslim coordinators of the group decided that this session would focus on “feelings” – how the two sides were dealing emotionally after two weeks of massive rocket fire on Israel and massive destruction and loss of life in Gaza.

It was a decision that could have led to raised voices and mutual recriminations, but the alternative would have made a mockery of the efforts to build dialogue from different viewpoints, between two peoples who just lived through a major conflict. From Samih in Bethlehem to Ala in Ramallah and Muhammad in Jericho, all spoke passionately of the loss of life in Gaza, and the pain they felt. They also mentioned the rockets fired at Israel, but it was done in a vacuum of “Yes, both peoples have suffered.”

In today’s politically correct world, it’s frowned upon to bring up who started a conflict or blame one side over the other. In the group, all the more so. That’s why it would have been futile and potentially volatile to suggest: Hey guys, perhaps if Hamas hadn’t fired rockets at Jerusalem then Israel would not have started precision bombing in Gaza. And if Hamas hadn’t responded with 4,000 more rocket attacks aimed at Israel, then the IDF might not have leveled buildings and killed civilians while conducting specific targeted attacks on Hamas members and installations. It was within bounds, however, for the Palestinians to bring up the Sheikh Jarrah eviction saga, and Israeli “aggression” on the Temple Mount. The Israelis on the forum let the Palestinians vent, and I’m sure more than a few, like myself, held their tongues. For our part, we also lamented the loss of life on both sides, without laying blame, and talked about how to rebuild trust and ties that have been frayed over the last month. Despite venturing out of the safety zone of parve topics, the meeting remained civil, with talk ending on a positive note about trying to renew face-to-face gatherings in the near future. Reviewing the hour-long encounter, however, I became more and more troubled by what had gone down.

Here in Israel we have more opinions than people. We have right-wing hardliners and we have peace movements, those who feel Israel is 100% in the right on all moves made regarding the Palestinian issue and the many people who put as much blame, if not more, on Israeli policies as the underlying reason for this war against Hamas. Thousands of protesters have been gathering for months outside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence on Saturday nights calling for him to step down. Those who don’t care for the way he leads the country have actually gone to the polls four times to try to replace him with a “change” government. And if efforts to form that coalition don’t succeed, Israel will soon enough hold a fifth election. It’s called civil action and it’s called democracy. We can see nuances and shades of gray in the situation we find ourselves in with the Palestinians, which enable us on the one hand to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza while at the same time criticize our government. On the Palestinians side, there’s a stark lack of that kind of indignation against their leadership. The Palestinian members of the interfaith group decried the innocent Gazans killed and the massive destruction, but they never consider looking inward and coming to the conclusion that, just maybe, their own Hamas and Palestinian Authority leadership is partially culpable – at least – for the dire situation in Gaza and in the West Bank.

The concept of self-awareness and looking at an issue broadly seems lost on them. Or maybe they’re just scared to challenge the reality they’ve grown up with. Two years ago, during one of our in-person meetings, two young Palestinians from Jebl Mukaber near Jerusalem’s East Talpiot neighborhood were complaining about the lack of employment, the living conditions in their village, and the lack of help they receive from the PA. So, why don’t you go out and protest and demand change, we asked, reminding them of Israeli economic-led upheavals like the cottage cheese revolution. Their answer? “We don’t want to end up in jail.” That’s a valid reason to stay mute and docile. But whether it’s due to fear, or whether their ability to think critically has been numbed by decades of blindly following corrupt and ineffective leaders, believing insidious propaganda about Israel, and yes, living under Israel’s oppressive rule, Palestinians seems unable to look beyond their own victimhood to weigh alternative narratives as to how they ended up where they are.

Israelis of all walks are able to agree that the loss of life in Gaza was heartbreaking. We can blame Hamas and their international enablers or we can point to Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem as contributing to the war; we can take to the streets and protest the policies of our government, and we can go to the polls and try to change the system ourselves. But until the same is true for the other side, until a Palestinian peace movement stands up to the status quo – in Gaza and in the West Bank – with the same strength that the Israeli shinui movement does, until we see the Palestinians question their own leadership and stop solely blaming “the occupiers” for the dead-end of destruction, frustration and despair they’ve been led down, there’s little hope that anything will change for them, or for us.

