RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Intifada or Not, Something Powerful Is Going On in Palestine Print
Saturday, 17 October 2015 08:42

Wilson writes: "'It's the first time in a long time that we've seen this,' he says. 'I've seen young people, old people, females, males, protesting in the streets together. You can see rich people alongside poor people too.'"

Female Palestinian protesters take position during clashes with Israeli troops near the Jewish settlement of Bet El, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. (photo: Mohamad Torokman/Reuters)
Female Palestinian protesters take position during clashes with Israeli troops near the Jewish settlement of Bet El, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. (photo: Mohamad Torokman/Reuters)


Intifada or Not, Something Powerful Is Going On in Palestine

By Nigel Wilson, Al Jazeera

17 October 15

 

Palestinians are coming together, regardless of age, gender and political affiliation, in a show of solidarity.

s the student cafeteria at Birzeit University empties after the lunchtime rush, Ehab Iwidat leans back on his chair and sips from a bottle of mineral water. The wiry, 20-year-old business and French student is suffering from a cold, but that has not stopped him from attending some of the recent demonstrations in the West Bank.

"It's the first time in a long time that we've seen this," he says. "I've seen young people, old people, females, males, protesting in the streets together. You can see rich people alongside poor people too."

Like many in the so-called Oslo generation of Palestinians, who have little or no memory of previous Intifadas in Palestine, Iwidat only knows life under occupation as a second-class citizen.

He believes that Israeli restrictions on Palestinian freedom and rights in the West Bank, harassment from Israeli settlers, and the bleak prospects for a peace deal between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders have pushed Palestinians into the streets in recent weeks.

"It's coming from the actions of settlers, who represent Israeli government policy. From burning people alive, humiliating people on a daily basis and restricting Palestinians' freedom movement, to the disrespectful actions at al-Aqsa Mosque."

The protests that have swept Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank this month have seen tens of thousands of Palestinians take to the streets. Men and women of all ages have joined the movement. In some cases, these massive demonstrations have passed peacefully, as protesters massed to chant slogans in unity, demanding solidarity to fight the Israeli military occupation.

Other gatherings have turned violent, as the Israeli military used tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and live fire against Palestinian demonstrators throwing rocks and firebombs at Israeli soldiers.

The movement has even given traction to the idea that Palestinians could be on the verge of a new Intifada, or that one may have already begun.

Tuesday was declared a "Day of Rage" in Gaza and the West Bank, as thousands of Palestinians protested in refugee camps and at military checkpoints, singing anti-occupation songs and waving Palestinian flags.

Palestinian citizens of Israel simultaneously took to the streets for a general strike, closing businesses and schools across the country, while tens of thousands gathered for a peaceful rally in Sakhnin, chanting slogans against the Israeli government.

On Wednesday, thousands more attended the funeral of Mutaz Zawahreh, a 27-year-old from the Duheisha refugee camp close to Bethlehem, who was killed in the previous day's clashes with the Israeli military. The protesters again chanted for solidarity and unity to battle Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

'It's a symbol of our heritage'

Tension has been simmering in Jerusalem over what Palestinians say is Israel's plan to Judaise the city. This summer, however, it centred on the religious site which houses the al-Aqsa Mosque compound. Only Muslims are allowed to pray at the site under the existing status quo, but a broader campaign among religious right-wing Israelis, calling for Jewish prayer to be allowed there followed by storming of al-Aqsa compound for several days by Jewish extremist groups under the protection of the Israeli security forces, has raised concerns among Palestinians that the Israeli government is preparing to alter the access rules in the long term.

However, the idea that the recent protests are motivated by religion is inaccurate, according to the demonstrators themselves.

"I don't look at al-Aqsa as just a religious symbol," said Hala Marshood, a political activist who lives in Jerusalem. "It's a cultural symbol. It's a symbol of our heritage and our Palestinian identity. It's a symbol of our social life. It's a really important place for the Palestinians in Jerusalem and outside of Jerusalem."

At 24, Marshood already has years of experience as an activist behind her. She keeps in touch with other activists in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza via social media networks and helped to organise a recent protest in the city of Nazareth, which was attended by thousands.

"Social media is a really important method to get in touch with youth everywhere," she said. "Facebook is the big one, even though it has its risks. And posters, flyers that we hand out in the neighbourhoods ... Besides that, we use connections that we have with activists in the West Bank, Jerusalem and every area, and we contact to make something united together."

The unrest escalated after two Israeli settlers were killed on October 1. The Israeli military launched a manhunt for the perpetrators. Those incursions into West Bank towns and villages, marked by night raids on Palestinian homes and widespread arrests, further fuelled the anger and helplessness that many Palestinians feel under military occupation.

