mintpressnews--2020-02-24--Violent Protests As Trump Arrives In India, Negotiates $3B Arms Deal With Modi

President Trump arrived in India today for an official state visit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi .
He is hoping to close a series of huge arms and trade deals between the two nations , including $ 2.6 billion worth of Lockheed Martin aircraft , in the country ’ s effort to arm amid increasing tensions with its neighbor Pakistan .
Other potential purchases include missiles and air defense systems that will take the number to over $ 3 billion .
There could be far more purchases in the future as the country is the largest arms importer in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Soviet Union for its military hardware , something Trump hopes to change .
Accompanying him is First Lady Melania , daughter Ivanka , son-in-law Jared Kushner , and a host of senior administration officials including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross .
But as Air Force One touched down in Delhi , much of the city resembled a war zone .
Modi ’ s government has already banned protests and is effectively ruling the capital city under martial law due to ongoing nationwide resistance to its controversial Citizenship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Registration Council ( NRC ) laws .
Yet that did not stop thousands gathering to express their disapproval today .
As the crowds were met by police and supporters of Modi ’ s Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) chanting Hindu nationalist slogans , huge fights broke out , as hundreds of people threw rocks at each other .
In the fracas a Delhi police officer , Ratan Lal , was killed with a stone to the head .
A number of buildings were also set ablaze , including shops , houses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are describing as a “ rampage.
” One unidentified youth also began shooting into the crowds .
Newly re-elected Chief Minister of the city , Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party , called for calm and condemned the violence , stating that “ nobody should be allowed to orchestrate flagrations , ” appearing to side with authorities .
Sections of Delhi ’ s metro were shut down in response to the fighting .
The violence is a blow to Modi ’ s government , who hoped for a seamless P.R .
opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected official .
Nevertheless , the government had planned well and took Trump from Delhi , where Modi is relatively unpopular , to Gujurat , his home state , to address an enormous “ Namaste Trump ” rally at a brand new cricket stadium in Ahmedabad .
India is one of the few countries in the world where the 45th President of the United States has a high approval rating ; 56 percent of the country expressed confidence in Trump according to a recent Pew report .
Thousands of locals wore cardboard Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressed the crowd .
“ You have done a great honour to our country .
We will remember you forever , from this day onwards India will always hold a special place in our hearts , ” Trump said to strong applause .
While some of the speech fell flat , especially when he seemed to be praising India ’ s rival Pakistan , the applause increased to a roar when he began denouncing “ radical Islamic terrorism.
” The “ Namaste Trump ” rally is a mirror of the “ Howdy Modi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister in Houston , TX , in September , where 50,000 people came out to see the two leaders share the stage .
Modi sees himself as part of the same wave of populist right-wing leaders as Trump , Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel , Boris Johnson in the U.K. and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil .
Indian intellectual Vijay Prashad described his ideology as a perfect blend of Indian fascism and hard neoliberal economics , combining Hindu nationalism with a package of privatization of state resources .
Last week , a minister in Modi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mistake not expelling all of the country ’ s 138 million Muslims when it had the opportunity , and called for a cap on the number of children Muslims were allowed to have .
It has been Modi ’ s CAA and NRC laws that have proven most controversial , however .
The CAA makes it easier for people fleeing persecution from India ’ s Muslim-majority neighbors to gain citizenship .
But the policy explicitly prevents Muslims from taking advantage of the law ; something critics say breaks India ’ s tradition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new body overhauling Indian citizenship laws , requiring citizens to provide extensive documentation about themselves and their ancestors , something hundreds of millions will surely be unable to do .
Without this documentation , the government is able to strip citizenship away from anyone it chooses , rendering large populations illegal overnight .
The policy has already been implemented in the northeastern state of Assam , where 1.9 million people – most of them Muslims – have been declared stateless and without rights .
The BJP government is currently building a network of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S./Mexico border , to house the new population of “ illegal immigrants.
” While eliciting stiff resistance from many , the government ’ s Hindu supremacist policies are very popular with the country ’ s majority .
Modi retains high approval ratings and last year won a resounding election landslide .
And it is impossible to travel throughout the country without seeing orange and green BJP flags flying in every town and village .
Tomorrow Trump expects to close a deal that would see India buying over $ 3 billion in U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build our defense cooperation , the United States looks forward to providing India with some of the best and most feared military equipment on the planet , ” he said .
The president also hopes to sign an extensive general trade agreement ; “ We will be making very , very major , among the biggest ever made , trade deals .
We are in the early stages of discussion for an incredible trade agreement to reduce barriers of investment between the United States and India , ” he added .
Feature photo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India-Marxist ( SUCI-M ) shout slogans and burn effigy of U.S. President Donald Trump protesting against his India visit , in Kolkata , India , Feb. 24 , 2020 .
Bikas Das | AP Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

President Trump arrived in India today for an official state visit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He is hoping to close a series of huge arms and trade deals between the two nations, including $2.6 billion worth of Lockheed Martin aircraft, in the country’s effort to arm amid increasing tensions with its neighbor Pakistan. Other potential purchases include missiles and air defense systems that will take the number to over $3 billion. There could be far more purchases in the future as the country is the largest arms importer in the world but has traditionally relied on Russia and the Soviet Union for its military hardware, something Trump hopes to change.
Accompanying him is First Lady Melania, daughter Ivanka, son-in-law Jared Kushner, and a host of senior administration officials including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. But as Air Force One touched down in Delhi, much of the city resembled a war zone.
Modi’s government has already banned protests and is effectively ruling the capital city under martial law due to ongoing nationwide resistance to its controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Registration Council (NRC) laws. Yet that did not stop thousands gathering to express their disapproval today. As the crowds were met by police and supporters of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chanting Hindu nationalist slogans, huge fights broke out, as hundreds of people threw rocks at each other.
In the fracas a Delhi police officer, Ratan Lal, was killed with a stone to the head. A number of buildings were also set ablaze, including shops, houses and a gas station in what the police are describing as a “rampage.” One unidentified youth also began shooting into the crowds.
Newly re-elected Chief Minister of the city, Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party, called for calm and condemned the violence, stating that “nobody should be allowed to orchestrate flagrations,” appearing to side with authorities. Sections of Delhi’s metro were shut down in response to the fighting.
The violence is a blow to Modi’s government, who hoped for a seamless P.R. opportunity with the world’s most powerful elected official. Nevertheless, the government had planned well and took Trump from Delhi, where Modi is relatively unpopular, to Gujurat, his home state, to address an enormous “Namaste Trump” rally at a brand new cricket stadium in Ahmedabad.
India is one of the few countries in the world where the 45th President of the United States has a high approval rating; 56 percent of the country expressed confidence in Trump according to a recent Pew report. Thousands of locals wore cardboard Trump masks and welcoming hats as the president addressed the crowd.
“You have done a great honour to our country. We will remember you forever, from this day onwards India will always hold a special place in our hearts,” Trump said to strong applause. While some of the speech fell flat, especially when he seemed to be praising India’s rival Pakistan, the applause increased to a roar when he began denouncing “radical Islamic terrorism.”
Again Trump hits out at Radical Islamic terror. Loudest cheer in the stadium as US President Donald Trump asks Pakistan to act against terrorism. #NamasteyTrump #TrumpInIndia #IndiaWelcomesTrump pic.twitter.com/cgwiCFU4Lk — Narendra Modi fan (@narendramodi177) February 24, 2020
The “Namaste Trump” rally is a mirror of the “Howdy Modi” event held for the Indian Prime Minister in Houston, TX, in September, where 50,000 people came out to see the two leaders share the stage. Modi sees himself as part of the same wave of populist right-wing leaders as Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, Boris Johnson in the U.K. and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Indian intellectual Vijay Prashad described his ideology as a perfect blend of Indian fascism and hard neoliberal economics, combining Hindu nationalism with a package of privatization of state resources. Last week, a minister in Modi’s cabinet lamented that India made a mistake not expelling all of the country’s 138 million Muslims when it had the opportunity, and called for a cap on the number of children Muslims were allowed to have.
It has been Modi’s CAA and NRC laws that have proven most controversial, however. The CAA makes it easier for people fleeing persecution from India’s Muslim-majority neighbors to gain citizenship. But the policy explicitly prevents Muslims from taking advantage of the law; something critics say breaks India’s tradition of secularism.
The NRC is a new body overhauling Indian citizenship laws, requiring citizens to provide extensive documentation about themselves and their ancestors, something hundreds of millions will surely be unable to do. Without this documentation, the government is able to strip citizenship away from anyone it chooses, rendering large populations illegal overnight. The policy has already been implemented in the northeastern state of Assam, where 1.9 million people – most of them Muslims – have been declared stateless and without rights. The BJP government is currently building a network of detention centers, not unlike those on the U.S./Mexico border, to house the new population of “illegal immigrants.”
While eliciting stiff resistance from many, the government’s Hindu supremacist policies are very popular with the country’s majority. Modi retains high approval ratings and last year won a resounding election landslide. And it is impossible to travel throughout the country without seeing orange and green BJP flags flying in every town and village.
Tomorrow Trump expects to close a deal that would see India buying over $3 billion in U.S. weaponry. “As we continue to build our defense cooperation, the United States looks forward to providing India with some of the best and most feared military equipment on the planet,” he said. The president also hopes to sign an extensive general trade agreement; “We will be making very, very major, among the biggest ever made, trade deals. We are in the early stages of discussion for an incredible trade agreement to reduce barriers of investment between the United States and India,” he added.
Feature photo | Activists of Socialist Unity Center of India-Marxist (SUCI-M) shout slogans and burn effigy of U.S. President Donald Trump protesting against his India visit, in Kolkata, India, Feb. 24, 2020. Bikas Das | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-02-24--2021 Pentagon Budget Request Hints at Russia and China as the New Focus of US Empire

The Pentagon recently announced it fiscal year 2021 budget request .
At $ 705 billion , it indicates a shifting focus from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China .
To use the Pentagon ’ s exact wording , the U.S. is seeking to procure “ more advanced high-end weapon systems , which provide increases standoff , enhanced lethality and autonomous targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested environment.
” This is not to say that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end .
During 2019 , the U.S. dropped a whopping 7,423 munitions on Afghanistan , the highest number of bombs released in nearly a decade of its ongoing war and occupation there .
According to the Department of Defense , a two-pronged approach will see the U.S. ensuring that “ U.S .
worldwide munition inventories are sufficiently stocked ” for ongoing needs , In laymen ’ s terms , the budget will account for the ongoing wars in the Middle East .
Based on the history of U.S. military expeditions , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue operations in the Middle East and North Africa and avoid war with more powerful nations such as Russia and China .
As Professor Richard Jackson , director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in New Zealand told MintPress via email , “ the history of the U.S. involves it attacking small nations with very limited capabilities in extremely asymmetric conflicts.
” However , all things considered , there are still a number of indications that the U.S. has aggressively changed tack in its approach to maintaining its imperialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the U.S. national security strategy changed from focusing on the war on terror to a great power conflict with Russia and China according to American lawyer and political activist Kevin Zeese .
“ The Nuclear Posture Review called for upgrading nuclear weapons so they will be useable in war , ” Zeese explained to MintPress .
“ Both these policies began under Obama with the Asian Pivot and the trillion-dollar , ten year plan to upgrade nuclear weapons.
” “ These policies along with the expansion of NATO along the Russian border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all preparation for military conflict with Russia and China .
The end of weapons agreements makes all of this more risky…This is not a war the US should fight as Hawaii and the lower 48 will be at risk .
This is a disastrous policy for the US and world , ” Zeese added .
The big winners of such a budget request , regardless of the strategy envisioned , is a military industrial complex that continues to go strength to strength regardless of who is seated in the Oval Office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to procure weapons from some of the most lucrative defense contractors in the world .
For example , there is already speculation that the U.S. will seek to acquire Lockheed Martin ’ s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet-launched Long-Range Anti-Surface Missile ; as well as a desire to continuously upgrade Raytheon ’ s Tomahawk missile into a “ Maritime Strike Tomahawk.
” When it comes to the procurement of U.S. military technology , Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are two notably consistent big winners .
Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in arms sales in 2017 alone .
In 2018 , it is believed to have generated even more revenue , with a single contract being worth $ 22.7 billion .
Raytheon is not much further behind , generating $ 25.3 billion in revenue in 2017 , 94 percent of which was due to arms sales and defense contracts .
Its revenue also significantly increased over the last few years .
It would appear that the U.S. will continue to award these two defense contractors with billions of dollars in the years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All that being said , we may still never know the true cost to the U.S. taxpayer of lining the pockets of the military industrial complex ’ s wealthy elite .
Speaker , anti-war activist and author of “ War is A lie , ” David Swanson outlined to MintPress , “ a government agency whose reports on what it spends are full of fraud ( don ’ t take my word for it ) and which has never met the legal requirement of an audit , and whose enterprise is openly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ euphemistic one of ‘ defense , ’ should not get a dime.
” “ Instead , ” Swanson stated , “ the Pentagon , plus other military agencies and expenses , are getting $ 1.25 trillion a year while less than 3 percent of that could end starvation on earth and when anyone proposes spending money on humanity or the earth the demand rings out How-Are-You-Going-To-Pay-For-It ?
While it remains a topic rarely discussed by the media , U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper publicly indicated that the Indo-Pacific region , in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ priority theater.
” The reasons for this surge in priority are simple : China ’ s expanding influence in this arena poses a major threat to the economic and imperialist ambitions of the United States ; as well as a threat to its close allies in the region such as Australia .
Notably , in August last year , Esper made a call to expand base locations in the Pacific region , already stating that the U.S. had its eye on a number of key locations throughout the Indo-Pacific .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be looking to invest “ more time and resources into certain regions we haven ’ t been to in the past.
” At the time , an Australian think-tank also warned that the U.S. military is overstretched in the region and risks suffering a fait accompli loss to China .
The report says that Beijing ’ s “ growing arsenal of accurate long-range missiles poses a major threat to almost all American , allied and partner bases , airstrips , ports and military installations in the Western Pacific.
” Of course , Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will “ not stand idly by ” and will take countermeasures if the U.S. intends to deploy intermediate-range ground-based missiles in the Asia-Pacific region .
While the U.S. cries foul and paints itself as a victim of Beijing ’ s expanding foreign policy , the truth is that Washington ’ s increasingly hostile approach to Russia and China , including its decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , is what is leading the world down a dangerous road which involves a potential nuclear holocaust .
In the meantime , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which the U.S. will likely try to confront its perceived angst over China ’ s naval and missile capabilities , particularly where the Indo-Pacific or the South China Sea is concerned .
Noticeably , the budget request also includes an allowance for a planned buying spree of “ ship-killing missiles ” over the next five years , which has arisen solely as a result of China ’ s expanding naval force .
It was also recently announced that Esper is seeking to expand the U.S. navy with a 355-ship fleet by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naval fleet comprises approximately 335 surface ships and could expand to as many as 420 vessels in the next 15 years .
Although in the current 2021 budget request , shipbuilding has taken one of the larger cuts , with $ 4.1 billion less budgeted than the year prior .
The navy is also considering the development of unmanned vessels which would more or less exist for the sole purpose of “ trading missiles with China , ” according to Defense News .
It is a notable aspect of the Pentagon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relation to the overseas contingency operations ( OCO ) for Afghanistan are at its lowest amount in close to a decade .
The current request “ assumes a drawdown of forces , ” though this is an idea the U.S. government has flirted with for over a decade with little to show for it .
While anti-war activists may not see this as being necessarily a development to deplore , one can ’ t help but notice that the U.S. is looking to invest its military budget in other areas .
In totality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46 billion for nuclear programs .
In Esper ’ s view , nuclear weapons are a strategic deterrent and a top priority for the Pentagon , even in light of the catastrophic consequences of their use .
As such , some critics of American foreign policy find the overall trajectory the U.0.S government is leading the world concerning at best .
“ [ This shift ] is consistent with the Mattis Nuclear Posture Review and other official statements since , which call for a shift of focus to confronting Russia and China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained to MintPress .
“ It ’ s also consistent with military policies , such as the NATO military exercises in Eastern Europe and in the Arctic , aimed at Russia , and with US efforts to prevent China ’ s technological development.
” Chomsky added .
“ And more generally , the Trump administration commitment to dismantle what remains of the arms control regime .
Last August , it withdrew from the INF treaty and immediately tested missiles that violate it .
It seems that the Open Skies Treaty and New Start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are among the reasons , I presume , why the Doomsday Clock was recently moved to 100 seconds to midnight , the closest it has ever been to termination.
” US Military Expenditure in the Global Context Despite the genuine threats that an ever-expanding U.S. military budget poses to the rest of the world , particularly as it seeks to fund a confrontation with nuclear powers such as Russia and China , some media commentators insist the budget is too low .
As it stands , there is not a single country whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
According to the recent findings of Military Balance 2020 , an annual assessment from the International Institute for Strategic Studies ( IISS ) , the U.S. spent $ 638 billion in 2019 on its military while China lagged behind at second place with $ 185 billion .
Roughly 60 percent of global military spending comes from just five countries : the U.S. , China , Saudi Arabia , India , and France .
Three of those countries are crucial American allies , and only one can be classified as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key U.S. ally , is not far behind the top five , spending roughly $ 50 billion .
Russia has actually cut its military spending in recent years .
The idea that the U.S , under its current budget , would struggle to contain nations like North Korea or Iran is arguably nonsensical .
Just the increase in the U.S. budget request alone from year to year is larger than Iran ’ s total annual military spending .
The United States maintains a network of some 1,000 military bases worldwide .
Only 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases in other countries ( 70 bases in total ) , including the UK , France , Turkey , Russia , and China .
The total cost to the U.S. government to house troops and maintain bases , including in war zones , costs well over $ 100 billion .
Shortfalls in the U.S. military budget , if they do exist , do not threaten the U.S. military or even the U.S population as a whole ; but they might threaten the existence of a rapidly declining U.S. empire .
The military budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be viewed in terms of military prowess , but in the context of the empire which the U.S. government continues to run at the expense of much of the global population and environment .
Feature photo | U.S. Marines conduct a training exercise in Giskås , Norway , Feb. 10 , 2020 , as part of exercises focusing on regional engagements throughout Europe .
Nathaniel Q. Hamilton | DVIDS Darius Shahtahmasebi is a New Zealand-based legal and political analyst who focuses on US foreign policy in the Middle East , Asia and Pacific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawyer in two international jurisdictions .

The Pentagon recently announced it fiscal year 2021 budget request. At $705 billion, it indicates a shifting focus from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China.
To use the Pentagon’s exact wording, the U.S. is seeking to procure “more advanced high-end weapon systems, which provide increases standoff, enhanced lethality and autonomous targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested environment.”
This is not to say that the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end. During 2019, the U.S. dropped a whopping 7,423 munitions on Afghanistan, the highest number of bombs released in nearly a decade of its ongoing war and occupation there.
According to the Department of Defense, a two-pronged approach will see the U.S. ensuring that “U.S. worldwide munition inventories are sufficiently stocked” for ongoing needs, In laymen’s terms, the budget will account for the ongoing wars in the Middle East.
Based on the history of U.S. military expeditions, it’s safe to conclude that the U.S. will continue operations in the Middle East and North Africa and avoid war with more powerful nations such as Russia and China. As Professor Richard Jackson, director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in New Zealand told MintPress via email, “the history of the U.S. involves it attacking small nations with very limited capabilities in extremely asymmetric conflicts.”
However, all things considered, there are still a number of indications that the U.S. has aggressively changed tack in its approach to maintaining its imperialist ambitions.
For example, last year, the U.S. national security strategy changed from focusing on the war on terror to a great power conflict with Russia and China according to American lawyer and political activist Kevin Zeese.
“The Nuclear Posture Review called for upgrading nuclear weapons so they will be useable in war,” Zeese explained to MintPress. “Both these policies began under Obama with the Asian Pivot and the trillion-dollar, ten year plan to upgrade nuclear weapons.”
“These policies along with the expansion of NATO along the Russian border and numerous military agreements with Asian nations are all preparation for military conflict with Russia and China. The end of weapons agreements makes all of this more risky…This is not a war the US should fight as Hawaii and the lower 48 will be at risk. This is a disastrous policy for the US and world,” Zeese added.
The big winners of such a budget request, regardless of the strategy envisioned, is a military industrial complex that continues to go strength to strength regardless of who is seated in the Oval Office. Unsurprisingly, the budget would likely be used to procure weapons from some of the most lucrative defense contractors in the world. For example, there is already speculation that the U.S. will seek to acquire Lockheed Martin’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet-launched Long-Range Anti-Surface Missile; as well as a desire to continuously upgrade Raytheon’s Tomahawk missile into a “Maritime Strike Tomahawk.”
When it comes to the procurement of U.S. military technology, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are two notably consistent big winners. Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the world, generating up to $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 alone. In 2018, it is believed to have generated even more revenue, with a single contract being worth $22.7 billion.
Raytheon is not much further behind, generating $25.3 billion in revenue in 2017, 94 percent of which was due to arms sales and defense contracts. Its revenue also significantly increased over the last few years. It would appear that the U.S. will continue to award these two defense contractors with billions of dollars in the years to come based on the current projections.
All that being said, we may still never know the true cost to the U.S. taxpayer of lining the pockets of the military industrial complex’s wealthy elite. Speaker, anti-war activist and author of “War is A lie,” David Swanson outlined to MintPress, “a government agency whose reports on what it spends are full of fraud (don’t take my word for it) and which has never met the legal requirement of an audit, and whose enterprise is openly the criminal one of aggression rather than the euphemistic one of ‘defense,’ should not get a dime.”
“Instead,” Swanson stated, “the Pentagon, plus other military agencies and expenses, are getting $1.25 trillion a year while less than 3 percent of that could end starvation on earth and when anyone proposes spending money on humanity or the earth the demand rings out How-Are-You-Going-To-Pay-For-It?
We all know the price we’re going to pay for not making these investments. Should the U.S. military ever actually end any war, I’ll cheer as loudly as anyone, but focusing plans on nuclear wars and wars with nuclear nations should not be good news to anyone who cares about life (a group in which I do not include anyone who has promoted Russiagate for the past four years, leading to the Doomsday Clock arriving closer to midnight than ever before). Which is more absurd, imagining that — contrary to all past experience — preparing for more wars will bring us fewer wars, or allowing Congress Members who fund those war preparations and expand them even beyond the Pentagon’s wish list to call themselves ‘The Resistance’?”
The Pentagon’s new “priority theater”
While it remains a topic rarely discussed by the media, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper publicly indicated that the Indo-Pacific region, in recent times, has become the U.S. military’s “priority theater.” The reasons for this surge in priority are simple: China’s expanding influence in this arena poses a major threat to the economic and imperialist ambitions of the United States; as well as a threat to its close allies in the region such as Australia.
Notably, in August last year, Esper made a call to expand base locations in the Pacific region, already stating that the U.S. had its eye on a number of key locations throughout the Indo-Pacific. Esper also stated that the U.S. would be looking to invest “more time and resources into certain regions we haven’t been to in the past.”
At the time, an Australian think-tank also warned that the U.S. military is overstretched in the region and risks suffering a fait accompli loss to China. The report says that Beijing’s “growing arsenal of accurate long-range missiles poses a major threat to almost all American, allied and partner bases, airstrips, ports and military installations in the Western Pacific.”
Of course, Chinese officials have warned the U.S. that Beijing will “not stand idly by” and will take countermeasures if the U.S. intends to deploy intermediate-range ground-based missiles in the Asia-Pacific region. While the U.S. cries foul and paints itself as a victim of Beijing’s expanding foreign policy, the truth is that Washington’s increasingly hostile approach to Russia and China, including its decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, is what is leading the world down a dangerous road which involves a potential nuclear holocaust.
In the meantime, the budget request may provide for other mechanisms in which the U.S. will likely try to confront its perceived angst over China’s naval and missile capabilities, particularly where the Indo-Pacific or the South China Sea is concerned. Noticeably, the budget request also includes an allowance for a planned buying spree of “ship-killing missiles” over the next five years, which has arisen solely as a result of China’s expanding naval force. It was also recently announced that Esper is seeking to expand the U.S. navy with a 355-ship fleet by the year 2030.
China’s current naval fleet comprises approximately 335 surface ships and could expand to as many as 420 vessels in the next 15 years.
Although in the current 2021 budget request, shipbuilding has taken one of the larger cuts, with $4.1 billion less budgeted than the year prior. The navy is also considering the development of unmanned vessels which would more or less exist for the sole purpose of “trading missiles with China,” according to Defense News.
Confronting Russia and China
It is a notable aspect of the Pentagon’s budget request that the overall figures in relation to the overseas contingency operations (OCO) for Afghanistan are at its lowest amount in close to a decade. The current request “assumes a drawdown of forces,” though this is an idea the U.S. government has flirted with for over a decade with little to show for it.
While anti-war activists may not see this as being necessarily a development to deplore, one can’t help but notice that the U.S. is looking to invest its military budget in other areas. In totality, the Trump administration is seeking $46 billion for nuclear programs. In Esper’s view, nuclear weapons are a strategic deterrent and a top priority for the Pentagon, even in light of the catastrophic consequences of their use.
As such, some critics of American foreign policy find the overall trajectory the U.0.S government is leading the world concerning at best.
“[This shift] is consistent with the Mattis Nuclear Posture Review and other official statements since, which call for a shift of focus to confronting Russia and China,” Professor Noam Chomsky and public intellectual explained to MintPress.
“It’s also consistent with military policies, such as the NATO military exercises in Eastern Europe and in the Arctic, aimed at Russia, and with US efforts to prevent China’s technological development.” Chomsky added.
“And more generally, the Trump administration commitment to dismantle what remains of the arms control regime. Last August, it withdrew from the INF treaty and immediately tested missiles that violate it. It seems that the Open Skies Treaty and New Start are on the chopping block. These are among the reasons, I presume, why the Doomsday Clock was recently moved to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to termination.”
US Military Expenditure in the Global Context
Despite the genuine threats that an ever-expanding U.S. military budget poses to the rest of the world, particularly as it seeks to fund a confrontation with nuclear powers such as Russia and China, some media commentators insist the budget is too low.
As it stands, there is not a single country whose military expenditure compares to that of the United States. According to the recent findings of Military Balance 2020, an annual assessment from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the U.S. spent $638 billion in 2019 on its military while China lagged behind at second place with $185 billion.
Roughly 60 percent of global military spending comes from just five countries: the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, India, and France. Three of those countries are crucial American allies, and only one can be classified as an adversary. The United Kingdom, another key U.S. ally, is not far behind the top five, spending roughly $50 billion. Russia has actually cut its military spending in recent years.
The idea that the U.S, under its current budget, would struggle to contain nations like North Korea or Iran is arguably nonsensical. Just the increase in the U.S. budget request alone from year to year is larger than Iran’s total annual military spending.
The United States maintains a network of some 1,000 military bases worldwide. Only 11 other nations in the world hold foreign bases in other countries (70 bases in total), including the UK, France, Turkey, Russia, and China. The total cost to the U.S. government to house troops and maintain bases, including in war zones, costs well over $100 billion.
Shortfalls in the U.S. military budget, if they do exist, do not threaten the U.S. military or even the U.S population as a whole; but they might threaten the existence of a rapidly declining U.S. empire. The military budget, in general, shouldn’t be viewed in terms of military prowess, but in the context of the empire which the U.S. government continues to run at the expense of much of the global population and environment.
Feature photo | U.S. Marines conduct a training exercise in Giskås, Norway, Feb. 10, 2020, as part of exercises focusing on regional engagements throughout Europe. Nathaniel Q. Hamilton | DVIDS
Darius Shahtahmasebi is a New Zealand-based legal and political analyst who focuses on US foreign policy in the Middle East, Asia and Pacific region. He is fully qualified as a lawyer in two international jurisdictions.


mintpressnews--2020-02-28--Judge Orders Assange Held in Glass Box During Extradition Trial

Shadowproof — Defendants in the United States sit with their counsel .
They are not held in a “ secure dock ” in a manner that physically removes them from proceedings .
Yet , in the United Kingdom , where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to the U.S. , a magistrate court judge decided he must remain isolated in a glass box at the back of the courtroom .
The first proceedings in Assange ’ s extradition hearing concluded on Thursday at the Woolwich courthouse in London , which is adjacent to Her Majesty ’ s Prison Belmarsh where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 17 counts of violating the U.S .
Espionage Act , and a computer crime offense , which contains language from the Espionage Act .
The defense requested that Judge Vanessa Baraitser allow Assange to sit with his attorneys in the “ well ” of the courtroom .
“ [ We ’ ve ] now been in court for four days , and Mr. Assange has dealt with those four days stoically , ” defense attorney Mark Summers declared .
Yet , there are “ cumulative problems ” for Assange that “ arise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised the issue of Assange ’ s health and noted that the glass box impinges on and prevents “ proper communication in a confidential way with legal representatives.
” The legal team can not see when Assange wants to communicate with them .
Due to the layout of the court , Assange ’ s ability to speak confidentially through “ glass slats is difficult.
” Conversations must happen in “ proximity of security guards ” [ and ] “ representatives of the U.S. government.
” What is said may be overheard by microphones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ espionage operation that was conducted by a Spanish security company that targeted him on behalf of the CIA while he was in the Ecuador embassy .
Microphones were planted to eavesdrop on attorney-client privileged communications .
Summers encouraged the judge to permit Assange to sit with his legal team and enjoy “ free , uninterrupted unoverheard conversations with his lawyers ” about evidence that will be presented during an upcoming three-week extradition proceeding in May .
The judge flatly rejected this request .
She maintained Assange has had “ no difficulty at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit on the legal team ” in the back row of the well .
He communicated with them via notes during the week .
Attempts were made to deal with “ poor acoustics , ” according to Baraitser , including the noise from demonstrators outside the courthouse .
He was told to raise his hand so proceedings could be repeated .
Headphones were provided on the last day , yet he “ declined ” to say when he could not hear and simply chose not to wear them because the ambient sound was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has some “ psychiatric vulnerability ” that would require a change in security procedure .
She was willing to alter restrictions on passing notes , loosen limits on legal visits outside the courtroom , and address how to better protect confidential conversations so he can have “ proper adequate access.
” But she would not take the meaningful step of protecting his right to a fair trial by allowing him to be outside the glass box while in court .
The judge even proposed that the defense request more “ frequent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written communications ” during the next extradition hearing .
She would rather a three-week hearing turn into a six-week hearing than risk Assange being “ unable to participate.
” But this suggestion—that the court expend twice the resources and take double the time instead of upholding Assange ’ s rights—was understandably opposed by the defense .
It would jeopardize the ability of the defense to present their evidence “ coherently and in an uninterrupted manner.
” The episode was made even more absurd by the prosecutor , James Lewis , who remained neutral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers .
He mentioned to the judge that there were precedents where the accused had joined their legal team in the “ well , ” and the judge briefly argued with the prosecutor .
“ Mr .
Assange is having significant difficulties in participating in these proceedings .
He ’ s unable to pass notes in a confidential and secure way .
He ’ s unable to seek clarification from his legal team and give instructions during the course of the proceedings , ” stated Jen Robinson , one of Assange ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused his ability to leave the dock to be able to participate properly .
This is obviously raising serious concerns about his fair trial rights and his ability to properly participate and defend himself in these proceedings.
” Rebecca Vincent , the U.K. Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders , indicated the organization was “ concerned by the magistrate ’ s decision to reject Mr. Assange ’ s request to leave the secure dock that he ’ s being held in at the back of this courtroom and to sit with his lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He ’ s been unable to follow proceedings properly , unable to confer with his lawyers , and is looking pretty unwell .
Also , the fact that he is being held in essentially a glass cage and treated like a violent criminal is completely inappropriate [ given ] the nature of the charges.
” No Requirement For The Dock , Simply Recommended Policy JUSTICE describes itself as an “ all-party law reform and human rights organization working to strengthen the justice system ” in the U.K .
In a 2015 report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of “ docks ” in the country ’ s courts , which were rarely used before the 1980s .
“ The reason for the modern widespread use of the dock is to prevent escape or violence .
Therefore , what started out as a mechanism of delineating places in the courtroom has , in our view , become a disproportionate solution to meeting this perceived threat.
” According to JUSTICE ’ s report , “ Research to date suggests that there is a paucity of rigorous data demonstrating that the threat of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or attempts to escape the dock are regular problems .
Likewise , incidents of public harm towards defendants are rarely known.
” “ While there may have been localized security concerns that led to the development of secure docks , it is not easy to discern an ongoing justification for their blanket application .
There continues to be no statutory requirement or judicial authority demanding the use of docks in the courts in England and Wales.
” “ It is simply recommended policy that docks be available in the courtroom , ” JUSTICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , entirely within the discretion of the courts , upon application by the defendant , or upon their own volition to dispense with the dock in any trial and allow the defendant to sit with their legal representatives.
” JUSTICE contended the “ vast majority of defendants are put in the dock whether charged with minor or serious offenses.
” Another report from the Journal of Law and Society in 2017 noted the European Court of Human Rights has developed jurisprudence that deals with “ how security docks violate Article 3 ( a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 ( the right to a fair trial ) .
” “ The court has ruled that an inability to talk to one ’ s lawyer ‘ without being separated by a glass partition ’ constitutes a violation of the ‘ right to defense , ’ a defendant in a ‘ glass fronted dock ’ is denied a fair trial if he can not hear all the evidence against him , and placing an accused person in a ‘ cage ’ in the courtroom breaches Article 3 of the European Charter of Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American , European and Australian cases have relied on a principle that “ visible signs of confinement in the courtroom could influence decision-makers.
” Baraitser is likely aware of the struggles defendants have in the glass boxes of English courtrooms .
The JUSTICE report mentioned , “ It is often the judge who notices that the defendant wants to communicate with their lawyers , and must draw attention to it , ” which is exactly what happened several times in court .
A half-century ago , the United States completely did away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison population in the world , yet defendants , even terrorism suspects , sit with their attorneys during trial .
As the JUSTICE report put it , “ The rejection of the dock is embedded in constitutional guarantees , indicative of the struggle against colonial powers , and due process abuses.
” The United States government may exhibit flagrant contempt for press freedom in pursuing a case against Assange , but if Assange is brought to the U.S. , he will not be secluded in a glass box during the trial .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow him across the pond .
Feature photo | Supporters of Julian Assange hold placards as they protest on the second day of a week of opening arguments in the extradition trail of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange outside Belmarsh Magistrates ’ Court in south east London , Feb. 25 , 2020 .
Matt Dunham | AP Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press .
He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast , “ Unauthorized Disclosure.
“