Chances are we’ll be gathering again in a couple years, neighbors in our war-torn land separated by suspicion and distrust, trying to take the first tentative steps toward understanding each other and reaching some tentative form of reconciliation after another round of war that could have been prevented.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/palestinians-need-their-own-voice-not-afraid-of-hamas-fatah-opinion-669437

The Jewish History of Israel Is Over 3,000 Years Old. That’s Why It’s Complicated.

By David Wolpe

My first visit to Israel was when I was 12 years old. The group was led by my father, a rabbi from Philadelphia. We had been invited to participate in an archaeological dig near the city of Beit Shean, in the country’s north, near the Jordan River Valley. Soon after we arrived, one of my friends happened upon a pottery shard, really an ostracon, a fragment with writing on it. The archaeologist on site said something to him in Hebrew. My father translated: “He said you are the first person to hold that in over 2,000 years.”

Such shocks of antiquity are not rare in Israel. In 1880, archaeologists discovered a Hebrew text carved in stone in a tunnel under Jerusalem. It recounted how workers had chiseled from opposite ends of the ancient city; as they grew closer the sounds of stone cutting grew louder until they met in the middle. The tunnel is believed to be dated from the time of Hezekiah, a king who reigned 715-687 B.C., almost 3,000 years ago and 100 years before the Temple was razed, and Jews were sent into the Babylonian exile. Hezekiah ordered the tunnel’s construction to bring water from outside the city walls into the city. Jerusalem may be a city of sanctity and reverence, but its citizens needed water as much as they did God.

That intersection of the holy and mundane remains. Over the past month of crisis, turmoil, protest and death we have been inevitably captured by the situation of the present. But part of the intractability of the conflict in the Middle East is that the Jewish relationship to Israel did not begin in 1948. Our history here, of both pain and holiness, stretches back dozens of generations.

Our ancient historical markers, scattered throughout this land, are the tactile expression of Jewish memory, and an ancient spiritual yearning. For thousands of years, Jews in the Diaspora would leave a corner of their homes unpainted, to remind themselves that they were not home. They prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. They knew the geography of a land they would never see, often far better than the country in which they lived. They recited prayers for weather — in services during the winter, we yearn for rain or dew — not to help the harvests outside Vilnius or Paris or Fez, but for those in Israel, since we expected at any moment to return.

The Bible depicts an ideal land, one flowing with milk and honey. Yet Israel has always been one thing in dreams and another in the tumult of everyday life. When the five books of the Torah end, the Israelites are still in the wilderness and Moses, our leader out of Egypt, has been denied the promised land. The message is manifest: The perfect place does not yet exist, and you must enter a messy and contested land armed with the vision God has given you. Jews conclude the Passover Seder with “next year in Jerusalem.” Yet if one has the Seder in Jerusalem, the conclusion is not “next year here.” Rather, it is “next year in a rebuilt Jerusalem” — a city that reflects the ideals and aspirations of sages and prophets, one marked with piety and plenty.

For many Jews, that vision is as relevant today as it was in ancient Israel. That means the past, present and future of the land is not just an argument about settlements or structures alone, but also an ideal of a place of safety, a heavenly city on earth, one that we continue to strive and pray for, especially after the violence of these last few weeks.

Though we famously admonish ourselves to ever remember Jerusalem in Psalm 137, the sacred city of stone and tears is not the sole focus of Jewish yearning. Israel is haunted by historical memories. In the northern town of Tsfat, a pilgrim can wander among the graves of the Jewish mystics who re-established a community in that mountain town after the expulsion from Spain in 1492: Isaac Luria, who taught that God’s self-contraction made way for the world; Joseph Caro, author of the Shulchan Aruch, the authoritative code of Jewish law, who believed an angel dictated visions to him in the evening. They were joined there by Greek-born Solomon Alkabetz, who wrote the poem L’cha Dodi (Come to Me, Beloved), a lyrical love song to the Sabbath that is sung in synagogues all over the world each Friday night.

Despite the deep meditations on evil and afterlife in Jewish tradition, the concept of hell is not as developed in Judaism as in other traditions. However, there is a popular name for it: Gehenna. It derives from a place where children in antiquity were said to have been sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch.

In 1979, archaeologists began excavating in the area that is believed to be ancient Gehenna. Not far from the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, they found what is considered to be one of the oldest bits of scripture that exists in the world, more than 400 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. It dates from the time just before the destruction of the First Temple, the Temple of Solomon, in 586 B.C. The scorched ground yielded two rolled-up silver amulets that are on display to this day in the Israel Museum. When painstakingly unfurled, the text was almost verbatim to the Bible verses:

“May God bless you and keep you.

