mintpressnews--2020-08-12--Democratic Establishment Commits to Status Quo with Kamala Harris VP Pick

There were mixed reactions to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden choosing Kamala Harris as his running mate last night .
Many at the top of the party hailed the pick as a strong choice .
“ I ’ m thrilled to welcome Kamala Harris to a historic Democratic ticket , ” said Biden ’ s predecessor Hillary Clinton , who described her as “ an incredible public servant and leader , “ I know she ’ ll be a strong partner to Joe Biden .
Please join me in having her back and getting her elected.
” Perhaps unsurprisingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newly-released advertisement describing her as a “ phony ” controlled by “ the radical left.
” “ Voters rejected Harris , ” the ad says , referring to her failed campaign for the presidential nomination .
“ They smartly spotted a phony .
But not Joe Biden .
He ’ s not that smart.
” Yet the Harris pick appears not to have gone down at all well with those on the left .
Political commentator and co-founder of the leftist group Justice Democrats Kyle Kulinski reacted by claiming Biden was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picking somebody for VP who is despised by both the right and the left.
” Journalist Elizabeth Lea Vos wrote that the DNC has chosen to “ run an alleged rapist and a corrupt prosecutor… against Trump in the age of # MeToo and Black Lives Matter .
In other words , the Democrats are the Republicans and everything is business as usual.
” Meanwhile , Bernie Sanders ’ National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray could not contain her dismay at the pick .
“ We are in the midst of the largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject of which is excessive policing , and the Democratic Party chose a ‘ top cop ’ and the author of the Joe Biden crime bill to save us from Trump .
The contempt for the base is , wow , ” she said .
A memo from the Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins described the announcement as Biden “ doubling down ” on his “ long history of excessive law enforcement and support for the war on drugs.
” While the left might think Harris ’ past role as a California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt it added to her campaign .
“ Her experience as a prosecutor makes her uniquely qualified to deliver the case against Trump , ” marketing executive Mike Kempner told CNBC .
Harris certainly has a controversial professional past .
Although presenting herself as a “ progressive prosecutor , ” her record more closely resembles a tough on crime , “ lock them up ” mentality commonly seen among Republican lawmakers .
Over the protestations of her own team , she pushed forward on her plan to jail parents for their children ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imprisoning them .
She also has a long history of ethically questionable practices , including withholding evidence that would have freed innocent people from prison .
As The New York Times wrote , “ Ms .
Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering , false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.
” In 2014 , Harris ’ legal team argued in court that if minimum-custody inmates were released early , the state of California would “ lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included firefighters , who are paid $ 1 an hour to confront the state ’ s deadly blazes .
She later claimed she did not know her own office argued in favor of keeping parolees in jail so they could serve as cheap labor .
During her short and unsuccessful shot at the party ’ s presidential nomination , Harris received more funding from billionaires than any other candidate .
In 2017 , she also broke ranks to side with Trump against outgoing president Barack Obama over the latter ’ s position on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to describe her as a “ political algorithm programmed by the Israel lobby.
” Her competitors for the vice-presidential nomination , however , appeared happier , at least publicly , about the decision .
“ My warmest congratulations to Kamala Harris .
I am confident Biden-Harris will prove to be a winning ticket .
I will do my utmost to help them win and govern , ” wrote Obama national security advisor Susan Rice , tipped by many to be Biden ’ s choice .
Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar , who was considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until MintPress revealed that , while state prosecutor , George Floyd ’ s killer Derek Chauvin also killed another black man , tweeted that she was “ filled with joy ” at yesterday ’ s announcement .
“ This is a historic moment , ” she said , adding that “ her leadership , experience and character will help move our country forward when she and Joe Biden take back the White House !
” Other organizations like Greenpeace offered more qualified praise .
Support for President Trump has been sliding over his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd protests .
While Biden leads in polls , he still suffers from an enthusiasm gap , with most Republicans fully behind the president .
In contrast , Democratic voters are less passionate about Biden , the majority seeing their vote primarily as one against Trump .
Nina Turner , co-chair of the Sanders campaign described the choice leftists face in choosing between Biden and Trump as , “ like saying to somebody , ‘ You have a bowl of shit in front of you , and all you ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of the whole thing.
’ It ’ s still shit.
” If Biden is to win in November , he may need the enthusiasm and volunteers Sanders was able to draw upon .
But judging from their response , his Kamala Harris VP pick is unlikely to secure it .
Feature photo | Then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , reacts as she speaks at a town hall in Las Vegas , Nov. 8 , 2019 .
John Locher | AP Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

There were mixed reactions to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden choosing Kamala Harris as his running mate last night. Many at the top of the party hailed the pick as a strong choice. “I’m thrilled to welcome Kamala Harris to a historic Democratic ticket,” said Biden’s predecessor Hillary Clinton, who described her as “an incredible public servant and leader, “I know she’ll be a strong partner to Joe Biden. Please join me in having her back and getting her elected.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Trump campaign opposed the move, a newly-released advertisement describing her as a “phony” controlled by “the radical left.” “Voters rejected Harris,” the ad says, referring to her failed campaign for the presidential nomination. “They smartly spotted a phony. But not Joe Biden. He’s not that smart.”
Yet the Harris pick appears not to have gone down at all well with those on the left. Political commentator and co-founder of the leftist group Justice Democrats Kyle Kulinski reacted by claiming Biden was “going with the strategically brilliant move of picking somebody for VP who is despised by both the right and the left.” Journalist Elizabeth Lea Vos wrote that the DNC has chosen to “run an alleged rapist and a corrupt prosecutor… against Trump in the age of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. In other words, the Democrats are the Republicans and everything is business as usual.” Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders’ National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray could not contain her dismay at the pick. “We are in the midst of the largest protest movement in American history, the subject of which is excessive policing, and the Democratic Party chose a ‘top cop’ and the author of the Joe Biden crime bill to save us from Trump. The contempt for the base is, wow,” she said.
A memo from the Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins described the announcement as Biden “doubling down” on his “long history of excessive law enforcement and support for the war on drugs.”
While the left might think Harris’ past role as a California prosecutor is a negative, business executives felt it added to her campaign. “Her experience as a prosecutor makes her uniquely qualified to deliver the case against Trump,” marketing executive Mike Kempner told CNBC.
Kamala Harris at an event hosted by the Commonwealth Club in 2010, explaining her decision as San Francisco DA to get tough on truancy. Critics of truancy crackdowns say such efforts unfairly target poor parents and children without actually helping students. pic.twitter.com/GKkDpayxuv — Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 28, 2019
A “lock them up” mentality
Harris certainly has a controversial professional past. Although presenting herself as a “progressive prosecutor,” her record more closely resembles a tough on crime, “lock them up” mentality commonly seen among Republican lawmakers. Over the protestations of her own team, she pushed forward on her plan to jail parents for their children’s truancy, later publicly laughing about imprisoning them. She also has a long history of ethically questionable practices, including withholding evidence that would have freed innocent people from prison. As The New York Times wrote, “Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.” In 2014, Harris’ legal team argued in court that if minimum-custody inmates were released early, the state of California would “lose an important labor pool.” These inmates included firefighters, who are paid $1 an hour to confront the state’s deadly blazes. She later claimed she did not know her own office argued in favor of keeping parolees in jail so they could serve as cheap labor.
During her short and unsuccessful shot at the party’s presidential nomination, Harris received more funding from billionaires than any other candidate. In 2017, she also broke ranks to side with Trump against outgoing president Barack Obama over the latter’s position on Israel, leading Grayzone journalist Max Blumenthal to describe her as a “political algorithm programmed by the Israel lobby.”
The establishment’s warm embrace
Her competitors for the vice-presidential nomination, however, appeared happier, at least publicly, about the decision. “My warmest congratulations to Kamala Harris. I am confident Biden-Harris will prove to be a winning ticket. I will do my utmost to help them win and govern,” wrote Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, tipped by many to be Biden’s choice.
Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar, who was considered the favorite for the job by some until MintPress revealed that, while state prosecutor, George Floyd’s killer Derek Chauvin also killed another black man, tweeted that she was “filled with joy” at yesterday’s announcement. “This is a historic moment,” she said, adding that “her leadership, experience and character will help move our country forward when she and Joe Biden take back the White House!” Other organizations like Greenpeace offered more qualified praise.
Support for President Trump has been sliding over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the George Floyd protests. While Biden leads in polls, he still suffers from an enthusiasm gap, with most Republicans fully behind the president. In contrast, Democratic voters are less passionate about Biden, the majority seeing their vote primarily as one against Trump. Nina Turner, co-chair of the Sanders campaign described the choice leftists face in choosing between Biden and Trump as, “like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of shit in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still shit.” If Biden is to win in November, he may need the enthusiasm and volunteers Sanders was able to draw upon. But judging from their response, his Kamala Harris VP pick is unlikely to secure it.
Feature photo | Then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., reacts as she speaks at a town hall in Las Vegas, Nov. 8, 2019. John Locher | 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--2020-08-12--Looking for an Excuse to Crackdown, Police Departments are Pitting Protesters Against Each Other