A leaderless movement

So far, the protests have been notable for the lack of obvious political party involvement. Mainstream Palestinian parties - Fatah, Hamas and the PFLP - have remained relatively quiet, while the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has urged protesters to remain peaceful.

"The unique thing about this movement is that the youth are protesting and no one is leading them, no politicians," said Saif al-Islam Duglas, the president of the Birzeit University student council.

"We've organised protests as the student union, but not along political party lines, everyone is coming together."

Within the often highly factional arena of Palestinian student politics, this kind of unity is often lacking. But political protest is nothing new for Palestinians. Many of these young people have attended the weekly demonstrations against the Israeli occupation in the West Bank, which are not organised along party lines.

"Most such waves of protests, whether the short ones or the long ones, are spontaneous and are done by young people without being organised in most of the cases. So it's not exceptional or strange that there are no political organisations that are masterminding this," said Ghassan Khatib, a political analyst at Birzeit University.

Currently the protests show little sign of abating, fuelled in part by fresh incidents of tit-for-tat violence as well as by Israel's excessive use of force and its policy of extrajudicial killings. The UN chief Ban Ki-moon urged Israel to "seriously review" its use of force, finding "the apparent excessive use of force by Israeli security services" to be "troubling".

As of Thursday morning, 32 Palestinians have been killed in October, the majority at the hands of Israeli forces, while seven Israelis have been killed. If the death toll continues to rise, and the demonstrations grow in numbers, Palestinian political parties will likely come under pressure to increase their involvement.

"This movement needs political leadership," said Issa Amro, a political activist based in the West Bank city of Hebron. "Until now, there has been no political leadership. But it needs political leadership to go on, to organise it … to represent the Palestinian demands."

While political leadership may be required to guide and crystallise the aims of the current movement, it is unclear whether the established Palestinian parties want to lead the movement. While this could create a space for a new generation of leaders to emerge from outside the traditional parties, the movement has been defined to date by an absence of leadership.

While Amro believes that the current generation of political leaders is unlikely to take up the cause, he sees an opportunity for junior figures in established parties to take it on.

"I think the first line of leadership is exhausted. But sooner or later, if it continues like this, I believe the second and third line of leadership in the political parties will lead and go on with it."

A third Intifada?

Some of the Palestinian demonstrators have called for an Intifada, while the term has also been used by political and regional analysts. However, it is probably too early to compare the movement with the sustained and widespread Palestinian uprisings that took place in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, according to Khatib.

"If the definition of Intifada includes sustained activities, widespread and popular, then I don't expect that this wave will become an Intifada," he explained. "It's happening mostly in Jerusalem and it's a reaction mainly to Israeli attempts to change the status quo at al-Aqsa Mosque. And it's not spreading all over."

As for the activists, talk of Intifada does not concern them for now. "I don't like labelling it," said Marshood. "[During] the second Intifada, I was really young, and in the first Intifada I wasn't born. What I can say is that we are escalating our protest and there is something very powerful going on."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Strong Debate Ratings Make CNN Consider Introducing Substance Into Programming Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Friday, 16 October 2015 13:32

Borowitz writes: "The strong ratings for Tuesday's Democratic Presidential debate have surprised CNN executives, who are now tentatively considering introducing substance into their programming."

Democratic debate. (photo: CNN)
Democratic debate. (photo: CNN)


Strong Debate Ratings Make CNN Consider Introducing Substance Into Programming

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

16 October 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


he strong ratings for Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential debate have surprised CNN executives, who are now tentatively considering introducing substance into their programming.

The president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, acknowledged that he was “baffled” by the high ratings for the debate, which focussed on the issues and featured few if any personal attacks.

“I was watching them talk about issue after issue, and I was like, ‘This show is gonna tank,’ ” Zucker said. “Substance is usually ratings poison.”

After reviewing the numbers for the debate, however, Zucker decided to launch a pilot program at CNN called Project Substance, which will introduce information and “substance-based content” into the network’s programming, on a limited basis.

“Just to be clear, we’re not suddenly going to flood our programming with substance,” Zucker said. “We know that would be jarring for our viewers.”

By implementing a “dash of substance here and there,” the network will be able to gauge whether viewers’ interest in substance is for real, “or just a passing fad,” Zucker said.

“If, at the end of the day, viewers aren’t interested in serious news, we’ll just go back to what we’ve been doing,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
October Surprises Print
Friday, 16 October 2015 13:26

Davidson writes: "Last week was a good one for Hillary Clinton."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: CNN)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: CNN)


October Surprises

By Amy Davidson, The New Yorker

16 October 15

 

ast week was a good one for Hillary Clinton. It started with her appearance on “Saturday Night Live.” Kate McKinnon did her customary Clinton impression, this time sitting in a bar, trying to forget about Donald Trump. Clinton played Val the bartender, who seemed to embody how the former Secretary of State would like to be seen: as a hardworking, wryly funny older friend, whose earned wisdom you can turn to at the end of a long day. They sang “Lean On Me,” and, after Clinton left, McKinnon pronounced, “She was real and smart and really nice in person!”