May God’s face shine upon you and be gracious to you.

May God turn His face toward you and give you peace.” (Numbers 6:24-26)

This is the priestly blessing, one parents recite for their children each Friday night, a fervent prayer for the future. In other words, the oldest bit of scripture that exists in the world is a blessing of peace that was snatched from hell. In that beleaguered and beautiful land, the prayer endures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/opinion/jewish-history-israel.html

ساقی غاړ می راوړی په زنار یې زینتي کړه - آهنگساز: ناشناس -

Video Report - د پاکستان په اړه د محب وروستیو څرګندونو ته د پاکستان غبرګون

Why Nations Fail; A Case Study of Pakistan

Beenish Fatima @beenishfatima81

  "Why Nations Fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty is a research-based book authored by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson and it discusses at length the huge power differences between rich and poor nations around the globe. By analyzing data and historical roots of different countries, the authors conclude that it is mainly the institutional structure of the nations that determine their progress; “it is the political process that determines what economic institutions people live under, and it is the political institutions that determine how this process works”. The gist of the book is that the presence of inclusive economic and political institutions in developed countries paves their way towards development. Extractive institutions, on the other hand, can play a role to generate growth but only in the short term. The book presents a case study of different countries but it does not talk about Pakistan; this piece is aimed to look at the political and economic milieu in Pakistan with reference to problems discussed in the book. One of the propositions that determine the failure of a nation, discuss authors, is that the countries that have been previously colonized “follow[ed] much of the former colonial world by developing hierarchical, authoritarian political regimes” which tend to halt the process of economic success. This case also applies to Pakistan that has encountered an alteration of democratization and military dictatorship at sporadic intervals during the first six decades. This deteriorated the economy of the country drastically.

Furthermore, even the democratically elected regimes in Pakistan, too, have almost had the same individuals over and over again and the democracy here shows no sign of pluralism. This is evident from the transition of PPP and PMLN parties’ rule and then the presence of these very individuals in the new governing party that is PTI.

The German Sociologist Robert Michels called it the Iron Law of Oligarchy. “The internal logic of oligarchies is that they will reproduce themselves not only when the same group is in power, but even when an entirely new group takes control.” Christophe Jaffrelot, a renowned French political scientist, puts it in his The Pakistan Paradox as, “…the disconnect is aggravated by the transformation of political parties into (unofficially) lucrative family enterprises, as is evident in the personal enrichment of the political elite.”

“The low education level of poor countries is caused by economic institutions that fail to create incentives for parents to educate their children and by political institutions that fail to induce the government to build, finance and support schools”, perfectly fits the education system of Pakistan since day one. Because of inefficient economic decisions, the poverty rate in Pakistan was found to be 40% in 2020 by Business Recorder. The high poverty rate has a direct relation with the illiteracy rate as poor people in developing countries cannot afford to send their children to go to educational institutes. Economic Survey presented Pakistan’s literacy rate to be around 60% in 2020. Escalating privatization of the education and health sector in a poor country like Pakistan is further serving to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Due to high unemployment and low incomes, the majority of the people cannot even manage the basic livelihood. This, too, is one of the characteristics of the notion ‘underdevelopment created’ and not ‘naturally emerged and persisted over centuries’. As the authors argue, “Under absolutist political institutions, those who can wield this power will be able to set up economic institutions to enrich themselves and augment their power at the expense of society.”

Another example of underdevelopment as being created is the adoption of the dual economy model that gives rise to economic problems in less-developed countries. This kind of economic model divides a country’s economy into a modern sector and a traditional sector. The modern sector supports urban life and ensures the use of advanced technologies in urban areas. The traditional sector, on the other hand, encompasses factors related to rural life including, agriculture and backward institutions and technologies. In Pakistan, around 64% of the population lives in rural areas.

According to the Labour Force Survey of 2017-18 conducted by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 39% of the country’s labor force is engaged in the agriculture sector and it constitutes around 18.5% of the country’s GDP. This creates a huge gap between the rural and the urban sectors of the country where most of the development projects and educational programs are carried out in the urban areas and the rural areas are not given much attention.To kick-start the way to progress, Pakistan will have to reinvent its institutional structure to make it more inclusive and pluralistic. Rule of law needs to be ensured to make everyone equally accountable before the law. And the empowerment at the grass-root level needs to be ascertained to empower every individual to create a pluralistic distribution of political power.

Moreover, there is a need for the presence of civil society institutions so that basic demands of the general population can be addressed efficiently, and also the nascent governing elites do not augment the policies of extractive institutions. Another important factor to determine the growth of inclusive institutions is the presence of independent and autonomous media that plays an important role in the empowerment of society. But this change will take time and will alter the existing institutions gradually.

https://en.humsub.com.pk/2510/why-nations-fail-a-case-study-of-pakistan/

Give Shah Mahmood Qureshi the Peace Nobel for Palestine ceasefire. Forget his CNN interview

NAILA INAYAT

CNN still got the best version of the Pakistani foreign minister, if his previous national television appearances are anything to go by.

K

isses, blanket and ‘indecent’ activities aside, this is a tale of what we now know as a successful airplane ride. No, this isn’t the return flight of Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi from the United States. It could well have been, given the rousing hero’s welcome he received earlier this week. Why? For having upped the morale of the nation with his “deep pockets” remark, and that “they (Israelis) control media” assertion in a now-viral CNN interview. Then for being called out for anti-Semitic rhetoric in the same interview. Not to leave out his signature smirk and laugh, which is now a meme of our times. 

An always agitated Qureshi in his 10-minute stay on CNN scored big when he corrected the news anchor that he was the foreign minister and not an ambassador. He was right, for who knows what she could have called him next — President of the United States? — anything looked possible in that moment. The foreign minister took it on himself to hold a mirror to the Western media. The irony is rather rich. Lecture the West while the media back home faces rampant censorship, assaults on journalists, and press freedom stoops every day.

The hush on Uighur Muslims

When confronted with the question on the genocide of Uighur Muslims in China, Qureshi was clear that “we use our diplomatic channels. We do not discuss everything in public.” Which is actually surreal, because Prime Minister Imran Khan says he, frankly, doesn’t know much about that. Pakistan’s national security advisor is already 100 per cent satisfied that Uighurs are a “non-issue” and that the country has zero concerns. Does no one share notes with the foreign minister on these zero concerns?

On the CNN interview, Qureshi reiterated that he’s “never been anti-Semitic and…never will be”. But when you’re used to raking up emotions by making controversial statements — “Like Mahmud Ghaznavi, I have come out to destroy the Somnath temple” — and the crowd cheers you, you do tend to forget if it is CNN or a local jalsa.

CNN still got the best version of the foreign minister, if his previous national television appearances are anything to go by. ‘Deep pockets’ have been his concern without fail. Keeping an eye on those with ‘deep pockets’ should be seen as an occupational hazard for the career saint. Nothing anti-Semitic about that, right? Qureshi had once asked a news anchor if he was working on someone’s “agenda”, for he dared to question the minister on the tabling of a resolution on Kashmir in the United Nations Human Rights Council. On being pushed regarding his own statement and prime minister’s tweet that Pakistan has support of more than 50 UN members for a resolution, Qureshi had a meltdown and repeatedly asked the anchor to show him his tweet, “Abhi nikalo, abhi nikalo, I want my tweet”.

Qureshi’s believe it or not

Being the top diplomat, if Qureshi tells you one day that Article 370 is India’s internal matter and of no interest to Pakistan, then believe him. Because two days later, he will tell you that it is not what he meant to say, when he said what he said. Believe that too. Same applies to his explanation on ‘are we talking to India, are we not?’ There is a back channel but that is not a formal channel because these people in the establishment are just updating each other on the situation. This actually sounds like India-Pakistan dating in Covid quarantine, each in their own home.

All the times you have been told that Pakistan is in no hurry to talk to India and that there are no secret talks with the help of the United Arab Emirates, believe all of it is true.

They “create storm in a teacup,” it is known to all by now that all controversies are India-made. Even the one in which the prime minister scolded Pakistani diplomats, noting that Indian embassies were more proactive or when the foreign minister was not holding his own umbrella on the visit of Russian counterpart. Chattri diplomacy is a new fad, it is not for everyone.

Haters will hate, but the recent yatra was a huge diplomatic win in a universe beyond anyone’s reach. That’s foreign minister Qureshi’s reach. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leaders and loyalists alike may have garlanded the minister, but the truth is he deserves nothing short of a Nobel Peace Prize. Why else do you think the Israeli Prime Minister agreed to a ceasefire? Winning Qureshi the title of “Mein Führer” with his supporters. It was the good public display of affection that we saw for the foreign minister — the red roses and the shabashi. After all, it is his theatrics that keep the show running and diplomatic wins coming.

https://theprint.in/opinion/letter-from-pakistan/give-shah-mahmood-qureshi-the-peace-nobel-for-palestine-ceasefire-forget-his-cnn-interview/666793/ 

PPP determined to thwart PTIMF budget in Parliament, says PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has said that the upcoming budget will be dictated by the IMF, and it would serve their interests, instead of those of the Pakistani people. The PPP is fully prepared and determined to thwart the PTIMF budget in the Parliament, he added. Passing the IMF’s proposed budget would be tantamount to undermining the freedom and integrity of the country, and the Pakistan Peoples Party could not, in good conscience, allow the puppet PTI government to make Pakistan a vassal state.

In a statement, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that the selected Prime Minister Imran Khan is always fond of proclaiming that Pakistan is on the verge of an economic miracle in the coming year, but the year comes and goes and we are left stuck further in the quagmire of inflation, debt, and economic decline.He question how an anti-people selected government could manage to bring about any positive change into the lives of the people, when they served the interests of the IMF. How shamelessly will the selected PM present his budget as a positive for Pakistan, when every lived experience in Pakistan says otherwise. Levying heavy taxes on the already poverty stricken masses to fill the exchequer, would not lead to real economic growth. And plunging Pakistan further into debt with no plan for true growth would never lift the economy from ruin, he said.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that for all the tall claims of growth, the common man is still unable to buy food or medicine. The Chairman PPP said that this talk of growth was tantamount to pouring salt on the wounds of the millions of Pakistanis his government has pushed below the poverty line. The selected PTI-led federal government now has a history of extorting money from the masses while it allows its cronies in and out of government to plunder the state. This selected federal government favours the elite with amnesty schemes while it deprives the people of their right to live with dignity, hre said adding that every policy this PTI-led federal government has pushed serves the interests of their crony capitalist backers. On the other hand, the PPP has always worked to protect the rights of the people, and it has always formulated policies it believed were in the best interest of the people. The PPP will always fight for the rights of the people at ever forum, added the Chairman PPP.

https://www.ppp.org.pk/pr/24928/

Music Video - Olivia Rodrigo - deja vu

Video Report - Can American investigation into origins of coronavirus succeed? | Inside Story

Video Report - EU drug regulator approves Pfizer vaccine for children aged 12-15

Video Report - President Biden and The First Lady Deliver Remarks

Video Report - President Biden Delivers Remarks to Celebrate the Progress Made in the Fight Against COVID-19

Video Report - #KhabarSayAagay #NayaDaur #Politics - Maryam Not Ready, Needs Grooming:Shehbaz Sharif | Fawad Ch. BBC Interview| Journalists Want Asylum

#EDITORIAL - #Pakistan - Another rape - A Country where Couple's kissing outrages Pakistanis more than a Rape of a Minor Girl

 

Pakistan is going backwards. At a time when alliances across the world have made ending violence against minors their top priorities, the systemic rape culture continues to be reinforced–at every level–around us. That the shocking details of a said abduction and gang rape of a 14-year-old in Faisalabad (or Sukkur, according to some) managed to fall on deaf ears, is a tight slap on those who claim to be living in safer times. What could be more embarrassing than the fact that we have come to terms with the gross idea that men simply cannot be expected to control their sexual impulses after laying eyes upon any lightweight? The dreadful allegations of these perpetrators playing a religion card! As per viral reports making rounds on social media, the poor victim was tortured to recite the Kalima. There’s more! Upon her refusal, the suspects reportedly shaved her head.

Given the many, many ugly layers that make up this abhorrent crime, the ruling PTI must bring the full might of law upon its investigation. We cannot afford to waste any time in ensuring a proper, fool-proof prosecution. Already, the privacy of the victim has been egregiously compromised after her graphic picture spearheaded a campaign by netizens. While Twitter hashtags called on PM Khan to take immediate action against the perpetrators, police officials in Faisalabad and Sukkur have jumped to denials of any such crime taking place in their respective cities.

There can be no denying of the dismal reality that with every such case, humanity takes a deeper plunge into a dark, dreary, loathsome pit. Child abuse is a heinous reality that continues to plague Pakistan. Last November, a co-accused murdered a suspect just a day after he was arrested for raping a woman as well as her five-year-old daughter. A month before, an eight-year-old was found hanging from a tree in Killa Abdullah. He had been strangled to death after the rapists were done with him. Who can forget the horrific details of the rape and murder of Kasur’s Zainab? The bone-chilling list continues. We are decades behind in putting the onus where it matters–the rapists–instead of indulging in the senseless details of what (the victim was wearing?), where (was she standing outside the “chaar diwari?) and when (because monsters are set loose upon us after sundown). However, this obsession with pushing the onus onto the victim sounds even more foolish when talking about children. For minors lack the agency to stop the unwanted harassment. Most of the times, they are not taken seriously when they confide their agony in someone. It is this nonchalance that makes them the perfect targets for the sick monsters moving within us. And this vulnerability is what Islamabad needs to consider before pulling its socks.

Already, the religious affiliation of the victim has rendered extra sensitivity to the abuse case. Going by the previous examples, hawks sitting on the other side of the border would not bat an eyelid before needlessly interfering in Pakistan’s internal matter using the minority card. It would be unwise to forget the scathing attacks by former Indian minister Sushma Swaraj when two young Hindu girls were allegedly abducted in Sindh. Since Pakistan’s reputation as a haven for the white in its flag is already on the rocks, we need a proactive nexus of government and security agencies. It is a matter of life and death. Quite literally speaking! 

#Pakistan - Educating all children

Faisal Bari

THAT basic (10-odd years) education has been declared a fundamental right of children and the fact that it is also considered a basic right in many countries and jurisdictions is not enough to convince a number of people here that all children should be educated.

All children irrespective of their family income, gender, religion, geography, ability, etc have the right to education. Not only that, in most countries, education is considered mandatory. Even if a child or her family do not desire that the child be educated, she can be ‘forced’ to be educated. The public good element and positive externalities have made education in most jurisdictions obligatory. An educated child contributes more to society at large than an uneducated child. It is as simple as that.

In the case of Pakistan, here is how the ‘right’ to education is worded in our Constitution. “Article 25-A: Right to Education: The state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined by law.” Article 25-A was inserted in the Constitution as part of the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010. It is in the fundamental rights section of the Constitution. It is important to highlight how the Article is worded, ie “free and compulsory”. The ‘compulsory’ part articulates that it is obligatory.

And yet there are people in Pakistan who feel that we should not or cannot afford to educate all our children. They clearly do not understand what the notion of a ‘right’ is. Fundamental rights are supposed to be trump cards: their provision has to trump all other considerations. If you are calling for 10 years of education to be a fundamental right for all children, this provision has to trump all other considerations that do not invoke other fundamental rights. This should be enough reason to provide education to all children. But, it seems, rights mean little in our country. So, let us look at further considerations.

When developed nations decided to invest in education they weren’t as rich as they are today.

Unemployment, amongst the educated youth, is high. It tends to be high in countries where the economic growth rate and job creation rate are not high enough. In these countries, the rate at which jobs are created, compared to the rate of entry of young people into the labour force, is lower and this creates a situation of excess supply. But, how can this be a reason for denying the right to education? Growth rates change a lot even over the short to medium run while the provision of education takes place over decades, that is, you cannot start/stop education systems on the basis of short- to medium-term considerations.

Educated people drive both innovation and growth; they come up with new ideas and new ways of organising and delivering services. Education has large positive externalities on the sociopolitical front as well — in terms of reduction in fertility and population growth, health and education benefits for families of educated mothers, female empowerment and labour force participation, age of marriage, and the working of democracy in a country. Even if the rights argument is not considered strong enough, how can all of these benefits be sacrificed at the altar of growth rate and unemployment rate fluctuations?

View this problem from the other side as well. Imagine we do not educate our young. Pakistan is a young country that is still going through a demographic transition. Can we afford to have millions of uneducated youth to look after? Education opens up avenues for people for individual and family transformations. Can we afford to not offer this opportunity to all of our children? What will Pakistan’s future be if we have millions of uneducated youth who we need to cater for? Daron Acemoglu, professor of economics at MIT, in a recent lecture pointed out that the way the labour markets are changing, due to technology change, countries with large populations of uneducated youth are going to face very difficult economic, and consequently social and political, circumstances. Does that look more promising than trying to educate all children and the challenge of unemployment for the educated?