Shadowproof — Defendants in the United States sit with their counsel. They are not held in a “secure dock” in a manner that physically removes them from proceedings.
Yet, in the United Kingdom, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces extradition to the U.S., a magistrate court judge decided he must remain isolated in a glass box at the back of the courtroom.
The first proceedings in Assange’s extradition hearing concluded on Thursday at the Woolwich courthouse in London, which is adjacent to Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh where Assange is detained.
Assange is charged with 17 counts of violating the U.S. Espionage Act, and a computer crime offense, which contains language from the Espionage Act.
The defense requested that Judge Vanessa Baraitser allow Assange to sit with his attorneys in the “well” of the courtroom.
“[We’ve] now been in court for four days, and Mr. Assange has dealt with those four days stoically,” defense attorney Mark Summers declared. Yet, there are “cumulative problems” for Assange that “arise from a number of factors.”
Summers raised the issue of Assange’s health and noted that the glass box impinges on and prevents “proper communication in a confidential way with legal representatives.” The legal team cannot see when Assange wants to communicate with them.
Due to the layout of the court, Assange’s ability to speak confidentially through “glass slats is difficult.” Conversations must happen in “proximity of security guards” [and] “representatives of the U.S. government.”
What is said may be overheard by microphones, a concern for Assange given the espionage operation that was conducted by a Spanish security company that targeted him on behalf of the CIA while he was in the Ecuador embassy. Microphones were planted to eavesdrop on attorney-client privileged communications.
Summers encouraged the judge to permit Assange to sit with his legal team and enjoy “free, uninterrupted unoverheard conversations with his lawyers” about evidence that will be presented during an upcoming three-week extradition proceeding in May.
The judge flatly rejected this request. She maintained Assange has had “no difficulty at all in attracting the attention of those who sit on the legal team” in the back row of the well. He communicated with them via notes during the week.
Attempts were made to deal with “poor acoustics,” according to Baraitser, including the noise from demonstrators outside the courthouse. He was told to raise his hand so proceedings could be repeated. Headphones were provided on the last day, yet he “declined” to say when he could not hear and simply chose not to wear them because the ambient sound was too bothersome.
‘Serious Concerns About His Fair Trial Rights’
Baraitser dismissed the notion that he has some “psychiatric vulnerability” that would require a change in security procedure. She was willing to alter restrictions on passing notes, loosen limits on legal visits outside the courtroom, and address how to better protect confidential conversations so he can have “proper adequate access.” But she would not take the meaningful step of protecting his right to a fair trial by allowing him to be outside the glass box while in court.
The judge even proposed that the defense request more “frequent breaks” and ramp up their “written communications” during the next extradition hearing. She would rather a three-week hearing turn into a six-week hearing than risk Assange being “unable to participate.”
But this suggestion—that the court expend twice the resources and take double the time instead of upholding Assange’s rights—was understandably opposed by the defense. It would jeopardize the ability of the defense to present their evidence “coherently and in an uninterrupted manner.”
The episode was made even more absurd by the prosecutor, James Lewis, who remained neutral and unopposed to Assange sitting with his lawyers. He mentioned to the judge that there were precedents where the accused had joined their legal team in the “well,” and the judge briefly argued with the prosecutor.
“Mr. Assange is having significant difficulties in participating in these proceedings. He’s unable to pass notes in a confidential and secure way. He’s unable to seek clarification from his legal team and give instructions during the course of the proceedings,” stated Jen Robinson, one of Assange’s attorneys. “And the judge has refused his ability to leave the dock to be able to participate properly. This is obviously raising serious concerns about his fair trial rights and his ability to properly participate and defend himself in these proceedings.”
Rebecca Vincent, the U.K. Bureau Director for Reporters Without Borders, indicated the organization was “concerned by the magistrate’s decision to reject Mr. Assange’s request to leave the secure dock that he’s being held in at the back of this courtroom and to sit with his lawyers in the well of the court.”
“He’s been unable to follow proceedings properly, unable to confer with his lawyers, and is looking pretty unwell. Also, the fact that he is being held in essentially a glass cage and treated like a violent criminal is completely inappropriate [given] the nature of the charges.”
No Requirement For The Dock, Simply Recommended Policy
JUSTICE describes itself as an “all-party law reform and human rights organization working to strengthen the justice system” in the U.K. In a 2015 report [PDF], they examined the use of “docks” in the country’s courts, which were rarely used before the 1980s.
“The reason for the modern widespread use of the dock is to prevent escape or violence. Therefore, what started out as a mechanism of delineating places in the courtroom has, in our view, become a disproportionate solution to meeting this perceived threat.”
According to JUSTICE’s report, “Research to date suggests that there is a paucity of rigorous data demonstrating that the threat of violence on the part of the defendant or attempts to escape the dock are regular problems. Likewise, incidents of public harm towards defendants are rarely known.”
“While there may have been localized security concerns that led to the development of secure docks, it is not easy to discern an ongoing justification for their blanket application. There continues to be no statutory requirement or judicial authority demanding the use of docks in the courts in England and Wales.”
“It is simply recommended policy that docks be available in the courtroom,” JUSTICE added. “It is, therefore, entirely within the discretion of the courts, upon application by the defendant, or upon their own volition to dispense with the dock in any trial and allow the defendant to sit with their legal representatives.”
JUSTICE contended the “vast majority of defendants are put in the dock whether charged with minor or serious offenses.”
Another report from the Journal of Law and Society in 2017 noted the European Court of Human Rights has developed jurisprudence that deals with “how security docks violate Article 3 (a prohibition on degrading treatment) and Article 6 (the right to a fair trial).”
“The court has ruled that an inability to talk to one’s lawyer ‘without being separated by a glass partition’ constitutes a violation of the ‘right to defense,’ a defendant in a ‘glass fronted dock’ is denied a fair trial if he cannot hear all the evidence against him, and placing an accused person in a ‘cage’ in the courtroom breaches Article 3 of the European Charter of Human Rights,” the report added.
American, European and Australian cases have relied on a principle that “visible signs of confinement in the courtroom could influence decision-makers.”
Baraitser is likely aware of the struggles defendants have in the glass boxes of English courtrooms. The JUSTICE report mentioned, “It is often the judge who notices that the defendant wants to communicate with their lawyers, and must draw attention to it,” which is exactly what happened several times in court.
A half-century ago, the United States completely did away with the dock. It has the largest prison population in the world, yet defendants, even terrorism suspects, sit with their attorneys during trial.
As the JUSTICE report put it, “The rejection of the dock is embedded in constitutional guarantees, indicative of the struggle against colonial powers, and due process abuses.”
The United States government may exhibit flagrant contempt for press freedom in pursuing a case against Assange, but if Assange is brought to the U.S., he will not be secluded in a glass box during the trial. That deplorable practice, fortunately, will not follow him across the pond.
Feature photo | Supporters of Julian Assange hold placards as they protest on the second day of a week of opening arguments in the extradition trail of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange outside Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in south east London, Feb. 25, 2020. Matt Dunham | AP
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, “Unauthorized Disclosure.“


mintpressnews--2020-02-27--Houthis Release Video Showing US Destruction of Yemen’s Air Defenses Before Saudi-led War Began