Two days later, the “Today” show found Clinton flipping pancakes for voters in New Hampshire. When she was asked yet again about her e-mail accounts, she dismissed the question and cited the extraordinarily impolitic boast made a few days earlier by the House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, who had told Fox’s Sean Hannity, “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?” The Republicans were embarrassed, and Clinton benefitted. Last Thursday, McCarthy was forced to drop out of the race to succeed John Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Clinton is still scheduled to testify before the Benghazi committee a week after the first Democratic Presidential debate, which will be sponsored by CNN and held on October 13th, in Las Vegas. The Benghazi hearings would seem to have little credibility left, but both events will mark a new stage of the campaign for Clinton, one in which she will have to relinquish the tight control she has maintained over her appearances. At the debate, she will be joined onstage by Bernie Sanders, who has launched a strong challenge and is now favored by twenty-five per cent of likely Democratic voters, to her forty-two per cent, and by Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb, all of whom are polling in the one-per-cent range. Vice-President Biden, because he is polling at around eighteen per cent, is eligible to take part, even if he declares at the last minute.

Biden’s role has been a big open question. Another is why this first debate is so late in coming. The Republicans have already had two, each of which attracted more than twenty million television viewers, and will stage ten more. The Democratic National Committee has authorized only six. One is the Saturday night before Christmas; another is the Sunday night before Martin Luther King, Jr., Day—not times likely to attract large audiences. Given the concerns about the Presidency being passed between a couple of families, why set up a schedule that seems designed to squelch lesser-known candidates’ chances?

The lesser-knowns have objected, but Clinton doesn’t seem to mind. One reason for that might be gleaned by looking back to October 30, 2007, when the Democrats debated in Philadelphia. Clinton was the front-runner then, too, and it was the thirteenth time the candidates had met. But it was also, arguably, the first time that her opponents—Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, and, most improbably, Barack Obama—seriously challenged her, on all fronts. Edwards accused her of “doubletalk.” Obama called her out for “changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient”—she was “for NAFTA previously, now she’s against it”—and for not being “truthful.” A lot of the time was taken up asking why records of her official work in her husband’s White House were sealed in the Clinton Presidential library. She responded with what must have been intended as judiciousness but came across as obfuscation. When Tim Russert, one of the moderators, tried to determine whether she was in favor of issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants—she had indicated both yes and no—she called his question a “gotcha.”

In the days that followed, Clinton and her campaign tried to frame the debate as a Hillary-against-the-world moment, a “pile-on,” orchestrated by what she called, in a speech at Wellesley College, “the all-boys’ club.” Clinton had been considered the winner in most of the previous debates, and even many of her supporters acknowledged that this one marked a turning point. A week before, she was at 48.5 per cent in an average of polls, the highest she had ever been. (Obama registered 21.2.) Immediately afterward, she began a decline and, despite some rebounds, never matched that number again.

From her perspective, there may have been something broken about the 2008 debates. A remarkable eighteen million people voted for her during the primary season, and she and her supporters may feel that a process that derailed her then is not one to follow now. But, if Clinton has concluded that the lesson of 2008 is to avoid debates, she does not yet understand why she lost that night in Philadelphia. Polls still show that a perception of dishonesty is her greatest problem among voters. (“They don’t trust you. They might not like you,” Savannah Guthrie told her last week.) Often, that perception is the product of unfair partisan attacks, but, as in 2008, it is also sometimes the result of her decisions. Last Wednesday, Clinton announced that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that is a high priority for President Obama, even though she had praised the negotiations when she was Secretary of State (“the gold standard in trade agreements”) and referred to them proudly after she left office.

The thinking appears to be that she’ll score points with Sanders voters and with organized labor, while Biden, as a loyal member of the Administration, will have to support the T.P.P.—a classic triangulation. But it echoes Obama’s nafta comment from the Philadelphia debate, just as the questions about her White House records now sound like a prelude to the e-mail issue. Fair or not, she needs to push herself to a greater level of openness, and figure out how to have a good week based on a real-world confrontation, not a comedy-sketch encounter. Clinton stayed in the 2008 race for eight months after her loss in Philadelphia. By the end, Barack Obama was a palpably stronger candidate. So, for that matter, was Hillary Clinton. A few weeks after Philadelphia, she had picked herself up and gone to the next debate, in Las Vegas—the site of this week’s meeting—where she performed well. The last question, from a young woman, was a “fun” one: “Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?” Clinton laughed. “Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice,” she said. Then she added, “I want both.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Democrats, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons Print
Friday, 16 October 2015 11:58

Krugman writes: "While there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."