Another major argument for denying the right to education to all is based on the idea of limited financial resources. It is argued that Pakistan does not have the financial resources to educate every child. We only raise 10-odd per cent of our GDP as taxes and given the needs in other areas, we cannot afford to spend 5pc to 6pc of GDP on education alone. Even the current 2pc of GDP that we spend on education is with great difficulty and hardship.

It is true that financial resources are tight. Do bear in mind, though, that they are and have been tight for all countries across time. But others have made different choices. When the developed countries of today decided to invest in the education of their citizens, they were not as rich as they are today. Look at the history of mass education in the UK or Europe, the US and even Japan. All of them decided to go for mass education, for a variety of reasons, at a time when they were also struggling financially. But education, for all, was considered important to a) produce better labour, b) not fall behind other nations, c) craft a notion of citizenship, etc.

Even over the last few decades we have seen developing countries make choices for education that have been different from the choices made by Pakistan. India, China, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka provide interesting examples even from our region. Are these not resource-constrained countries?

It is hard to believe that even today we are still debating whether or not the right to education should be extended to all children in Pakistan and there are still people who think that we should not and that we cannot afford to. I guess this reflects quite vividly the country’s political economy issues. The rights of all are trumped by the needs of the elites — a pattern that is also reflected in many other decisions of the state.

History shows that the country has seen some of the most progressive economic and agricultural policies under the PPP government – says Chairman PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

 

The Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has said that the disastrous economic policies of the selected Prime Minister Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi have deprived 16 percent of Pakistanis from even one square meal a day. Extreme poverty is robbing our people of their most basic needs, he added. Today, the people are demanding Roti (Bread), Kapra (Clothing), and Makaan (Shelter), but the corrupt PM and his incompetent government have deprived them of their most basic needs.

In a statement issued from the Media Cell Bilawal House, the Chairman PPP said that the PPP was the only political platform that actively represented the will of the people, and even its critics would agree that its policies are aimed at empowering the most marginalized.
He added that the PPP has the potential and vision to create jobs, and that the PPP had a proven track record for providing employment to the people and youth of the country. Any honest reading of history would show that the country has seen some of the most progressive economic and agricultural policies under PPP governments.
The incompetent PM on the other hand has a revolving door policy for this country’s financial advisers. What more could underscore the absolute lack of vision than the fact that the Finance Minister has been changed thrice, the Board of Investment chairman has been changed thrice, the Chairman FBR being changed four times, and theSecretary Trade being changed four times as well in this governments two and half years of power.
“No matter who the selected PM changes, the results will be the same because the PM does not have the vision or the ambition to do anything but serve his crony capitalists and his benefactors.”
The situation in Pakistan will remain bleak as long as we are ruled by a PM and government that announces and trumpets a policy one night, only to change its mind overnight and rejects it in a cabinet meeting the next day, he added. The short rule of the PM has badly exposed his ineptitude and incapability of governing a country, and the masses know that all the talk of Tabdeeli (Change) was just an eye wash for Imran Khan to play out his megalomaniacal fantasies , the Chairman PPP said.
He said 33 months and 11 days into this governments term, the country was still waiting for the selected Prime Minister to fulfill his commitment of fixing Pakistans problems in 90 days. It is patently clear that the remaining 813 days will be marked by the same incompetency and misrule that is synonymous with the government.

https://www.ppp.org.pk/pr/24921/

#Pakistan #YoumeTakbeer #ShaheedZulfiqarAliBhutto - Bhutto’s obsession with Islamic bomb, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear deterrence program

 Syed Ishrat Husain

Just before the beginning of the month of Ramzan this year, Pakistan’s prime minister Imran Khan advised country’s youth that they can learn Islamic ethics and values while watching Turkish tv serial Ertugrul. I want our children and youth to know what the difference is about our culture. The show was already a hit in many countries. Prime minister’s promotional speech made it more popular in Pakistan than in any other country.

I believe in diversity because it reduces narrow mindedness. It is always good to know about the

cultures and history of different Islamic nations. But let me remind you, that even as on today June, 14, 2020 Pakistan still is the only nuclear state within Islamic world. How many of you out of 22 billion are aware of the struggle behind to become a nuclear state? I can assure you, you can count them on fingers. Unfortunately even PPP’s own governments didn’t do anything to raise awareness among the masses about the challenges and obstacles faced by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto writes from his death cell: My single most important achievement which I believe will dominate the portrait of my public life is an agreement which I arrived at after an assiduous and tenacious endeavour spanning over eleven years of negotiations. In the present context, the agreement of mine, concluded in June 1976, will perhaps be my greatest achievement and contribution to the survival of our nation. We were on the threshold of full nuclear capability when I left the government to come to this death cell. We know that Israel and South Africa have full nuclear capability. The Christian, Jewish and Hindu civilisations have capability. The Communist powers also possess it. Only the Islamic civilisation was without it, but that position was about to change. What difference does my life make now when I can imagine of my countrymen standing under the nuclear cloud of a defenceless sky.

Bhutto’s eleven years of negotiation began around 1965. It was the year of Indo-Pakistan war. It was the year in which Pakistan had its US military aid suspended and Bhutto declared, if India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. We have no alternative, atom bomb for atom bomb.

Few weeks after the fall of Dhaka on 20 January 1972, Bhutto called together his eminent scientists at Nawab Sadiq Hussain Qureshi’s residence in Multan. Bhutto told them that fate had placed him in a position where he could make decisions that would lead the country to become Nuclear power. Can you give to me? He asked. There was a pin drop silence. According to most estimates Pakistan was at least twenty years behind India. Bhutto scowled, one of the young scientist recalled. He looked at the junior scientists before him for a positive response. Bhutto repeated his question: Can you give it to me? Some of the junior scientists replied, yes it would be possible, Sultan Bashir Uddin Mahmood shouted. Bhutto fired back: But how long will it take to build a bomb? When Bashir Uddin mumbled, maybe five years, Bhutto thrust three fingers into the air. I want in three years. It isn’t making firecrackers, you know, one of the scientist piped up. We don’t know how long it will take. But one of the younger scientist Sulfikar Ahmed Butt shouted it: It can be done in three years.

Bhutto smiled. Well much as I admire your enthusiasm, this is a very serious political decision, which Pakistan must take. So can you do it? Everybody present agreed to agree that Pakistan could do it, given sufficient resources and facilities.

In 1976 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto ordered test tunnels to be constructed at two locations in Ras Koh range in the Chaghai District, and Kharan desert Balochistan. In the autumn of 1976 an army corps led by Brigadier Sajawal Khan Malik, was ordered to help A. Q. Khan raise a nuclear facility at the Kahuta site. Brigadier Sajawal would remain a key aide until Khan retired in 2001.

US secretary of the state Henry Kissinger had tried to head Bhutto’s nuclear ambitions during a meeting in New York, offering him a deal. Bhutto was to terminate his reprocessing project in favour of US supplied facility that would be located in Iran and be made available to all countries in the region. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had devised the scheme arguing that Iran needed a nuclear programme to meet its future energy needs. But Bhutto rejected the offer. The US Senate proposed an amendment to the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to block economic and military aid, threatening to cut off Pakistan’s annual $162 million aid package. The noise from the US Congress suited Bhutto, as he had no intention of going ahead with the costly reprocessing plant. Bhutto hoped that if Pakistan was seen to abandon its reprocessing plans under US pressure it would not have to compensate the French when it finally pulled out of the deal.

In 1977 Bhutto was fighting a four sided battle. On one side he was provoking Carter to put pressure on France. On a second front he was trying to keep the Kahuta plant concealed from the West. On the third front he was fighting with the agitation in the country and on the fourth front he was keeping a check on the generals by meeting them every day. And during this period he was casting a net across the world for the purchase of necessary parts for the research laboratory.

During an emotional address to the National Assembly, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto charged Washington with financing a vast colossal, huge international conspiracy to oust him. The bloodhounds are after my blood, foreign dollars were flooding into Pakistan to pay for the rising agitation. He claimed that Henry Kissinger had personally told him, that if he failed to fall in line over the nuclear issue, we will make a horrible example of you. Bhutto revealed how US diplomats had been intercepted plotting his downfall on the phone.

Back in 1979, the Israelis had been shown a classified US memo by their counterparts in RAW. Intercepted on its way from the US embassy in New Delhi to the secretary of state, it confirmed that the US privately believed Pakistan would be able to explode a bomb within two or three years, most likely by 1981.

https://dailytimes.com.pk/626209/bhuttos-obsession-with-islamic-bomb/