Yemen ’ s Houthis have accused the United States of intentionally destroying the country ’ s air defense systems during the reign of former Yemeni president the late Ali Abdullah Saleh in preparation for Saudi Arabia ’ s military campaign against the country that was launched in 2015 .
A high-ranking Houthi official has provided video to MinPress and other media that allegedly shows U.S. officials working with military members from the former government of Abdullah Saleh to destroy stockpiles of handheld anti-aircraft systems .
The video seems to support claims by Houthi officials that a U.S. delegation oversaw the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement ( PM/WRA ) with the Department of State ’ s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs , Dennis F. Hadrick , liaison officer Santo Polizzi , technical expert Niels Talbot and Deputy Director of Programs in the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism at the U.S. Department of State , Laurie Freeman .
The delegation , along with a military attaché at the U.S. embassy in Sana ’ a , held meetings with Yemeni Ministry of Defense officials at the time to pressure them to hand over hand-held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed under a classified plan ostensibly created to reduce the threat of black market MANPADS ( Man-portable air-defense systems ) across the Middle East .
Cables leaked by Wikileaks show that the CIA was concerned about the proliferation MANPADS from Yemen and claimed that they had shown up in battlefields across the Middle East and Africa , they also confirm that starting in 2004 , the United States was involved in a concerted effort to reduce Yemen ’ s stockpile of hand-held anti-aircraft missiles and refused an offer to allow for their destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The U.S. delegation allegedly began the process of assessing and creating an inventory of Yemen ’ s anti-aircraft capabilities in August 2004 after negotiations with Yemen ’ s National Security Agency reached while former president Ali Abdullah Saleh was in power ended with an agreement to destroy the defense system in batches in exchange for tens of millions of dollars .
The air defense missiles were destroyed by Runco , a U.S.-based firm that specializes in dealing with explosives .
Runco was contracted with the U.S. State Department to oversee the destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 103 missile batteries .
The first batch to be destroyed included 1,078 Russian-made 9K32 Strela type surface to air missiles among several dozens of surface to air missiles of other varieties .
A total of 1,161 missiles were destroyed on February 28 , 2005 , alone under the direct supervision of the U.S. delegation .
The second batch included 102 air defense missiles , Sam 7 Strela missiles , SA-14 portable air defense missiles , and others .
They were destroyed at a deserted military base in the Halahlan Valley in Ma ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houthi officials insist that the program reveals that the United States was intent on destroying Yemen ’ s military capabilities well before 2015 and that it likely did so in preparation for the Saudi-led Coalition ’ s brutal bombing campaign in the country which is ongoing , heavily backed by the United States , and has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties .
Brigadier General Ammar Mohammed Abdullah Saleh , a nephew of late President Saleh served as deputy director of the National Security Bureau when his uncle was in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yemeni military officials to agree with the surrender and destruction of the country ’ s air defense systems in exchange for hefty sums of money .
Saleh is currently leading the Saudi-led Coalition forces ’ assault on Hodeida , Yemen .
Despite efforts by the United States and the subsequent attacks by the Saudi-led Coalition to render Yemen ’ s air defense systems useless , the Houthis have managed to develop and manufacture new air defense missiles capable of destroying modern military aircraft .
The advances have become a real threat to Saudi-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming multiple advanced drones and military jets , especially in the last few years of the war .
Last week , the Houthis unveiled four domestically-built long-range , surface-to-air missile defense systems including Fater-1 ( Innovator-1 ) , Thaqib-1 ( Piercer-1 ) , Thaqib-2 and Thaqib-3 .
An exhibition was held to reveal the new air defense systems and was attended by high-ranking members of Yemen ’ s Armed Forces loyal to the Houthis .
The new Houthi air defense systems have already proven their mettle .
The Thaqib-3 surface-to-air missile shot down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skies of al-Jawf last week , marking a setback for a military alliance known for its air supremacy .
Feature photo | A screenshot from an undated video released by the Houthis allegedly shows U.S. officials rigging explosives used to destroy handheld anti-aircraft weapons in Yemen Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist .
He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media .

Yemen’s Houthis have accused the United States of intentionally destroying the country’s air defense systems during the reign of former Yemeni president the late Ali Abdullah Saleh in preparation for Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against the country that was launched in 2015.
A high-ranking Houthi official has provided video to MinPress and other media that allegedly shows U.S. officials working with military members from the former government of Abdullah Saleh to destroy stockpiles of handheld anti-aircraft systems. The video seems to support claims by Houthi officials that a U.S. delegation oversaw the effort, including Program Manager in the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (PM/WRA) with the Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Dennis F. Hadrick, liaison officer Santo Polizzi, technical expert Niels Talbot and Deputy Director of Programs in the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism at the U.S. Department of State, Laurie Freeman.
The delegation, along with a military attaché at the U.S. embassy in Sana’a, held meetings with Yemeni Ministry of Defense officials at the time to pressure them to hand over hand-held anti-aircraft missiles so that they could be destroyed under a classified plan ostensibly created to reduce the threat of black market MANPADS (Man-portable air-defense systems) across the Middle East.
Cables leaked by Wikileaks show that the CIA was concerned about the proliferation MANPADS from Yemen and claimed that they had shown up in battlefields across the Middle East and Africa, they also confirm that starting in 2004, the United States was involved in a concerted effort to reduce Yemen’s stockpile of hand-held anti-aircraft missiles and refused an offer to allow for their destruction in return for more modern anti-aircraft systems.
Weapons buyback program
The U.S. delegation allegedly began the process of assessing and creating an inventory of Yemen’s anti-aircraft capabilities in August 2004 after negotiations with Yemen’s National Security Agency reached while former president Ali Abdullah Saleh was in power ended with an agreement to destroy the defense system in batches in exchange for tens of millions of dollars.
The air defense missiles were destroyed by Runco, a U.S.-based firm that specializes in dealing with explosives. Runco was contracted with the U.S. State Department to oversee the destruction of over 250 air defense missiles and 103 missile batteries.
The first batch to be destroyed included 1,078 Russian-made 9K32 Strela type surface to air missiles among several dozens of surface to air missiles of other varieties. A total of 1,161 missiles were destroyed on February 28, 2005, alone under the direct supervision of the U.S. delegation. The second batch included 102 air defense missiles, Sam 7 Strela missiles, SA-14 portable air defense missiles, and others. They were destroyed at a deserted military base in the Halahlan Valley in Ma’rib on July 27, 2009.
Houthi officials insist that the program reveals that the United States was intent on destroying Yemen’s military capabilities well before 2015 and that it likely did so in preparation for the Saudi-led Coalition’s brutal bombing campaign in the country which is ongoing, heavily backed by the United States, and has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties.
Brigadier General Ammar Mohammed Abdullah Saleh, a nephew of late President Saleh served as deputy director of the National Security Bureau when his uncle was in power. He was allegedly tasked with persuading Yemeni military officials to agree with the surrender and destruction of the country’s air defense systems in exchange for hefty sums of money. Saleh is currently leading the Saudi-led Coalition forces’ assault on Hodeida, Yemen.
Houthis develop new air defense capabilities
Despite efforts by the United States and the subsequent attacks by the Saudi-led Coalition to render Yemen’s air defense systems useless, the Houthis have managed to develop and manufacture new air defense missiles capable of destroying modern military aircraft. The advances have become a real threat to Saudi-led Coalition and U.S. operations in Yemen, claiming multiple advanced drones and military jets, especially in the last few years of the war.
Last week, the Houthis unveiled four domestically-built long-range, surface-to-air missile defense systems including Fater-1 (Innovator-1), Thaqib-1 (Piercer-1), Thaqib-2 and Thaqib-3. An exhibition was held to reveal the new air defense systems and was attended by high-ranking members of Yemen’s Armed Forces loyal to the Houthis.
The new Houthi air defense systems have already proven their mettle. The Thaqib-3 surface-to-air missile shot down a multi-role Tornado fighter jet over the skies of al-Jawf last week, marking a setback for a military alliance known for its air supremacy.
Feature photo | A screenshot from an undated video released by the Houthis allegedly shows U.S. officials rigging explosives used to destroy handheld anti-aircraft weapons in Yemen
Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist. He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media.


mintpressnews--2020-02-27--The Red-Baiting Attacks on Bernie Sanders Ignore His Flawed Foreign Policy Record

