40 militant groups were operating in Pakistan: Imran Khan

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.

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.

Feb 26: Looking out over the world’s largest cricket stadium, the seats jammed with more than 100,000 people, India’s prime minister heaped praise on his American visitor.

“The leadership of President Trump has served humanity,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Monday, highlighting Trump’s fight against terrorism and calling his 36-hour visit to India a watershed in India-U.S. relations.

The crowds cheered. Trump beamed.

“The ties between India and the U.S. are no longer just any other partnership,” Modi said. “It is a far greater and closer relationship.”

India, it seems, loves Donald Trump. It seemed obvious from the thousands who turned out to wave as his motorcade snaked through the city of Ahmedabad, and from the tens of thousands who filled the city’s new stadium. It seemed obvious from the hug that Modi gave Trump after he descended from Air Force One, and from the hundreds of billboards proclaiming Trump’s visit.

But it’s not so simple.

Because while Trump is genuinely popular in India, his clamorous and carefully choreographed welcome was also about Asian geopolitics, China’s growing power and a masterful Indian politician who gave his American visitor exactly what he wanted.

Modi “is doing this not necessarily because he loves Trump,” said Tanvi Madan, the director of the India Project at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. “It’s very much about Trump as the leader of the U.S. and recognizing what it is that Trump himself likes.”

Trump likes crowds — big crowds — and the foot soldiers of India’s political parties have long known how to corral enough people to make any politician look popular. In a city like Ahmedabad, the capital of Modi’s home state of Gujarat and the center of his power base, it wouldn’t take much effort to fill a cavernous sports stadium. It was more surprising that a handful of seats remained empty, and that some in the stands had left even before Trump had finished his speech.

For India, good relations with the U.S. are deeply important: They signal that India is a serious global player, an issue that has long been important to New Delhi, and help cement an alliance that both nations see as a counterweight to China’s rise.

“For both countries, their biggest rival is China,” said John Echeverri-Gent, a professor at the University of Virginia whose research often focuses on India. “China is rapidly expanding its presence in the Indian Ocean, which India has long considered its backyard and its exclusive realm for security concerns.”

“It’s very clearly a major concern for both India and the United States,” he said.

Trump isn’t the first U.S. president that Modi has courted. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama was the first American chief guest at India’s Republic Day parade, a powerful symbolic gesture. Obama also got a Modi hug, and the media in both countries were soon writing about the two leaders’ “bromance.”

Trump is popular in India, even if some of that is simply because he’s the U.S. president. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll showed that 56% of Indians had confidence in Trump’s abilities in world affairs, one of only a handful of countries where he has that level of approval. But Obama was also popular: Before he left office, he had 58% approval in world affairs among Indians.

The Pew poll also indicated that Trump’s support was higher among supporters of Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.

That’s not surprising. Both men have fired up their nationalist bases with anti-Muslim rhetoric and government policies, from Trump’s travel bans to Modi’s crackdown in Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state.

And Trump’s Indian support is far from universal. Protests against his trip roiled cities from New Delhi to Hyderabad to the far northeastern city of Gauhati, although those demonstrations were mostly overshadowed by protests over a new Indian citizenship law that Modi backs.

Modi, who is widely popular in India, has faced weeks of protests over the law, which provides fast track naturalization for some foreign-born religious minorities — but not Muslims. While Trump talked about ties with India on Tuesday, Hindus and Muslims fought in violent clashes that left at least 10 people dead over two days.

In some ways, Modi and Trump are powerful echoes of each other.

They have overlapping political styles. Both are populists who see themselves as brash, rule-breaking outsiders who disdain their countries’ traditional elites. Both are seen by their critics as having authoritarian leanings. Both surround themselves with officials who rarely question their decisions.

But are they friends?

Trump says yes. “Really, we feel very strongly about each other,” he said at a New Delhi press briefing.

But many observers aren’t so sure.

“The question is how much of this is real chemistry, as opposed to what I’d call planned chemistry” orchestrated for diplomatic reasons, said Madan. “It’s so hard to know if you’re not in the room.”

Certainly, Modi understands America’s importance to India. While the two countries continue to bicker about trade issues, the prime minister organized a welcome that impressed even India’s news media, which have watched countless choreographed mass political rallies.

“There is no other country for whose leader India would hold such an event, and for which an Indian prime minister would lavish such rhetoric,” the Hindustan Times said in an editorial.

“The spectacle and the sound were worth a thousand agreements.”