Pakistan’s PM-in-waiting Imran Khan summoned by anti-graft body

Ramallah, Jul 2: Several world countries renew a call for Israel to halt contentious plans to annex parts of the occupied Palestinian territory after the regime delayed the implementation of the land garb bid in the face of a series of stumbling blocks, including internal rifts, global criticisms and the US’s failure to give Tel Aviv the go-ahead for the move.

Israel's ruling coalition, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had announced July 1 as the date to begin moving forward with the plan to impose Tel Aviv’s “sovereignty” over about a third of the West Bank, including settlements and the fertile Jordan Valley.

Without clarifications, the regime, however, failed to launch the scheme on the set date amid widening differences between Netanyahu and his coalition partner, minister of military affairs Benny Gantz.

Meanwhile, there are signs that the administration of US President Donald Trump, a staunch Israel supporter, has cooled its backing for the Israeli move amid what is believed to be troubles at home and fears that it might hurt the president’s chances of re-election besides international pressure.

On Wednesday, Netanyahu's office said in a statement that he would continue to discuss a possible West bank annexation with the US administration.

“In the coming days there will be additional discussions,” the statement said.

Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services Minister Ofir Akunis said the Israel would annex portions of the West Bank in July but only after the US president issued a declaration on the matter.

The annexation “will only happen after a declaration by Trump,” he told Israeli Army Radio.

Trump had already given Tel Aviv the green light for the land grab in his self-proclaimed “deal of the century,” which was unveiled in January with the aim of re-drawing the Middle East map.

However, the Trump administration has so far refrained from offering official support for the annexation sought by Netanyahu and his right-wing allies.

Unlike the US, several countries, including some of Israel’s allies, have expressed their opposition to Israel’s planned push to consolidate its occupation of Palestine.

Germany passes anti-annexation resolution

On Wednesday, the German parliament approved a resolution calling on the government to dissuade Israel from annexing the West Bank.

The motion, which was brought in the German legislature by the three parties in Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition, was approved without opposing votes. 

Berlin should use its “special relations and contacts [with Tel Aviv] to express to the Israeli government our concerns and our urgent demand to refrain from an annexation of parts of the West Bank and from the continued expansion of settlements, both of which contradict international law,” read the resolution.

Speaking at the parliamentary debate before the vote, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said, “We reject unilateral changes of borders, and we won’t recognize them.”

He also stressed that peace “cannot be achieved through unilateral steps but only through serious negotiations.”

France warns of consequences

Similarly, French Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian warned that any Israeli annexation would be a violation of international law and would bring about consequences.

“Annexation of Palestinian territories, whatever the perimeters, would seriously throw into question the parameters to resolve the conflict,” he told a parliamentary hearing. 

The top diplomat added, “An annexation decision could not be left without consequences and we are examining different options at a national level and also in coordination with our main European partners.”

Australia raises concerns

Additionally, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne voiced worries about the Israeli scheme, saying she had directly expressed this view to Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi.

“We are following with concern possible moves towards the unilateral annexation or change in status of territory on the West Bank,” she said in a statement.

“The focus needs to be on a return to direct and genuine negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for a durable and resilient peace arrangement, as soon as possible,” Payne added.

Vatican summons US, Israeli envoys

Meanwhile, the Vatican announced on Wednesday that it had summoned the American and Israeli ambassadors to protest Israel’s annexation bid.

In separate meetings, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin told Israeli Ambassador Oren David and US Ambassador Callista Gingrich of concerns “regarding possible unilateral actions that may further jeopardize the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the delicate situation in the Middle East,”

“As already declared … the Holy See reiterates that ... Israel and the State of Palestine have the right to exist and to live in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders,” the Vatican said in a statement.

“It thus appeals to the parties to do everything possible to reopen the process of direct negotiation, on the basis of the relevant Resolutions of the United Nations,” it added.

Amnesty urges firm action

Amnesty International called on the international community to take firm action against Israel’s annexation plan and its “law of the jungle” mentality.

“Members of the international community must enforce international law and restate that annexation of any part of the occupied West Bank is null and void,” said Saleh Higazi, deputy regional director for Amnesty Middle East and North Africa.

“They must also work to immediately stop the construction or expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and related infrastructure in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a first step towards removing Israeli civilians living in such settlements,” he added.

Palestinians mark ‘Day of Rage'

Also on Wednesday, Palestinians held “Day of Rage” rallies both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip against the Israeli expansionism.

In Gaza city, several thousand protesters gathered, some brandishing Palestinian national flags and placards condemning Trump.

Some demonstrators carried signs in English reading, “We Can’t Breathe Since 1948” and “Palestinian Lives Matter,” in reference to the American Black Lives Matter movement.

“The occupation has killed us and killed our children and deprived us of a good life. May God grant the Resistance victory,” a protester told the al-Aqsa TV.

“The resistance must be revived,” Gaza protester Rafeeq Inaiah told media persons. “Israel is afraid of force.”

Similar demonstrations also took place in the West Bank cities of Ramallah and Jericho.

Riyadh, May 22: The family of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi on Friday said that they forgave his killers. Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who had written columns critical of Saudi Arabia, was brutally killed in October 2018, allegedly at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

“In this blessed night of the blessed month [of Ramadan] we remember God’s saying: If a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah,” Jamal Khashoggi’s son Salah Khashoggi said in a tweet. “Therefore, we the sons of the Martyr Jamal Khashoggi announce that we pardon those who killed our father, seeking reward [from] God almighty.”

The legal outcome of this announcement is not yet clear. Earlier, Salah Khashoggi said he had “full confidence” in the judicial system, and that the accused were trying to exploit the case.

Jamal Khashoggi’s body was said to have been dismembered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and disposed of elsewhere, but his remains were never found.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.