Bernie Sanders has once again caused a firestorm of condemnation from America ’ s talking heads and political mouthpieces .
What did Sanders say this time that got pundits like Republican strategist and CNN commentator Ana Navarro so heated ?
In an interview with Anderson Cooper , the presidential candidate said : This understated praising of a single policy created by a political leader who passed away four years ago was enough to get the mainstream media so hyped that by day ’ s end # FidelCastro was a trending topic on Twitter .
In nearly any other country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political leader while condemning everything else about them would not be controversial , but in the United States , where any support , be it real or perceived , for a socialist government is labeled un-American .
What Sanders said , therefore , should be considered nothing less than sacrilege in mainstream American political discourse .
Despite the public outbursts of anger and vitriol , no one is challenging the accuracy of Sanders ’ claim about the success of Cuban Socialism under the leadership of Castro .
Indeed , Castro ’ s initiatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population learn to read and write for the first time .
In fact , in the 1950s Cuba ’ s literacy rate was around 70 percent .
Today it stands at 99.8 percent .
Instead , pundits accuse Sanders of providing cover for a “ dictatorship.
” Ana Navarro , daughter of a Nicaraguan terrorist Contra who openly boasts of her ties with former terrorists , said on Twitter : While it may be the first reaction by some elements of the left to heap praise on Bernie for saying a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked by the U.S. military-industrial complex and its mouthpieces in government and in media , it is important to see Sanders ’ thoughts and actions for what they are .
What these pundits failed to take into account is that Sanders has repeatedly sided with the State Department , corporate media , and the same talking heads that are now attacking him over U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba .
Speaking at a CNN town hall on February 24 , Sanders said : In what way do these comments stand in opposition to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department say about these countries ?
Sanders has repeatedly lent his voice to the chorus of attacks made by the people who are now criticizing him .
He has dismissed Hugo Chavez , the late President of Venezuela who was elected in what the Carter Foundation called one of the most transparent and secure electoral systems in the world , as nothing more than a “ dead , communist , dictator.
” He has repeatedly distanced himself from socialist , anti-colonial , and independence based movements and governments , going as far as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record opposing military intervention in Venezuela , but that doesn ’ t make him a radical lover of Chavismo , it just means he knows how tired people in this country are of war .
Sanders is quoted as saying “ The world community has got to be mindful of the humanitarian suffering and the hunger that ’ s going on in Venezuela right now , ” yet he refuses to talk about the economic war , the sanctions , or the internal sabotage that Venezuela has been battling for years , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navarro or Marco Rubio .
He has called democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro a “ vicious tyrant ” and has called for “ free and fair elections ” despite the fact that elections were held as recently as 2018 and were monitored by dozens of international observers .
In repeating these hegemonic media fallacies , Sanders lends his voice to the cause of legitimizing regime change in support of U.S. foreign policy goals .
More broadly , he has put himself on the same side as warmongers by repeatedly voting for ever-increasing defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected at least .
Sanders voted in support of regime change in Libya and against repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force , a tool long used by multiple administration as justification for military intervention overseas .
The right needs to stop pretending that Sanders is a Chavista , Sandinista , or the next Che Guevara , and some elements of the left need to stop doing the same .
Feature photo | Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , speaks at the Valley High School in Santa Ana , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Damian Dovarganes | AP Dakotah Lilly is a political activist and the co-founder of Students and youth For a New America .

Bernie Sanders has once again caused a firestorm of condemnation from America’s talking heads and political mouthpieces. What did Sanders say this time that got pundits like Republican strategist and CNN commentator Ana Navarro so heated?
In an interview with Anderson Cooper, the presidential candidate said:
You know… When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”
This understated praising of a single policy created by a political leader who passed away four years ago was enough to get the mainstream media so hyped that by day’s end #FidelCastro was a trending topic on Twitter.
In nearly any other country, pointing out the successful policy of a political leader while condemning everything else about them would not be controversial, but in the United States, where any support, be it real or perceived, for a socialist government is labeled un-American. What Sanders said, therefore, should be considered nothing less than sacrilege in mainstream American political discourse.
Despite the public outbursts of anger and vitriol, no one is challenging the accuracy of Sanders’ claim about the success of Cuban Socialism under the leadership of Castro. Indeed, Castro’s initiatives saw large swaths of Cuba’s population learn to read and write for the first time. In fact, in the 1950s Cuba’s literacy rate was around 70 percent. Today it stands at 99.8 percent.
Instead, pundits accuse Sanders of providing cover for a “dictatorship.” Ana Navarro, daughter of a Nicaraguan terrorist Contra who openly boasts of her ties with former terrorists, said on Twitter:
Castro regime’s been in power in Cuba for +60 yrs w/o free elections. They’ve killed, jailed, tortured thousands. They confiscated assets, expelled priests & nuns… And let’s be clear, Cubans weren’t exactly communicating by grunts. Most knew how to read. pic.twitter.com/kKGM66a8ci — Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) February 24, 2020
Carlos Lopez-Cantera, a former lieutenant governor of Florida tweeted:
Hey @BernieSanders, FYI everything is, was and will be bad about the Cuban revolution. Saying anything else, is un-American. https://t.co/WNMYe3SorX — Carlos Lopez-Cantera (@LopezCantera) February 24, 2020
While it may be the first reaction by some elements of the left to heap praise on Bernie for saying a couple of nice things about governments that are relentlessly attacked by the U.S. military-industrial complex and its mouthpieces in government and in media, it is important to see Sanders’ thoughts and actions for what they are. What these pundits failed to take into account is that Sanders has repeatedly sided with the State Department, corporate media, and the same talking heads that are now attacking him over U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba.
Speaking at a CNN town hall on February 24, Sanders said:
I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing. I have been extremely consistent and critical of all authoritarian regimes all over the world, including Cuba, Nicaragua, including Saudi Arabia, including China, including Russia. I happen to believe in democracy, not authoritarianism.”
In what way do these comments stand in opposition to the picture that both the media and State Department say about these countries? Sanders has repeatedly lent his voice to the chorus of attacks made by the people who are now criticizing him.
He has dismissed Hugo Chavez, the late President of Venezuela who was elected in what the Carter Foundation called one of the most transparent and secure electoral systems in the world, as nothing more than a “dead, communist, dictator.”
He has repeatedly distanced himself from socialist, anti-colonial, and independence based movements and governments, going as far as to say:
When I talk about Democratic socialist, I’m not looking at Venezuela. I’m not looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.”
Sanders is on the record opposing military intervention in Venezuela, but that doesn’t make him a radical lover of Chavismo, it just means he knows how tired people in this country are of war.
Sanders is quoted as saying “The world community has got to be mindful of the humanitarian suffering and the hunger that’s going on in Venezuela right now,” yet he refuses to talk about the economic war, the sanctions, or the internal sabotage that Venezuela has been battling for years, making him no better than the likes of Navarro or Marco Rubio.
He has called democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro a “vicious tyrant” and has called for “free and fair elections” despite the fact that elections were held as recently as 2018 and were monitored by dozens of international observers.
In repeating these hegemonic media fallacies, Sanders lends his voice to the cause of legitimizing regime change in support of U.S. foreign policy goals. More broadly, he has put himself on the same side as warmongers by repeatedly voting for ever-increasing defense appropriations bills, up until Trump was elected at least.
Sanders voted in support of regime change in Libya and against repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a tool long used by multiple administration as justification for military intervention overseas. The right needs to stop pretending that Sanders is a Chavista, Sandinista, or the next Che Guevara, and some elements of the left need to stop doing the same.
Feature photo | Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at the Valley High School in Santa Ana, Calif., Feb. 21, 2020. Damian Dovarganes | AP
Dakotah Lilly is a political activist and the co-founder of Students and youth For a New America.


mintpressnews--2020-02-27--In Israel, Corruption and Political Turmoil Mark Netanyahu’s Desperate Bid to Stay in Power

Israeli Prime Minister , Benjamin Netanyahu , must be channeling the spirit of Houdini as he continues to plot his escape from one of the most convoluted political dilemmas in Israel ’ s history .
It is no secret that Netanyahu ’ s political behavior is almost entirely shaped by his desire to survive in office for as long as possible in order to avoid possible jail time .
But how long will the Israeli escape artist manage to survive , now that a date for his trial has already been set ?
After months of bargaining with the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , and pleading to his own right-wing constituency on the other , Netanyahu has failed to create the necessary momentum that would render him immune from prosecution and secure his position at the helm of Israeli politics .
After failing to form a government following the April elections , he has masterfully linked his fate as a Prime Minister to all of Israel ’ s affairs , internal and external .
Still , there is little evidence that Netanyahu ’ s diplomatic and financial conquests have yielded the intended results of augmenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Benny Gantz , who heads the Kahol Lavan ( Blue and White ) party , has continued to venture further to the right , slowly undermining Netanyahu ’ s support in every facet of Israeli society .
The September election has demonstrated Gantz ’ s ability to overcome Netanyahu ’ s various political advantages in the eyes of the Israeli voters .
Israelis are scheduled to return to the voting booths on March 2 , to vote in the third general elections in less than one year .
Within that short period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly alter his persona to behave like a right-wing politician , while still presenting himself as a centrist , who is willing to engage with the left in order to build a future government coalition .
Knowing that the noose has tightened around his neck since the first elections in April , Netanyahu resorted to Washington to release its so-called ‘ Deal of the Century ’ .
Indeed , the ‘ Middle East plan ’ was revealed ahead of schedule to provide the despairing Israeli leader a final lifeline that would help him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blow .
Alas , for Netanyahu , things didn ’ t work out as planned .
The story was meant to proceed as such : the Donald Trump administration would reveal the plan that would give Israel everything and give Palestinians nothing ; Netanyahu would , naturally , take full credit for his greatest achievement in office and would follow that by annexing all illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank , in addition to the entire Jordan Valley .
This , however , did not happen .
On February 4 , Netanyahu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the West Bank before the scheduled elections .
Instead , he told a campaign rally that such annexation is conditioned to his victory in the upcoming elections .
While many in the media parroted , without evidence , that the postponement of the annexation is a direct result of a request made by Washington , the real reason is likely related to Netanyahu ’ s own political woes at home .
Netanyahu must be aware that the ‘ Deal of the Century ’ and the annexation of the West Bank cards are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election victory , to be granted immunity , and to avoid serving jail time for corruption .
But , what if Netanyahu annexed parts of the West Bank but failed to win the elections ?
In that scenario , the embattled Israeli leader would have no more wiggle room and zero political advantage for a future plea bargain .
This explains the sudden halt in Netanyahu ’ s annexation plan , especially as the Prime Minister had , at a recent campaign rally , presented annexation in the form of a political barter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will extend sovereignty over all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria , ” Netanyahu reportedly said , with reference to the annexation of the occupied Palestinian West Bank .
As a consolation prize and to avoid angry reactions by the country ’ s right-wing constituency , especially the politically well-organized Jewish settlers , Netanyahu announced on February 20 that he would revive a long-dormant plan to construct 3,000 new homes for illegal Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem .
“ Today I approved the construction in Givat Hamatos of 3,000 homes for Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more homes expected to be built in the Har Homa illegal settlement as well .
These moves are particularly significant , for such construction will completely isolate the Palestinian city of Bethlehem from occupied East Jerusalem , thus killing any hope for Palestinian territorial contiguity in any future state .
Netanyahu ’ s adversaries in the opposition , in the government , and in the Supreme Court are , of course , wary of Netanyahu ’ s shenanigans .
While Gantz often responds to Netanyahu ’ s opportunistic moves , largely by upgrading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even surpass his opponent ’ s position , support for the Prime Minister at the Knesset is lukewarm , at best .
In fact , on January 28 , Netanyahu was forced to withdraw his request for immunity , knowing that the request would not receive the needed support .
Meanwhile , the legal proceedings regarding Netanyahu ’ s corruption cases continue unabated .
According to the Israeli Justice Ministry , Netanyahu will be obligated to attend his trial in the Jerusalem District Court , even in his capacity as a Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the March 2 elections .
A three-judge panel will hear the case , where Netanyahu would have to divide his time between running Israeli affairs and fending against accusations of his own corruption .
This is uncharted territory for Israel .
Never before in Israel ’ s history has the ruling elite been faced with such legal and political dilemmas .
Since Israel continues to operate without a constitution and , because this is the first time that a sitting Prime Minister will face a trial , the Supreme Court is the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s laws in order to advance the legal proceedings .
But even that is problematic .
Ayelet Shaked , the controversial – and often vulgar – former Justice Minister , is already attempting to derail that likelihood , as she has openly warned the country ’ s Supreme Court justices that any involvement in the political process would be “ tantamount to a coup.
” Israelis now find themselves at the cusp of a new era , one that is defined by the breakdown of the country ’ s legal system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instability .
Feature photo | A woman smokes a cigarette next to an election campaign billboard for the Blue and White party , the opposition party led by Benny Gantz , left , in Ramat Gan , Israel , Feb. 20 , 2020 .
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party is pictured at right .
Oded Balilty | AP Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle .
He is the author of five books .
His latest is “ These Chains Will Be Broken : Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prisons ” ( Clarity Press , Atlanta ) .
Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs ( CIGA ) , Istanbul Zaim University ( IZU ) .
His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, must be channeling the spirit of Houdini as he continues to plot his escape from one of the most convoluted political dilemmas in Israel’s history.
It is no secret that Netanyahu’s political behavior is almost entirely shaped by his desire to survive in office for as long as possible in order to avoid possible jail time. But how long will the Israeli escape artist manage to survive, now that a date for his trial has already been set?
After months of bargaining with the country’s political elite, on one hand, and pleading to his own right-wing constituency on the other, Netanyahu has failed to create the necessary momentum that would render him immune from prosecution and secure his position at the helm of Israeli politics.
After failing to form a government following the April elections, he has masterfully linked his fate as a Prime Minister to all of Israel’s affairs, internal and external.
Still, there is little evidence that Netanyahu’s diplomatic and financial conquests have yielded the intended results of augmenting his support among ordinary Israelis, especially as Benny Gantz, who heads the Kahol Lavan (Blue and White) party, has continued to venture further to the right, slowly undermining Netanyahu’s support in every facet of Israeli society. The September election has demonstrated Gantz’s ability to overcome Netanyahu’s various political advantages in the eyes of the Israeli voters.
Israelis are scheduled to return to the voting booths on March 2, to vote in the third general elections in less than one year. Within that short period of time, Gantz has managed to repeatedly alter his persona to behave like a right-wing politician, while still presenting himself as a centrist, who is willing to engage with the left in order to build a future government coalition.
Knowing that the noose has tightened around his neck since the first elections in April, Netanyahu resorted to Washington to release its so-called ‘Deal of the Century’.
Indeed, the ‘Middle East plan’ was revealed ahead of schedule to provide the despairing Israeli leader a final lifeline that would help him win his multiple battles in a decisive blow.
Alas, for Netanyahu, things didn’t work out as planned.
The story was meant to proceed as such: the Donald Trump administration would reveal the plan that would give Israel everything and give Palestinians nothing; Netanyahu would, naturally, take full credit for his greatest achievement in office and would follow that by annexing all illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, in addition to the entire Jordan Valley.
This, however, did not happen. On February 4, Netanyahu reversed his earlier decision to annex much of the West Bank before the scheduled elections. Instead, he told a campaign rally that such annexation is conditioned to his victory in the upcoming elections.
While many in the media parroted, without evidence, that the postponement of the annexation is a direct result of a request made by Washington, the real reason is likely related to Netanyahu’s own political woes at home.
Netanyahu must be aware that the ‘Deal of the Century’ and the annexation of the West Bank cards are his last hope to secure a comfortable election victory, to be granted immunity, and to avoid serving jail time for corruption.
But, what if Netanyahu annexed parts of the West Bank but failed to win the elections? In that scenario, the embattled Israeli leader would have no more wiggle room and zero political advantage for a future plea bargain.
This explains the sudden halt in Netanyahu’s annexation plan, especially as the Prime Minister had, at a recent campaign rally, presented annexation in the form of a political barter.
“When we win, we will extend sovereignty over all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria,” Netanyahu reportedly said, with reference to the annexation of the occupied Palestinian West Bank.
As a consolation prize and to avoid angry reactions by the country’s right-wing constituency, especially the politically well-organized Jewish settlers, Netanyahu announced on February 20 that he would revive a long-dormant plan to construct 3,000 new homes for illegal Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem.
“Today I approved the construction in Givat Hamatos of 3,000 homes for Jews,” Reuters reported, with 2,000 more homes expected to be built in the Har Homa illegal settlement as well.
These moves are particularly significant, for such construction will completely isolate the Palestinian city of Bethlehem from occupied East Jerusalem, thus killing any hope for Palestinian territorial contiguity in any future state.
Netanyahu’s adversaries in the opposition, in the government, and in the Supreme Court are, of course, wary of Netanyahu’s shenanigans.
While Gantz often responds to Netanyahu’s opportunistic moves, largely by upgrading his own political position to match, or even surpass his opponent’s position, support for the Prime Minister at the Knesset is lukewarm, at best. In fact, on January 28, Netanyahu was forced to withdraw his request for immunity, knowing that the request would not receive the needed support.
Meanwhile, the legal proceedings regarding Netanyahu’s corruption cases continue unabated.
According to the Israeli Justice Ministry, Netanyahu will be obligated to attend his trial in the Jerusalem District Court, even in his capacity as a Prime Minister and regardless of what transpires in the March 2 elections. A three-judge panel will hear the case, where Netanyahu would have to divide his time between running Israeli affairs and fending against accusations of his own corruption.
This is uncharted territory for Israel. Never before in Israel’s history has the ruling elite been faced with such legal and political dilemmas.
Since Israel continues to operate without a constitution and, because this is the first time that a sitting Prime Minister will face a trial, the Supreme Court is the only authority that is able to interpret the country’s laws in order to advance the legal proceedings. But even that is problematic.
Ayelet Shaked, the controversial – and often vulgar – former Justice Minister, is already attempting to derail that likelihood, as she has openly warned the country’s Supreme Court justices that any involvement in the political process would be “tantamount to a coup.”
Israelis now find themselves at the cusp of a new era, one that is defined by the breakdown of the country’s legal system, prolonged political crisis and never-ending social instability.
Feature photo | A woman smokes a cigarette next to an election campaign billboard for the Blue and White party, the opposition party led by Benny Gantz, left, in Ramat Gan, Israel, Feb. 20, 2020. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party is pictured at right. Oded Balilty | AP
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net