CHARLOTTESVILLE ( Rutherford ) –– There ’ s a pattern emerging if you pay close enough attention .
Civil discontent leads to civil unrest , which leads to protests and counterprotests .
Without fail , what should be an exercise in how to peacefully disagree turns ugly the moment looting , vandalism , violence , intimidation tactics and rioting are introduced into the equation .
Instead of restoring order , local police stand down .
This was the blueprint used three years ago in Charlottesville , Va. , in 2017 , when the city regularly cited as being one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground zero for a heated war of words—and actions—over racism , “ sanitizing history , ” extremism ( both right and left ) , political correctness , hate speech , partisan politics , and a growing fear that violent words will end in violent actions .
It was a setup : local police deliberately engineered a situation in which protesters would confront each other , tensions would bubble over , and things would turn just violent enough to call in the bigger guns .
It is the blueprint being used right now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the country right now , the conflict was over how to reconcile the nation ’ s checkered past , particularly as it relates to slavery , with the push to sanitize the environment of anything—words and images—that might cause offense , especially if it ’ s a Confederate flag or monument .
That fear of offense prompted the Charlottesville City Council to get rid of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that had graced one of its public parks for 82 years .
That ’ s when everything went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly vocal and righteously offended group while railroading over the concerns of those with alternate viewpoints , Charlottesville attracted the unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan , neo-Nazis and the alt-Right , all of whom descended on the little college town with the intention of exercising their First Amendment right to be disagreeable , to assemble , and to protest .
When put to the test , Charlottesville did not handle things well at all .
On August 12 , 2017 , what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dozens more injured .
As the New York Times reported , “ Protesters began to mace one another , throwing water bottles and urine-filled balloons — some of which hit reporters — and beating each other with flagpoles , clubs and makeshift weapons .
Before long , the downtown area was a melee .
People were ducking and covering with a constant stream of projectiles whizzing by our faces , and the air was filled with the sounds of fists and sticks against flesh.
” And then there was the police , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prevent violence .
They failed to do either .
Indeed , a 220-page post-mortem of the protests and the Charlottesville government ’ s response by former U.S. attorney Timothy J. Heaphy merely corroborates our worst fears about what drives the government at all levels : power , money , ego , politics and ambition .
When presented with a situation in which the government and its agents were tasked with protecting free speech and safety , Heaphy concluded that “ the City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit holder ’ s offensive speech .
This represents a failure of one of government ’ s core functions—the protection of fundamental rights .
Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and protect citizens from harm , injury , and death .
Charlottesville preserved neither of those principles on August 12 , which has led to deep distrust of government within this community.
” In other words , the government failed to uphold its constitutional mandates .
The police failed to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the citizens found themselves unable to trust either the police or the government to do its job in respecting their rights and ensuring their safety .
Despite the fact that 1,000 first responders ( including 300 state police troopers and members of the National Guard ) —many of whom had been preparing for the downtown rally for months—had been called on to work the event , despite the fact that police in riot gear surrounded Emancipation Park on three sides , and despite the fact that Charlottesville had had what reporter David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rehearsal of sorts ” a month earlier when 30 members of the Ku Klux Klan were confronted by 1000 counterprotesters , police failed to do their jobs .
In fact , as the Washington Post reports , police “ seemed to watch as groups beat each other with sticks and bludgeoned one another with shields… At one point , police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings before eventually moving in to end the free-for-all , make arrests and tend to the injured.
” “ Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of establishing clear boundaries—buffer zones—between the warring groups and protecting the First Amendment rights of the protesters , police established two entrances into the permit areas of the park and created barriers “ guiding rallygoers single-file into the park ” past lines of white nationalists and antifa counterprotesters .
Incredibly , when the first signs of open violence broke out , Heaphy reports that the police chief allegedly instructed his staff to “ let them fight , it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.
” This is not much different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national scene .
Commissioned by the City of Charlottesville , this Heaphy report was intended to be an independent investigation of what went right and what went wrong in the government ’ s handling of the protests .
Heaphy found very little to commend .
What went right on Aug. 12 according to Heaphy : 1 ) Despite the presence of firearms , including members of the militia , and angry confrontations between protesters and counterprotesters , no person was shot and no significant property damage occurred ; 2 ) Emergency personnel did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of people in a short period of time ; and 3 ) Police intelligence gathering was thorough ( that ’ s the best he had to say about police ) .
Now for what went wrong , according to the report : 1 .
Police failed to get input from other law enforcement agencies experienced in handling large protests .
2 .
Police failed to adequately train their officers in advance of the protest .
3 .
City officials failed to request assistance from outside agencies .
4 .
The City Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to move the protesters elsewhere , and ignoring the concerns of law enforcement .
5 .
The city government failed to inform the public about their plans .
6 .
City officials were misguided in allowing weapons at the protest .
7 .
The police implemented a flawed operational plan that failed to protect public safety .
8 .
While police were provided with riot gear , they were never trained in how to use it , nor were they provided with any meaningful field training in how to deal with or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters .
9 .
Despite the input and advice of outside counsel , including The Rutherford Institute , the police failed to employ de-escalation tactics or establish clear barriers between warring factions of protesters .
10 .
Government officials and police leadership opted to advance their own agendas at the expense of constitutional rights and public safety .
11 .
For all intents and purposes , police abided by a stand down order that endangered the community and paved the way for massive civil unrest .
12 .
In failing to protect public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public faith in the government .
The Heaphy report focused on the events that took place in Charlottesville , Virginia , but it applies to almost every branch of government that fails to serve “ we the people.
” As the Pew Research Center revealed , public trust in the government remains near historic lows and with good reason , too .
This isn ’ t America , land of the free , where the government is “ of the people , by the people [ and ] for the people.
” Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , totalitarianism and militarism go hand in hand .
What you smell is the stench of a dying republic .
Our dying republic .
The American experiment in freedom is failing fast .
Through every fault of our own—our apathy , our ignorance , our intolerance , our disinclination to do the hard work of holding government leaders accountable to the rule of law , our inclination to let politics trump longstanding constitutional principles—we have been reduced to this sorry state in which we are little more than shackled inmates in a prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elite .
We have been saddled with the wreckage of a government at all levels that no longer represents the citizenry , serves the citizenry , or is accountable to the citizenry .
“ We the people ” are not the masters anymore .
It doesn ’ t matter whether you ’ re talking about the federal government , state governments , or local governing bodies : at all ends of the spectrum and every point in between , a shift has taken place .
“ We the people ” are not being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer count for much of anything beyond an occasional electoral vote and as a source of income for the government ’ s ever-burgeoning financial needs .
Everything happening at the national level is playing out at the local level , as well : the violence , the militarization , the intolerance , the lopsided governance , and an uneasy awareness that the citizenry have no say in how their communities are being governed .
As I have warned repeatedly , the architects of the police state have every intention of manipulating this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the police state is allowing these protests , riots and looting to devolve into a situation where enough of the voting populace is so desperate for a return to law and order that they will gladly relinquish some of their freedoms to achieve it .
And that ’ s how the police state will win , no matter which candidate gets elected to the White House , and “ we the people ” will continue to lose .
As always , it must start with “ we the people.
” I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but act locally .
Yet as Charlottesville made clear , it ’ s hard to make a difference locally when the local government is as deaf , dumb and blind to the needs of its constituents as the national government .
Charlottesville much like the rest of the nation has had its fair share of government leaders who are tone-deaf , focused on their own aggrandizement , and incapable of prioritizing the needs of their constituents over their own personal and political agendas ; law enforcement officials for whom personal safety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trump their duty to serve and protect ; polarized citizens incapable of finding common ground , respecting each other ’ s rights , or agreeing to disagree ; and a community held hostage by political correctness , divisive rhetoric and a growing intolerance for any views that may be unpopular or at odds with the mainstream .
It was a perfect storm just waiting for the right conditions to wreak havoc , a precursor of the rage , frustration and fear that is erupting all over the country .
No matter what forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uprisings , however—and there are definitely such forces at play here—none of this would be happening without the government having laid the groundwork .
Clearly , it ’ s time to clean house at all levels of government .
Stop tolerating corruption , graft , intolerance , greed , incompetence , ineptitude , militarism , lawlessness , ignorance , brutality , deceit , collusion , corpulence , bureaucracy , immorality , depravity , censorship , cruelty , violence , mediocrity , and tyranny .
These are the hallmarks of an institution that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your nose in order to block out the stench of a rotting institution .
Stop letting the government and its agents treat you like a servant or a slave .
You ’ ve got rights .
We ’ ve all got rights .
This is our country .
This is our government .
No one can take it away from us unless we make it easy for them .
You ’ ve got a better chance of making your displeasure seen and felt and heard within your own community .
But it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to finding common ground with your fellow citizens .
Right now , as I make clear in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People , we ’ re making it way too easy for the police state to take over .
Stop being an accessory to the murder of the American republic .
Feature photo | A supporter of President Donald Trump , right , clashes with an anti-Trump protester , left , outside the president ’ s appearance at a criminal justice forum , Oct. 25 , 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ | AP John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney , author and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute .
His new book Battlefield America : The War on the American People ( SelectBooks , 2015 ) is available online at www.amazon.com .
Whitehead can be contacted at johnw @ rutherford.org .

CHARLOTTESVILLE (Rutherford) –– There’s a pattern emerging if you pay close enough attention. Civil discontent leads to civil unrest, which leads to protests and counterprotests.
Without fail, what should be an exercise in how to peacefully disagree turns ugly the moment looting, vandalism, violence, intimidation tactics and rioting are introduced into the equation. Instead of restoring order, local police stand down.
Tensions rise, violence escalates, and federal armies move in.
Coincidence? I think not.
This was the blueprint used three years ago in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, when the city regularly cited as being one of the happiest places in America, became ground zero for a heated war of words—and actions—over racism, “sanitizing history,” extremism (both right and left), political correctness, hate speech, partisan politics, and a growing fear that violent words will end in violent actions.
It was a setup: local police deliberately engineered a situation in which protesters would confront each other, tensions would bubble over, and things would turn just violent enough to call in the bigger guns.
It is the blueprint being used right now.
In Charlottesville, as in so many parts of the country right now, the conflict was over how to reconcile the nation’s checkered past, particularly as it relates to slavery, with the push to sanitize the environment of anything—words and images—that might cause offense, especially if it’s a Confederate flag or monument.
That fear of offense prompted the Charlottesville City Council to get rid of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that had graced one of its public parks for 82 years.
That’s when everything went haywire.
In attempting to pacify one particularly vocal and righteously offended group while railroading over the concerns of those with alternate viewpoints, Charlottesville attracted the unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, all of whom descended on the little college town with the intention of exercising their First Amendment right to be disagreeable, to assemble, and to protest.
When put to the test, Charlottesville did not handle things well at all.
On August 12, 2017, what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl that left one dead and dozens more injured.
As the New York Times reported, “Protesters began to mace one another, throwing water bottles and urine-filled balloons — some of which hit reporters — and beating each other with flagpoles, clubs and makeshift weapons. Before long, the downtown area was a melee. People were ducking and covering with a constant stream of projectiles whizzing by our faces, and the air was filled with the sounds of fists and sticks against flesh.”
And then there was the police, who were supposed to uphold the law and prevent violence.
They failed to do either.
Indeed, a 220-page post-mortem of the protests and the Charlottesville government’s response by former U.S. attorney Timothy J. Heaphy merely corroborates our worst fears about what drives the government at all levels: power, money, ego, politics and ambition.
When presented with a situation in which the government and its agents were tasked with protecting free speech and safety, Heaphy concluded that “the City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety.”
Heaphy continues: “The City was unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit holder’s offensive speech. This represents a failure of one of government’s core functions—the protection of fundamental rights. Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and protect citizens from harm, injury, and death. Charlottesville preserved neither of those principles on August 12, which has led to deep distrust of government within this community.”
In other words, the government failed to uphold its constitutional mandates. The police failed to carry out their duties as peace officers. And the citizens found themselves unable to trust either the police or the government to do its job in respecting their rights and ensuring their safety.
Despite the fact that 1,000 first responders (including 300 state police troopers and members of the National Guard)—many of whom had been preparing for the downtown rally for months—had been called on to work the event, despite the fact that police in riot gear surrounded Emancipation Park on three sides, and despite the fact that Charlottesville had had what reporter David Graham referred to as “a dress rehearsal of sorts” a month earlier when 30 members of the Ku Klux Klan were confronted by 1000 counterprotesters, police failed to do their jobs.
In fact, as the Washington Post reports, police “seemed to watch as groups beat each other with sticks and bludgeoned one another with shields… At one point, police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings before eventually moving in to end the free-for-all, make arrests and tend to the injured.”
“Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville,” reported ProPublica.
Instead of establishing clear boundaries—buffer zones—between the warring groups and protecting the First Amendment rights of the protesters, police established two entrances into the permit areas of the park and created barriers “guiding rallygoers single-file into the park” past lines of white nationalists and antifa counterprotesters.
Incredibly, when the first signs of open violence broke out, Heaphy reports that the police chief allegedly instructed his staff to “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”
This is not much different from what is happening on the present-day national scene.
Commissioned by the City of Charlottesville, this Heaphy report was intended to be an independent investigation of what went right and what went wrong in the government’s handling of the protests.
Heaphy found very little to commend.
What went right on Aug. 12 according to Heaphy: 1) Despite the presence of firearms, including members of the militia, and angry confrontations between protesters and counterprotesters, no person was shot and no significant property damage occurred; 2) Emergency personnel did their jobs effectively and treated a large number of people in a short period of time; and 3) Police intelligence gathering was thorough (that’s the best he had to say about police).
Now for what went wrong, according to the report:
1. Police failed to get input from other law enforcement agencies experienced in handling large protests.
2. Police failed to adequately train their officers in advance of the protest.
3. City officials failed to request assistance from outside agencies.
4. The City Council unduly interfered by ignoring legal advice, attempting to move the protesters elsewhere, and ignoring the concerns of law enforcement.
5. The city government failed to inform the public about their plans.
6. City officials were misguided in allowing weapons at the protest.
7. The police implemented a flawed operational plan that failed to protect public safety.
8. While police were provided with riot gear, they were never trained in how to use it, nor were they provided with any meaningful field training in how to deal with or de-escalate anticipated violence on the part of protesters.
9. Despite the input and advice of outside counsel, including The Rutherford Institute, the police failed to employ de-escalation tactics or establish clear barriers between warring factions of protesters.
10. Government officials and police leadership opted to advance their own agendas at the expense of constitutional rights and public safety.
11. For all intents and purposes, police abided by a stand down order that endangered the community and paved the way for massive civil unrest.
12. In failing to protect public safety, police and government officials undermined public faith in the government.
The Heaphy report focused on the events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, but it applies to almost every branch of government that fails to serve “we the people.”
As the Pew Research Center revealed, public trust in the government remains near historic lows and with good reason, too.
This isn’t America, land of the free, where the government is “of the people, by the people [and] for the people.”
Rather, this is Amerika, where fascism, totalitarianism and militarism go hand in hand.
What you smell is the stench of a dying republic. Our dying republic.
The American experiment in freedom is failing fast.
Through every fault of our own—our apathy, our ignorance, our intolerance, our disinclination to do the hard work of holding government leaders accountable to the rule of law, our inclination to let politics trump longstanding constitutional principles—we have been reduced to this sorry state in which we are little more than shackled inmates in a prison operated for the profit of a corporate elite.
We have been saddled with the wreckage of a government at all levels that no longer represents the citizenry, serves the citizenry, or is accountable to the citizenry.
“We the people” are not the masters anymore.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the federal government, state governments, or local governing bodies: at all ends of the spectrum and every point in between, a shift has taken place.
“We the people” are not being seen, heard or valued.
We no longer count for much of anything beyond an occasional electoral vote and as a source of income for the government’s ever-burgeoning financial needs.
Everything happening at the national level is playing out at the local level, as well: the violence, the militarization, the intolerance, the lopsided governance, and an uneasy awareness that the citizenry have no say in how their communities are being governed.
As I have warned repeatedly, the architects of the police state have every intention of manipulating this outrage for their own purposes.
Predictably, the police state is allowing these protests, riots and looting to devolve into a situation where enough of the voting populace is so desperate for a return to law and order that they will gladly relinquish some of their freedoms to achieve it. And that’s how the police state will win, no matter which candidate gets elected to the White House, and “we the people” will continue to lose.
So what’s the answer?
As always, it must start with “we the people.”
I’ve always advised people to think nationally, but act locally.
Yet as Charlottesville made clear, it’s hard to make a difference locally when the local government is as deaf, dumb and blind to the needs of its constituents as the national government.
Charlottesville much like the rest of the nation has had its fair share of government leaders who are tone-deaf, focused on their own aggrandizement, and incapable of prioritizing the needs of their constituents over their own personal and political agendas; law enforcement officials for whom personal safety, heavy-handed militarized tactics, and power plays trump their duty to serve and protect; polarized citizens incapable of finding common ground, respecting each other’s rights, or agreeing to disagree; and a community held hostage by political correctness, divisive rhetoric and a growing intolerance for any views that may be unpopular or at odds with the mainstream.
It was a perfect storm just waiting for the right conditions to wreak havoc, a precursor of the rage, frustration and fear that is erupting all over the country.
No matter what forces are manipulating these present riots and violent uprisings, however—and there are definitely such forces at play here—none of this would be happening without the government having laid the groundwork.
Clearly, it’s time to clean house at all levels of government.
Stop tolerating corruption, graft, intolerance, greed, incompetence, ineptitude, militarism, lawlessness, ignorance, brutality, deceit, collusion, corpulence, bureaucracy, immorality, depravity, censorship, cruelty, violence, mediocrity, and tyranny. These are the hallmarks of an institution that is rotten through and through.
Stop holding your nose in order to block out the stench of a rotting institution.
Stop letting the government and its agents treat you like a servant or a slave.
You’ve got rights. We’ve all got rights. This is our country. This is our government. No one can take it away from us unless we make it easy for them.
You’ve got a better chance of making your displeasure seen and felt and heard within your own community. But it will take perseverance and unity and a commitment to finding common ground with your fellow citizens.
Right now, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re making it way too easy for the police state to take over.
Stop being an accessory to the murder of the American republic.
Feature photo | A supporter of President Donald Trump, right, clashes with an anti-Trump protester, left, outside the president’s appearance at a criminal justice forum, Oct. 25, 2019, in Columbia, S.C. Meg Kinnard | AP
John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney, author and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].


mintpressnews--2020-08-13--Watch: “Woke” Corporations Supporting Black Lives Matter Quietly Funding Police

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jaime Dimon very publicly took a knee outside a New York branch of his bank in early @ @ @ @ @ memo declaring the financial institution ’ s supposed dedication to struggling against injustice .
“ @ @ @ @ @ we are watching , listening and want every single one of you to know we @ @ @ @ @ racism and discrimination wherever and however it exists , ” he and the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the wake of worldwide public outrage over racist police violence , many of @ @ @ @ @ corporations rushed to publicly align themselves with the growing movement for black lives .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ Public Accountability Initiative exposes how corporate America is actually bankrolling police departments across the country @ @ @ @ @ same ones facing scrutiny over racist practices .

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jaime Dimon very publicly took a knee outside a New York branch of his bank in early June, also circulating a memo declaring the financial institution’s supposed dedication to struggling against injustice. “Let us be clear — we are watching, listening and want every single one of you to know we are committed to fighting against racism and discrimination wherever and however it exists,” he and the company’s diversity chief wrote together.
In the wake of worldwide public outrage over racist police violence, many of the United States’ largest corporations rushed to publicly align themselves with the growing movement for black lives. Yet a new report from the Public Accountability Initiative exposes how corporate America is actually bankrolling police departments across the country, including many of the same ones facing scrutiny over racist practices.


mintpressnews--2020-08-14--Discussion of Wikileaks or any “Hacked Information” Banned Under New YouTube Rules

Social media giant YouTube announced yesterday a host of new measures it says are aimed at preventing any interference in the upcoming presidential elections .
Chief among the list it wrote on its blog , is “ removing content that contains hacked information , the disclosure of which may interfere with democratic processes , such as elections and censuses.
” An example it gives , would be deleting “ videos that contain hacked information about a political candidate.
” It also promised to “ raise up authoritative voices ” when it comes to current events and politics by changing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ reduce the spread of harmful misinformation and borderline content.
” Example channels that produce authoritative content , it tells readers , includes Fox News and CNN .
It also noted it would expand information panels underneath videos .
There are a number of reasons this new policy could concern users of its platform .
Firstly , the great majority of leaked information — the lifeblood of investigative journalism — is anonymous .
Often , like in the cases of Edward Snowden , Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner , whistleblowers face serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents exposing government or corporate malfeasance .
But without a name to go with a document , the difference between leaked data and hacked data is impossible to define .
Thus , powerful people and organizations could claim data was hacked , rather than leaked , and simply block all discussion of the matter on the platform .
Hearing the news , some feared already existing content from investigative journalists would be subject to removal under the new guidelines .
YouTube ’ s choice of Fox News and CNN as reliable sources might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the latest Reuters Institute Digital News Report , fewer than half of all Americans trust the two networks ( Fox at 42 percent and CNN at 47 percent ) .
And a new study from Gallup/Knight Foundation finds that fewer than a third of the country has a favorable view of the media more generally , including only 19 percent of those under thirty ( YouTube ’ s prime demographic ) .
Many go to the platform precisely because it offers alternative and more diverse opinions to corporate-dominated radio , print @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funneling them back towards those same sources .
The 2016 presidential election was colored by Wikileaks ’ release of the Podesta emails , discussion of which would be banned under YouTube ’ s new rules .
The Hillary Clinton campaign alleges the emails were hacked from Podesta ’ s computer .
The published communications , the authenticity of which is not in doubt , informed the country of the machinations of the Democratic Party , how it tipped the electoral scales in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders in the primary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had a “ public ” and a “ private ” position on regulation , insinuating she was lying to the nation , how representatives of Qatar wanted to meet with her husband Bill for “ five minutes ” to present him with a $ 1 million check for his birthday , and how her own staff held her in contempt .
The emails , Clinton contends , swung the election from her to Trump .
If this is the case , the decision to ban all discussion of them would have fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions seem drastic , the Australian state of Queensland introduced laws yesterday that made it illegal to publish allegations of corruption against any politician during election season .
Those found guilty would be punished with a six-month jail sentence and a fine of nearly U.S. $ 5,000 .
After a public outcry , the law was overturned after only 24 hours .
While misinformation online is a problem , there exist other , more serious threats to electoral integrity .
President Trump , who said that Republicans would never get into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox Business this week that he is actively withholding funds from the U.S .
Postal Service in order to undermine the election to his benefit .
“ They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots , ” he said .
“ But if they don ’ t get those two items , that means you can ’ t have universal mail-in voting , because they ’ re not equipped to have it.
” Add decades of gerrymandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has seen over 1,200 polling stations across the South , primarily in black neighborhoods , and Trump might be able to overcome his polling deficit and beat Biden .
YouTube ’ s decision to ban discussion of hacked information on its platform is unlikely to significantly improve political discourse or election integrity in the United States .
It will , however , continue to tilt the balance in favor of established corporate-funded outlets , to the detriment of new , alternative voices .
Feature photo | Posters of Edward Snowden , left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via Shutterstock | 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 .

Social media giant YouTube announced yesterday a host of new measures it says are aimed at preventing any interference in the upcoming presidential elections. Chief among the list it wrote on its blog, is “removing content that contains hacked information, the disclosure of which may interfere with democratic processes, such as elections and censuses.” An example it gives, would be deleting “videos that contain hacked information about a political candidate.”
It also promised to “raise up authoritative voices” when it comes to current events and politics by changing its algorithm to show users more credible channels and “reduce the spread of harmful misinformation and borderline content.” Example channels that produce authoritative content, it tells readers, includes Fox News and CNN. It also noted it would expand information panels underneath videos.
There are a number of reasons this new policy could concern users of its platform. Firstly, the great majority of leaked information — the lifeblood of investigative journalism — is anonymous. Often, like in the cases of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner, whistleblowers face serious consequences if their names become attached to documents exposing government or corporate malfeasance. But without a name to go with a document, the difference between leaked data and hacked data is impossible to define. Thus, powerful people and organizations could claim data was hacked, rather than leaked, and simply block all discussion of the matter on the platform. Hearing the news, some feared already existing content from investigative journalists would be subject to removal under the new guidelines.
Youtube just announced that it will no longer allow videos that use information from…. Wikileaks and anything obtained in a ‘hack’ (no evidence was ever shown Wikileaks obtained hacked information) Does this mean @EmpireFiles & @JordanChariton videos will be taken down? pic.twitter.com/R8MBLS1hZZ — Robbie Martin (@FluorescentGrey) August 13, 2020
YouTube’s choice of Fox News and CNN as reliable sources might also raise eyebrows in some quarters. According to the latest Reuters Institute Digital News Report, fewer than half of all Americans trust the two networks (Fox at 42 percent and CNN at 47 percent). And a new study from Gallup/Knight Foundation finds that fewer than a third of the country has a favorable view of the media more generally, including only 19 percent of those under thirty (YouTube’s prime demographic). Many go to the platform precisely because it offers alternative and more diverse opinions to corporate-dominated radio, print and television. But YouTube is now funneling them back towards those same sources.
The 2016 presidential election was colored by Wikileaks’ release of the Podesta emails, discussion of which would be banned under YouTube’s new rules. The Hillary Clinton campaign alleges the emails were hacked from Podesta’s computer. The published communications, the authenticity of which is not in doubt, informed the country of the machinations of the Democratic Party, how it tipped the electoral scales in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders in the primary, how Clinton stated to Wall Street that she had a “public” and a “private” position on regulation, insinuating she was lying to the nation, how representatives of Qatar wanted to meet with her husband Bill for “five minutes” to present him with a $1 million check for his birthday, and how her own staff held her in contempt. The emails, Clinton contends, swung the election from her to Trump. If this is the case, the decision to ban all discussion of them would have fundamentally altered the democratic process.
If YouTube’s actions seem drastic, the Australian state of Queensland introduced laws yesterday that made it illegal to publish allegations of corruption against any politician during election season. Those found guilty would be punished with a six-month jail sentence and a fine of nearly U.S.$5,000. After a public outcry, the law was overturned after only 24 hours.
While misinformation online is a problem, there exist other, more serious threats to electoral integrity. President Trump, who said that Republicans would never get into power again if everybody voted, told Fox Business this week that he is actively withholding funds from the U.S. Postal Service in order to undermine the election to his benefit. “They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” he said. “But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting, because they’re not equipped to have it.” Add decades of gerrymandering and a campaign of voter suppression that has seen over 1,200 polling stations across the South, primarily in black neighborhoods, and Trump might be able to overcome his polling deficit and beat Biden.
YouTube’s decision to ban discussion of hacked information on its platform is unlikely to significantly improve political discourse or election integrity in the United States. It will, however, continue to tilt the balance in favor of established corporate-funded outlets, to the detriment of new, alternative voices.
Feature photo | Posters of Edward Snowden, left, and Julian Assange, right. MintPress via Shutterstock | 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--2020-08-14--Julian Assange Court Case Delayed Again in Bizarre Circumstances

There were bizarre scenes at Westminster Magistrates ’ Court in London today , as the extradition process of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange ( present via videophone from Belmarsh prison ) was again delayed .
Proceedings were held up this morning so Assange could converse for the first time in five months with his legal team .
The prosecution team failed to turn up at the hearing because they were told events started at 3:30 p.m. Only five members of the press were allowed to enter the courtroom to monitor proceedings .
Other journalists , observers , and NGOs attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were given the number to another courtroom .
One journalist who did make it inside claimed that the judge , Vanessa Baraitser , was , “ clearly reading from a pre-written ruling.
” Assange sat in a conference room used by the entire prison , without a mask , and was seen coughing a number of times .
At one point , proceedings in the courtroom were interrupted by screaming coming from another booth in Belmarsh prison , loud enough to cause a delay .
Present at the hearing , Assange ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would not survive extradition to the United States .
Perhaps most bizarre , however , is that the United States Department of Justice dropped its original indictment in June , just two days after Assange ’ s defense team submitted their full and final evidence for the extradition hearing .
Today was the first time Assange saw the charges against him .
Yet they are almost identical to those previously issued , save for slightly broadening the scope to include some interactions with hacking groups in 2011 .
The U.S. D.O.J .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019 , ” leading Wikileaks to allege that the U.S. is attempting to string the process along until after the November election , in order to avoid any negative consequences for the Trump administration .
“ This was the worst hearing so far , ” said Kristinn Hrafnsson , the organization ’ s current editor-in-chief .
“ The U.S. government seems to want to change the indictment every time the court meets , but without the defence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” If found guilty , Assange faces up to 175 years in prison .
The defense team , led by Edward Fitzgerald QC , was given a week to decide whether to ask for a hearing scheduled for September 7 to be postponed .
However , they must do that without the input of their client , as Belmarsh prison denied them a post hearing video conference .
One consequence of the replacement indictment is the legality of even keeping the hacktivist publisher imprisoned .
Baraitser stated that Assange has not even been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still being held under the old one that is now null and void .
Thus , to recap : the defendant ( who is not even legally under arrest ) had not even seen the “ new ” charges ( which were the same as the old ones ) or met with his defense team for five months , the judge was reportedly reading from a pre-written script , the prosecution did not turn up , journalists could not watch or listen to the proceedings , which were interrupted by screaming from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The farcical events were immediately denounced by onlookers .
“ I have never in my career faced so much difficulty attempting to trial monitor as in Julian Assange ’ s case .
Whether in person or remotely , there are constant barriers to access .
Completely unacceptable , ” said Rebecca Vincent , Director of International Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders .
Journalist Kevin Gosztola agreed : “ Having covered Chelsea Manning ’ s court martial in a US military court , let me say this clearly : Julian Assange isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the same standards of press access that Chelsea had .
It ’ s much , much worse , ” he wrote on Twitter .
In 1925 , Bohemian writer Frantz Kafka ’ s posthumous book , “ The Trial , ” was published , from where we derive the term “ Kafkaesque.
” “ The Trial ” tells the story of Josef K. , a man arrested and prosecuted in a nightmarish kangaroo court while unable to properly defend himself .
Nearly 100 years later , the Australian publisher is being tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kafka ’ s dystopian fantasies do not seem so unrelatable .
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 .

There were bizarre scenes at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London today, as the extradition process of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange (present via videophone from Belmarsh prison) was again delayed.
Proceedings were held up this morning so Assange could converse for the first time in five months with his legal team. The prosecution team failed to turn up at the hearing because they were told events started at 3:30 p.m. Only five members of the press were allowed to enter the courtroom to monitor proceedings. Other journalists, observers, and NGOs attempting to listen via telephone could not, as they were given the number to another courtroom. One journalist who did make it inside claimed that the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, was, “clearly reading from a pre-written ruling.”
Assange sat in a conference room used by the entire prison, without a mask, and was seen coughing a number of times. At one point, proceedings in the courtroom were interrupted by screaming coming from another booth in Belmarsh prison, loud enough to cause a delay. Present at the hearing, Assange’s mother, Christine, warned that he would not survive extradition to the United States.
Perhaps most bizarre, however, is that the United States Department of Justice dropped its original indictment in June, just two days after Assange’s defense team submitted their full and final evidence for the extradition hearing. Today was the first time Assange saw the charges against him. Yet they are almost identical to those previously issued, save for slightly broadening the scope to include some interactions with hacking groups in 2011. The U.S. D.O.J. itself admitted that their new indictment “does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019,” leading Wikileaks to allege that the U.S. is attempting to string the process along until after the November election, in order to avoid any negative consequences for the Trump administration. “This was the worst hearing so far,” said Kristinn Hrafnsson, the organization’s current editor-in-chief. “The U.S. government seems to want to change the indictment every time the court meets, but without the defence or Julian himself seeing the relevant documents.” If found guilty, Assange faces up to 175 years in prison.
The defense team, led by Edward Fitzgerald QC, was given a week to decide whether to ask for a hearing scheduled for September 7 to be postponed. However, they must do that without the input of their client, as Belmarsh prison denied them a post hearing video conference.
Assange’s kangaroo court
One consequence of the replacement indictment is the legality of even keeping the hacktivist publisher imprisoned. Baraitser stated that Assange has not even been arrested under the new indictment and is still being held under the old one that is now null and void.
Thus, to recap: the defendant (who is not even legally under arrest) had not even seen the “new” charges (which were the same as the old ones) or met with his defense team for five months, the judge was reportedly reading from a pre-written script, the prosecution did not turn up, journalists could not watch or listen to the proceedings, which were interrupted by screaming from the prison where Assange is being kept.
The farcical events were immediately denounced by onlookers. “I have never in my career faced so much difficulty attempting to trial monitor as in Julian Assange’s case. Whether in person or remotely, there are constant barriers to access. Completely unacceptable,” said Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders. Journalist Kevin Gosztola agreed: “Having covered Chelsea Manning’s court martial in a US military court, let me say this clearly: Julian Assange isn’t even being granted the same minimal rights and the same standards of press access that Chelsea had. It’s much, much worse,” he wrote on Twitter.
In 1925, Bohemian writer Frantz Kafka’s posthumous book, “The Trial,” was published, from where we derive the term “Kafkaesque.” “The Trial” tells the story of Josef K., a man arrested and prosecuted in a nightmarish kangaroo court while unable to properly defend himself. Nearly 100 years later, the Australian publisher is being tried in his own kangaroo court, and Kafka’s dystopian fantasies do not seem so unrelatable.
Feature photo | A demonstrator holds a banner outside Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Aug. 14, 2020. Kirsty Wigglesworth | 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--2020-08-14--Bolivia Headed for a Showdown as Mass Protests Erupt Against US-backed Anez Administration

Bolivia is heading for a showdown between the government and the people after nearly two weeks of continuous , nationwide protests have paralyzed the country .
Demonstrations have grown day on day after the government — who came to power in a U.S.-baked coup last November — postponed the elections for the third time .
Ollie Vargas , a journalist who witnessed the events firsthand , shared his experiences with MintPress : We are in day 12 of Bolivia ’ s uprising and general strike called by the unions , and the crisis has reached a boiling point .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key roads in the country have been blocked by people erecting barriers .
So it is up to the government to decide whether they want a peaceful route out , which is through elections as soon as possible , with guarantees to end the persecution against the left and the Movement to Socialism Party [ MAS ] , or if they are going to go down the route of more conflict by rejecting that , at which point the movement will begin calling for the ousting of the government .
The government will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what would have to be basically a military invasion of the country , because this is across every region of Bolivia.
” Unfortunately , many observers predict that the coup government , led by Jeanine Añez , will choose the latter .
MintPress also spoke with Benjamin Dangl , a lecturer at the University of Vermont and the author of the book , “ The Five Hundred Year Rebellion : Indigenous Movements and the Decolonization of History in Bolivia.
” “ The government and its right-wing and paramilitary allies in the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence and threats , ” he said .
Late last month , the government postponed elections for a third time , moving them back to October 18 .
Its justification was the rapidly worsening health situation in the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
It has also canceled school for the country ’ s two million children .
No doubt holding an election would indeed be dangerous at the current moment .
But many in Bolivia felt the move was a sign the self-declared “ interim government ” had little intention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unions called a general strike , and after 12 days of protest that has seen the country shut down through a series of roadblocks , the movement has grown bolder , calling for an end to Añez ’ s rule .
Dangl noted that the method of protest is a common one in Bolivia , being used extensively by the people during the early 2000s Water and Gas Wars against the privatization of the economy .
“ The roadblocks in Bolivia make it impossible for coup officials to escape by land , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surround the airports then Añez/ [ Interior Minister Arturo ] Murillo may not make it to Miami .
The presidential helicopter can only go short distances.
” With the government feeling the heat , it has increasingly turned to violence as a response .
It began by sending low flying aircraft over the protests to intimidate them , simulating attacking them as they did during the November massacres .
Murillo himself appeared on CNN , arguing that firing on the protesters is the “ politically correct thing to do.
” Far-right paramilitaries began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their enemies .
The country ’ s Defense Minister , Fernando Lopez , expressed his support and gratitude to the Christian-fascist group Unión Juvenil Cruceñista who carried out many of the attacks .
“ They know what to do…they need to send a message , ” he said on government broadcaster Bolivia TV .
Ousted president Evo Morales warned that the Añez government is planning what amounts to a second coup , to establish a military-civilian junta , not unlike the fascist regimes that dominated many South American nations in the 20th century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response to it have been given little attention in the Western press , who strongly supported the November coup .
When discussed at all , media have described the paramilitaries carrying out government orders merely as “ armed civilians , ” and not as a key part of the apparatus of oppression .
Even as calls for their resignation have reached a crescendo , the government itself is upping the ante .
Last week , it announced that it would charge Morales and a host of MAS leaders , including Luis Arce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the oft-postponed election ) , with attempted genocide , on the grounds that the protesters had stopped ambulances and vehicles containing emergency medical equipment from reaching their destinations .
“ What is [ being ] done is a crime against humanity , ” Murillo said at a press conference in the highland city of Cochabamba .
Protest-friendly media like Kawsachun Coca strongly contest this claim , and released footage of protesters clearing roadblocks and helping ambulances through .
Polls show that Arce is , by a long way , the favorite for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public intending to vote for him .
By contrast , Añez is likely to garner only 13 percent support in the first round of voting .
Thus , the MAS would be on for an even bigger victory than they had in the October elections last year .
Añez came to power in a military coup in November , just three weeks after Morales won another election .
A strongly conservative Christian , her party received only four percent of the vote .
Handpicked by the military , Añez arrived at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversized bible and declaring that Christ was returning to government .
A relatively unknown senator before the coup , she sparked controversy when she claimed that Bolivia ’ s indigenous population , which polls show makes up a large majority of the country , was “ Satanic.
” Security forces loyal to Añez publicly removed and burned the indigenous Wiphala flag patches from their uniforms , a symbolic gesture showing their commitment to the re-establishment of a white supremacist state .
The Añez administration has spent the ensuing nine months silencing dissent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunting ” down of political opponents .
This included foreign and alternative media , which were taking off the air , with journalists attacked , arrested , or killed .
“ They ’ re drowning the Bolivian people in blood , ” declared deposed vice-president Álvaro García Linera from Mexico , where he was granted asylum .
Murillo also showed off a new masked , black-clad and armed “ anti-terror ” squad aimed at “ foreigners ” — understood as a direct threat to an Argentinian human rights group investigating the killing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreigners who are arriving…to be careful , ” he said , “ We are looking at you .
We are following you , ” warning them that there will be “ zero tolerance ” for any “ terrorism ” or “ sedition ” they enact .
“ At the first false move that they make , trying to commit terrorism and sedition , they will have to deal with the police , ” he added .
The supposedly “ interim ” government also went on a privatization drive , reorienting the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pulling out of multiple international treaties .
The government has enjoyed the unwavering support of the United States and the Washington-based Organization of American States .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “ congratulated ” Añez on the coup , what he described as , “ leading her nation through this democratic transition.
” The mainstream press followed suit .
The Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board called the coup a “ democratic outbreak in Bolivia.
” The New York Times ’ board were relieved that the “ increasingly dictatorial ” Morales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post told its readers that , “ there could be little doubt who was ultimately responsible for the chaos : newly resigned president Evo Morales.
” There was widespread but relatively disorganized opposition to the coup at the time , with many of the MAS leaders jailed or fleeing abroad to escape arrest , and the new government was able to effectively suppress dissent .
However , over time , the opposition became more strident , especially as Añez proved to be incapable of stopping a COVID-19 pandemic ripping through the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , Vargas responded , “ The message from people here would be that they want the international community and governments around the world to pressure the government to end the paramilitary attacks and to accept a peaceful way for them to leave power , and that is through elections .
If the government refuses that then they are pushing the country into more violence.
” Feature photo | Miners wearing face masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic , protest against the postponement of the presidential election in El Alto , Bolivia , Aug. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Bolivia is heading for a showdown between the government and the people after nearly two weeks of continuous, nationwide protests have paralyzed the country. Demonstrations have grown day on day after the government — who came to power in a U.S.-baked coup last November — postponed the elections for the third time. Ollie Vargas, a journalist who witnessed the events firsthand, shared his experiences with MintPress:
We are in day 12 of Bolivia’s uprising and general strike called by the unions, and the crisis has reached a boiling point. All of the country is paralysed. The key roads in the country have been blocked by people erecting barriers. So it is up to the government to decide whether they want a peaceful route out, which is through elections as soon as possible, with guarantees to end the persecution against the left and the Movement to Socialism Party [MAS], or if they are going to go down the route of more conflict by rejecting that, at which point the movement will begin calling for the ousting of the government. The government will have to start attacking the protesters, in what would have to be basically a military invasion of the country, because this is across every region of Bolivia.”
Unfortunately, many observers predict that the coup government, led by Jeanine Añez, will choose the latter. MintPress also spoke with Benjamin Dangl, a lecturer at the University of Vermont and the author of the book, “The Five Hundred Year Rebellion: Indigenous Movements and the Decolonization of History in Bolivia.” “The government and its right-wing and paramilitary allies in the streets meet protesters’ legitimate demands with racist violence and threats,” he said.
Since last November, the Áñez government has carried out grave human rights violations and massacres against political enemies and protesters. Its current handling of protests indicates it is not interested in a peaceful solution to the crisis it has created.”
Late last month, the government postponed elections for a third time, moving them back to October 18. Its justification was the rapidly worsening health situation in the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has also canceled school for the country’s two million children. No doubt holding an election would indeed be dangerous at the current moment. But many in Bolivia felt the move was a sign the self-declared “interim government” had little intention of ever giving up power.
On the 10th day of Bolivia's general strike, more sectors join the protests against the coup government. Today, the town of Konani, La Paz, mobilized as a community to call for democracy. Video: Wara Noticias pic.twitter.com/pNF6u761b7 — Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) August 12, 2020
In response, unions called a general strike, and after 12 days of protest that has seen the country shut down through a series of roadblocks, the movement has grown bolder, calling for an end to Añez’s rule. Dangl noted that the method of protest is a common one in Bolivia, being used extensively by the people during the early 2000s Water and Gas Wars against the privatization of the economy.
The rising number of protesters involved in road blockades across Bolivia speak to a long tradition of blockades as a form of protest in the country. Bolivian blockaders have toppled dictatorships, ushered in a return to democracy, and kicked out some of the most powerful corporations and banking institutions in the world. Now they are facing down the repressive and undemocratic Áñez government. The protests reflect the wide rejection of Áñez, and go beyond the MAS base and close supporters of Morales, pointing toward a massive grassroots uprising.”
“The roadblocks in Bolivia make it impossible for coup officials to escape by land, Vargas said. “If social movements surround the airports then Añez/ [Interior Minister Arturo] Murillo may not make it to Miami. The presidential helicopter can only go short distances.”
Indigenous protesters from the Bolivian town of Palca, are now calling for the resignation of self-declared President Jeanine Añez, citing the destruction of education and health services. Video: teleSUR pic.twitter.com/VFv0mt9L6T — Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) August 7, 2020
With the government feeling the heat, it has increasingly turned to violence as a response. It began by sending low flying aircraft over the protests to intimidate them, simulating attacking them as they did during the November massacres. Murillo himself appeared on CNN, arguing that firing on the protesters is the “politically correct thing to do.” Far-right paramilitaries began doing just that, shooting and wounding their enemies. The country’s Defense Minister, Fernando Lopez, expressed his support and gratitude to the Christian-fascist group Unión Juvenil Cruceñista who carried out many of the attacks. “They know what to do…they need to send a message,” he said on government broadcaster Bolivia TV.
Ousted president Evo Morales warned that the Añez government is planning what amounts to a second coup, to establish a military-civilian junta, not unlike the fascist regimes that dominated many South American nations in the 20th century.
The uprising and the government’s response to it have been given little attention in the Western press, who strongly supported the November coup. When discussed at all, media have described the paramilitaries carrying out government orders merely as “armed civilians,” and not as a key part of the apparatus of oppression.
Even as calls for their resignation have reached a crescendo, the government itself is upping the ante. Last week, it announced that it would charge Morales and a host of MAS leaders, including Luis Arce (the party’s presidential candidate in the oft-postponed election), with attempted genocide, on the grounds that the protesters had stopped ambulances and vehicles containing emergency medical equipment from reaching their destinations. “What is [being] done is a crime against humanity,” Murillo said at a press conference in the highland city of Cochabamba. Protest-friendly media like Kawsachun Coca strongly contest this claim, and released footage of protesters clearing roadblocks and helping ambulances through.
Polls show that Arce is, by a long way, the favorite for any election, with 42 percent of the public intending to vote for him. By contrast, Añez is likely to garner only 13 percent support in the first round of voting. Thus, the MAS would be on for an even bigger victory than they had in the October elections last year.
Añez came to power in a military coup in November, just three weeks after Morales won another election. A strongly conservative Christian, her party received only four percent of the vote. Handpicked by the military, Añez arrived at the presidential palace in La Paz clutching an oversized bible and declaring that Christ was returning to government. A relatively unknown senator before the coup, she sparked controversy when she claimed that Bolivia’s indigenous population, which polls show makes up a large majority of the country, was “Satanic.” Security forces loyal to Añez publicly removed and burned the indigenous Wiphala flag patches from their uniforms, a symbolic gesture showing their commitment to the re-establishment of a white supremacist state.
The Añez administration has spent the ensuing nine months silencing dissent, conducting what Murillo himself called a “hunting” down of political opponents. This included foreign and alternative media, which were taking off the air, with journalists attacked, arrested, or killed. “They’re drowning the Bolivian people in blood,” declared deposed vice-president Álvaro García Linera from Mexico, where he was granted asylum. Murillo also showed off a new masked, black-clad and armed “anti-terror” squad aimed at “foreigners” — understood as a direct threat to an Argentinian human rights group investigating the killing of a journalist. “We recommend these foreigners who are arriving…to be careful,”he said, “We are looking at you. We are following you,” warning them that there will be “zero tolerance” for any “terrorism” or “sedition” they enact. “At the first false move that they make, trying to commit terrorism and sedition, they will have to deal with the police,” he added. The supposedly “interim” government also went on a privatization drive, reorienting the country’s foreign policy towards the United States, pulling out of multiple international treaties.
The government has enjoyed the unwavering support of the United States and the Washington-based Organization of American States. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “congratulated” Añez on the coup, what he described as, “leading her nation through this democratic transition.” The mainstream press followed suit. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board called the coup a “democratic outbreak in Bolivia.” The New York Times’ board were relieved that the “increasingly dictatorial” Morales had “resigned.” Meanwhile, The Washington Post told its readers that, “there could be little doubt who was ultimately responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales.”
There was widespread but relatively disorganized opposition to the coup at the time, with many of the MAS leaders jailed or fleeing abroad to escape arrest, and the new government was able to effectively suppress dissent. However, over time, the opposition became more strident, especially as Añez proved to be incapable of stopping a COVID-19 pandemic ripping through the country.
When asked what people abroad should do, Vargas responded, “The message from people here would be that they want the international community and governments around the world to pressure the government to end the paramilitary attacks and to accept a peaceful way for them to leave power, and that is through elections. If the government refuses that then they are pushing the country into more violence.”
Feature photo | Miners wearing face masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic, protest against the postponement of the presidential election in El Alto, Bolivia, Aug. 11, 2020. Juan Karita | 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--2020-08-14--Don’t be Hoodwinked by Trump’s UAE-Israel “Peace Deal”

HUGE breakthrough today , ” crowed Donald Trump on Twitter as he announced the new peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) .
The deal makes the UAE the first Gulf Arab state and the third Arab nation , after Egypt and Jordan , to have diplomatic ties with Israel .
But the new Israel-UAE partnership should fool no one .
Though it will supposedly stave off Israeli annexation of the West Bank and encourage tourism and trade between both countries , in reality , it is nothing more than a scheme to give an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s status quo of land theft , home demolitions , arbitrary extrajudicial killings , apartheid laws , and other abuses of Palestinian rights .
The deal should be seen in the context of over three years of Trump administration policies that have tightened Israel ’ s grip on the Palestinians : moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem , recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory , and creating a so-called peace plan with no Palestinian participation or input .
While no U.S. administration has successfully brokered a resolution to Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump years have been especially detrimental to the Palestinian cause .
Palestinian leader Hanan Ashrawi wrote on Twitter that with this deal , “ Israel got rewarded for not declaring openly what it ’ s been doing to Palestine illegally & persistently since the beginning of the occupation.
” Indeed , with Donald Trump at the helm and son-in-law Jared Kushner as the primary strategist , even concessions for Palestinians have been done away with .
To add insult to injury , while the deal had been couched in terms of a commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territories , in his Israeli press conference announcing the deal , Netanyahu said annexation was “ still on the table ” and that it was something he is “ committed to.
” Among the most brutal aspects of this period for Palestinians have been the loss of support for their cause in neighboring Arab states .
The Arab political party in Israel , Balad , said that by signing this pact , “ the UAE has officially joined Israel against Palestine , and placed itself in the camp of the enemies of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held a position consistent with public opinion in Gulf and Middle East countries that the acceptance of formal diplomatic relations with Israel should only take place in exchange for a just peace and in accordance with international law .
Back in June , Emirati ambassador to the U.S. Yousef al-Otaiba penned an an op-ed in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper , the Israeli equivalent to U.S.A Today , appealing directly in Hebrew for Israel not to annex the West Bank .
However , by working out an agreement with Trump and Netanyahu to normalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself Israel ’ s partner in cementing de facto annexation and ongoing apartheid .
The UAE ’ s change from supporting Palestinian dignity and freedom to supporting Israel ’ s never-ending occupation is a calculated move by UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed , a shrewd Middle East dictator who uses his country ’ s military and financial resources to thwart moves towards democracy and respect for human rights under the guise of fighting Islamic terrorism .
His support for Israel cements his relationship with the Trump administration .
Trump has already gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars in arms sales to the UAE , despite opposition from Congress because of high number of civilian casualties associated with the use of those weapons in Yemen .
Secretary Pompeo has also defended the UAE from credible reports that U.S. weapons sold to the UAE have been transferred in Yemen to groups linked to Al Qaeda , hardline Salafi militias and Yemeni separatists .
The UAE was also stung by revelations of secret prisons it had been operating in Yemen where prisoners were subjected to horrific forms of torture , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were “ tied to a spit like a roast and spun in a circle of fire.
” In Libya , the UAE has been criticized for violating a 2011 UN Security Council arms embargo by supplying combat equipment to the LAAF , the armed group commanded by General Khalifa Haftar with a well-established record of human right abuses .
So this deal with Israel gives the UAE a much-needed veneer of respectability .
But it is impossible to understand the impetus for this deal without putting it in the context of the ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Following the old adage that “ the enemy of my enemy is my friend , ” in recent years Israel has been negotiating with various Gulf states , including the UAE , to push back against Iran ’ s growing influence in the region .
As the communique announcing the Israeli-UAE deal asserted , the U.S. , Israel and the UAE “ share a similar outlook regarding threats in the region.
” This dovetails with Trump ’ s anti-Iran obsession , which includes withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran back to the negotiating table to make a “ better deal.
” In announcing the UAE-Israeli pact , Trump declared with ridiculous bravado that if he wins the elections , he ’ ll have a new deal with Iran within 30 days .
Anyone who believes this must be almost as delusional as Trump .
The fact that this agreement between two Middle East countries was first announced thousands of miles away in Washington DC shows how it is more about shoring up Trump ’ s slumping electoral campaign and improving Netanyahu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing peace to the Middle East .
It also shows that Netanyahu and bin Zayed have a stake in seeing Trump win a second term in the White House .
Instead of pointing out the hollowness of the pact , Joe Biden ’ s response was unfortunately to congratulate Israel and the UAE and try to take credit for the deal .
“ I personally spent time with leaders of both Israel and the U.A.E .
during our administration , building the case for cooperation and broader engagement , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s announcement.
” The normalization of relations between the UAE and Israel , facilitated by the U.S. , serves to prop up three repressive leaders — Trump , Netanyahu , and bin Zayed — and will cause further harm to Palestinians .
It is both a shame and a sham .
Feature photo | A composite image shows from left to right , Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed , U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
Photo | MintPress News via AP Medea Benjamin is cofounder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several books , including Inside Iran : The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran .
Ariel Gold is the national co-director and Senior Middle East Policy Analyst with CODEPINK for Peace .

HUGE breakthrough today,” crowed Donald Trump on Twitter as he announced the new peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The deal makes the UAE the first Gulf Arab state and the third Arab nation, after Egypt and Jordan, to have diplomatic ties with Israel. But the new Israel-UAE partnership should fool no one. Though it will supposedly stave off Israeli annexation of the West Bank and encourage tourism and trade between both countries, in reality, it is nothing more than a scheme to give an Arab stamp of approval to Israel’s status quo of land theft, home demolitions, arbitrary extrajudicial killings, apartheid laws, and other abuses of Palestinian rights.
The deal should be seen in the context of over three years of Trump administration policies that have tightened Israel’s grip on the Palestinians: moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, and creating a so-called peace plan with no Palestinian participation or input. While no U.S. administration has successfully brokered a resolution to Israel’s now 53-year-long occupation, the Trump years have been especially detrimental to the Palestinian cause. Palestinian leader Hanan Ashrawi wrote on Twitter that with this deal, “Israel got rewarded for not declaring openly what it’s been doing to Palestine illegally & persistently since the beginning of the occupation.” Indeed, with Donald Trump at the helm and son-in-law Jared Kushner as the primary strategist, even concessions for Palestinians have been done away with. To add insult to injury, while the deal had been couched in terms of a commitment by Israel to suspend annexation of Palestinian territories, in his Israeli press conference announcing the deal, Netanyahu said annexation was “still on the table” and that it was something he is “committed to.”
Among the most brutal aspects of this period for Palestinians have been the loss of support for their cause in neighboring Arab states. The Arab political party in Israel, Balad, said that by signing this pact, “the UAE has officially joined Israel against Palestine, and placed itself in the camp of the enemies of the Palestinian people.”
The UAE has previously held a position consistent with public opinion in Gulf and Middle East countries that the acceptance of formal diplomatic relations with Israel should only take place in exchange for a just peace and in accordance with international law. Back in June, Emirati ambassador to the U.S. Yousef al-Otaiba penned an an op-ed in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, the Israeli equivalent to U.S.A Today, appealing directly in Hebrew for Israel not to annex the West Bank. However, by working out an agreement with Trump and Netanyahu to normalize relations, the country has now made itself Israel’s partner in cementing de facto annexation and ongoing apartheid.
The UAE’s change from supporting Palestinian dignity and freedom to supporting Israel’s never-ending occupation is a calculated move by UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, a shrewd Middle East dictator who uses his country’s military and financial resources to thwart moves towards democracy and respect for human rights under the guise of fighting Islamic terrorism. His support for Israel cements his relationship with the Trump administration. Trump has already gone out of his way to push billions of dollars in arms sales to the UAE, despite opposition from Congress because of high number of civilian casualties associated with the use of those weapons in Yemen.
Secretary Pompeo has also defended the UAE from credible reports that U.S. weapons sold to the UAE have been transferred in Yemen to groups linked to Al Qaeda, hardline Salafi militias and Yemeni separatists. The UAE was also stung by revelations of secret prisons it had been operating in Yemen where prisoners were subjected to horrific forms of torture, including “the grill,” where victims were “tied to a spit like a roast and spun in a circle of fire.” In Libya, the UAE has been criticized for violating a 2011 UN Security Council arms embargo by supplying combat equipment to the LAAF, the armed group commanded by General Khalifa Haftar with a well-established record of human right abuses. So this deal with Israel gives the UAE a much-needed veneer of respectability.
But it is impossible to understand the impetus for this deal without putting it in the context of the ongoing hostilities between all three countries and Iran. Following the old adage that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” in recent years Israel has been negotiating with various Gulf states, including the UAE, to push back against Iran’s growing influence in the region. As the communique announcing the Israeli-UAE deal asserted, the U.S., Israel and the UAE “share a similar outlook regarding threats in the region.” This dovetails with Trump’s anti-Iran obsession, which includes withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and his “maximum pressure” campaign designed to force Iran back to the negotiating table to make a “better deal.” In announcing the UAE-Israeli pact, Trump declared with ridiculous bravado that if he wins the elections, he’ll have a new deal with Iran within 30 days. Anyone who believes this must be almost as delusional as Trump.
The fact that this agreement between two Middle East countries was first announced thousands of miles away in Washington DC shows how it is more about shoring up Trump’s slumping electoral campaign and improving Netanyahu’s battered image in Israel than bringing peace to the Middle East. It also shows that Netanyahu and bin Zayed have a stake in seeing Trump win a second term in the White House. Instead of pointing out the hollowness of the pact, Joe Biden’s response was unfortunately to congratulate Israel and the UAE and try to take credit for the deal. “I personally spent time with leaders of both Israel and the U.A.E. during our administration, building the case for cooperation and broader engagement,” he said. “I am gratified by today’s announcement.”
The normalization of relations between the UAE and Israel, facilitated by the U.S., serves to prop up three repressive leaders — Trump, Netanyahu, and bin Zayed — and will cause further harm to Palestinians. It is both a shame and a sham.
Feature photo | A composite image shows from left to right, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo | MintPress News via AP
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Ariel Gold is the national co-director and Senior Middle East Policy Analyst with CODEPINK for Peace.