Paul Krugman. (photo: The New York Times)
Paul Krugman. (photo: The New York Times)


Democrats, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

16 October 15

 

illary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an argument about financial regulation during Tuesday’s debate — but it wasn’t about whether to crack down on banks. Instead, it was about whose plan was tougher. The contrast with Republicans like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who have pledged to reverse even the moderate financial reforms enacted in 2010, couldn’t be stronger.

For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.

But is Mrs. Clinton’s promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Who Really Lost the Debate? Print
Friday, 16 October 2015 10:34

Galindez writes: "Nobody did any damage to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, and for front-runners that's a win. When looking through their well-trained eyes, the pundits thought Hillary won. The focus groups and the polls say Bernie won. Both are important."

Democratic debate. (photo: CNN)
Democratic debate. (photo: CNN)


Who Really Lost the Debate?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

16 October 15

 

he three debate losers of Tuesday’s first Democratic debate were Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee. The problem for them is there was no game-changing moment, and they were all desperate for there to be one. Martin O’Malley performed well in the debate and may get a bump, but his support will probably come out of the guy who was not there, Joe Biden. Biden was also a loser on Tuesday night – if he wants to get in the race, nothing happened to provide him an opening.

So who won? I think a case can be made for both Hillary and Bernie. I also think the first debate will have little effect on the race at the top. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will stop her bleed and get some of that Biden vote back. So you think that means she won? Well, the problem for her is that nothing happened Tuesday night that will slow down Bernie Sanders.

So we head out of the first debate without much having changed. I may be wrong and maybe the spinners were right. I’m not just talking about the campaigns’ surrogates either. I watched some of CNN and MSNBC’s post debate analysis and while there was occasionally a Bernie surrogate, more often than not the panels were full of Clinton supporters telling us how she took the night.

No doubt the line of the night was when Bernie gifted Hillary and said we are tired of hearing about her “damned emails.” That’s Bernie – he says what he thinks even if it is not politically smart. While the statement will help Clinton, in the long run it may help Sanders too. I think he gained a lot of respect from people on the fence.

Bernie’s top adviser, Tad Devine, told RSN before the debate that Bernie would not be in attack mode and would be focusing on introducing himself to the American people. Devine said that while he would debate their differences on the issues, it just isn’t Bernie’s style to go negative. Devine expected that the Clinton policy changes on trade and the Keystone XL pipeline would be issues discussed, and they were.

One of the spinners in the spin room was former MSNBC host Ed Schultz, who was there to represent Bernie Sanders. Schultz was impressed that, despite several openings, Sanders took the high road. There were plenty of openings that Bernie could have used to tear Clinton apart, but he instead he stayed above the fray and focused on his agenda. Schultz thought Bernie was the clear winner and did the best job of presenting his vision for America. Schultz also pointed out that Bernie’s priorities are America’s priorities.

Ed Shultz: Berni Took the High Road

Talk show host Ed Schultz on why Bernie Sanders won the debate...

Posted by Reader Supported News on Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Moving Day

All five candidates are scheduled to participate at a dinner in Iowa next week. It would not surprise me if Lincoln Chaffee and/or Jim Webb suspended their campaigns before that date. I think O’Malley held his own and looked like he belonged on the stage, so he will be around for a while. I just don’t think that Webb or Chafee looked like they were ready for prime time. It’s time for them both to stop wasting money and spend some time at home with their families. Maybe Webb will make a good Secretary of Defense some day and I’m sure Chafee would be a great ambassador to somewhere, but they are wasting everyone’s time with their campaigns. Neither has demonstrated that they can win in four years or further down the road.

Two Winners?

Nobody did any damage to Hillary or Sanders, and for front-runners that’s a win. When looking through their well-trained eyes, the pundits thought Hillary won. The focus groups and the polls say Bernie won. Both are important. I think that Bernie’s win will mean more in the long run, while Hillary will benefit short-term from the “experts” saying she won. Obama’s campaign manager called it deja vu: “Clinton had a great night, but Sanders winning the focus group and online polls, but losing the pundits, is reminiscent of Obama in 07-08.”

One again we have a case of the pundits filtering their view with expectations based on past measurements of what works and what doesn’t. The voters this time around are not looking for the “perfect presidential candidate.” If they were, Bernie and Trump would be at 1% in the polls and O’Malley would be the one challenging Clinton at the top. Americans are not looking for the perfect package. They want someone to go in and shake things up. That’s why Bernie won the debate, and his momentum will continue to lead him forward.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 Next > End >>

Page 2297 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN