Friday, July 20, 2018 COMMENTS

Skip Navigation Links
 
link
 
link
SUPPLEMENT

Visitor Login










New Israeli offensive targets Gaza

Special Correspondent

Israel launch airstrike on Gaza , stops fuel supply , bans Bans Groups Critical of State and Military.
Israeli airstrikes Saturday have injured hundreds of civilians and killed two Palestinian teens who were at a public park next to an unfinished building.
The airstrike was launched  targeting the 16th Great March of Return in the besieged Gaza Strip. in the occupied West Bank.
The Great March of Return was launched on March 30, Palestinian Land Day, to demand Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the ancestral lands from which their families were expelled after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
The demonstrations in the framework of the Great March of Return remembrance was scheduled to end on May 15, when Palestinians commemorate the Nakba or catastrophe, but protesters have continued to demonstrate along the fence Israel unilaterally built to surround the Gaza Strip.
The targeting of civilians who pose no imminent threat to soldiers or Israeli civilians has also continued. The murders of Othman and Muhammad Friday are the latest cases of Israel’s unjustified use of lethal force.
Israeli missiles did not only kill civilian victims on Saturday, but also targeted the “Arts and Crafts Village”, a museum managed by the City Council in Gaza, and founded by late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1998, with financial support from the United Nations Development Program.
The strikes consist in a “deliberate and barbaric assault against Palestinian heritage and history,” said Emad Siyam, the general-director of the Cultural Affairs at Gaza City Council, to Palestinian TV.
He especially referred how the missiles bombed the Arts and Crafts Village, whose director Ihsan Qaja confirmed that the four buildings were heavily damaged.
He added that the strikes violated international laws and targeted Palestine’s historic preservation projects, as the buildings were preserving important items of Palestinian archeological history, arts and crafts.
Israel has closed the Kerem Shalom crossing to any gas and fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip. The crossing was already closed to most merchandises, but fuel, food and medicine that have explicit Israeli permissions were exempt.
Moreover, the fishing zone in the Gaza Strip has been reduced to 3 nautical miles, half of what it was. These measures were taken by the Israeli government “due to continued attempts to carry out terror by the Hamas terror organization,” according to a statement by the Israeli Defense Ministry.
“Food and medicine will continue to be transferred and will be approved on an individual basis. Moreover, it has been decided to narrow the fishing zone in the Gaza Strip from a range of six nautical miles to three nautical miles,” the statement said.
Palestinian resistance movement Hamas replied to Israel’s action with a statement posted on the official website of the organization.
“The Israeli occupation’s closure of the Kerem Shalom crossing and depriving Gaza from the most simple necessities of life is a crime against humanity that will be added to its list of crimes at the expense of the Palestinian people including those living in the Strip,” said the statement.
The statement said that “these vengeful measures reflect the degree of the oppression and the ugliness of the crime that Gaza is facing, that will have dangerous consequences for which the occupation will bear full responsibility.”
Additionally, the Egyptian government announced the temporary closure of the Rafah crossing, due to technical problems. The announcement emphasized that the malfunction was on their side and that the closure will be only temporary.
New Law bans criticism
against state, military
Israel’s parliament passed a law on Tuesday that could see groups critical of government policies toward the Palestinians banned from entering Israeli schools and speaking with pupils.
Critics of the law, which passed with 43 votes in favor and 24 against in the 120-seat Knesset, said it was a blow to core democratic values like free speech and part of the Israeli government’s effort to delegitimize rights groups and NGOs.
The amendment to the education act grants new powers to Education Minister Naftali Bennett, head of the religious-nationalist Jewish Home party, to order schools to bar certain groups from giving lectures to students.
The legislation has been dubbed the “Breaking the Silence” law, a reference to the Israeli group of that name which collects and publishes testimony from Israeli veterans about the military’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and during conflicts with militants in Gaza.
Bennett has been critical of the organization along with other right-wing politicians who accuse the group of damaging Israel’s image abroad and putting soldiers and officials at risk of prosecution for alleged war crimes. “Anyone who wanders around the world attacking Israeli soldiers, will not enter a school,” Bennett said in a statement.
Breaking the Silence said the law is meant to weaken it and other rights groups. “It’s really about trying to silence and cover up what’s been going on in the occupied territories for 51 years,” said the group’s director, Avner Gvaryahu.
Israel has maintained a brutal military occupation on the West Bank since 1967 which saw a major illegal settler activity in the region that has compromised the two-state solution and peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis. Gaza has been under a strict Israeli blockade since 2006. The enclave is ruled by the Hamas resistance movement.
Ram Cohen, a headmaster at Tel Aviv’s Tichonet high school, said he hosted Breaking the Silence at the school last year and planned to invite the group again, even if it meant breaching the law. “As a principal, as an educator, it is my duty to stand up and say - no more,” Cohen said. “These laws are meant to harm democracy. I shall not be a part of it. I do not agree with it and I shall object to it.”
Amir Fuchs, who heads the Israel Democracy Institute’s Defending Democratic Values Program, said the law was part of a wider phenomenon in Israel of trying to discredit left-wing groups. “Education is about thinking critically. It’s about hearing people you don’t agree with. And this is what we want to teach our children,” Fuchs said.
“In order for us to educate our young people to be democratic, to be liberal, they have to hear the other side.

Comment

Special Correspondent

Israel launch airstrike on Gaza , stops fuel supply , bans Bans Groups Critical of State and Military.
Israeli airstrikes Saturday have injured hundreds of civilians and killed two Palestinian teens who were at a public park next to an unfinished building.
The airstrike was launched  targeting the 16th Great March of Return in the besieged Gaza Strip. in the occupied West Bank.
The Great March of Return was launched on March 30, Palestinian Land Day, to demand Palestinian refugees’ right to return to the ancestral lands from which their families were expelled after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
The demonstrations in the framework of the Great March of Return remembrance was scheduled to end on May 15, when Palestinians commemorate the Nakba or catastrophe, but protesters have continued to demonstrate along the fence Israel unilaterally built to surround the Gaza Strip.
The targeting of civilians who pose no imminent threat to soldiers or Israeli civilians has also continued. The murders of Othman and Muhammad Friday are the latest cases of Israel’s unjustified use of lethal force.
Israeli missiles did not only kill civilian victims on Saturday, but also targeted the “Arts and Crafts Village”, a museum managed by the City Council in Gaza, and founded by late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1998, with financial support from the United Nations Development Program.
The strikes consist in a “deliberate and barbaric assault against Palestinian heritage and history,” said Emad Siyam, the general-director of the Cultural Affairs at Gaza City Council, to Palestinian TV.
He especially referred how the missiles bombed the Arts and Crafts Village, whose director Ihsan Qaja confirmed that the four buildings were heavily damaged.
He added that the strikes violated international laws and targeted Palestine’s historic preservation projects, as the buildings were preserving important items of Palestinian archeological history, arts and crafts.
Israel has closed the Kerem Shalom crossing to any gas and fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip. The crossing was already closed to most merchandises, but fuel, food and medicine that have explicit Israeli permissions were exempt.
Moreover, the fishing zone in the Gaza Strip has been reduced to 3 nautical miles, half of what it was. These measures were taken by the Israeli government “due to continued attempts to carry out terror by the Hamas terror organization,” according to a statement by the Israeli Defense Ministry.
“Food and medicine will continue to be transferred and will be approved on an individual basis. Moreover, it has been decided to narrow the fishing zone in the Gaza Strip from a range of six nautical miles to three nautical miles,” the statement said.
Palestinian resistance movement Hamas replied to Israel’s action with a statement posted on the official website of the organization.
“The Israeli occupation’s closure of the Kerem Shalom crossing and depriving Gaza from the most simple necessities of life is a crime against humanity that will be added to its list of crimes at the expense of the Palestinian people including those living in the Strip,” said the statement.
The statement said that “these vengeful measures reflect the degree of the oppression and the ugliness of the crime that Gaza is facing, that will have dangerous consequences for which the occupation will bear full responsibility.”
Additionally, the Egyptian government announced the temporary closure of the Rafah crossing, due to technical problems. The announcement emphasized that the malfunction was on their side and that the closure will be only temporary.
New Law bans criticism
against state, military
Israel’s parliament passed a law on Tuesday that could see groups critical of government policies toward the Palestinians banned from entering Israeli schools and speaking with pupils.
Critics of the law, which passed with 43 votes in favor and 24 against in the 120-seat Knesset, said it was a blow to core democratic values like free speech and part of the Israeli government’s effort to delegitimize rights groups and NGOs.
The amendment to the education act grants new powers to Education Minister Naftali Bennett, head of the religious-nationalist Jewish Home party, to order schools to bar certain groups from giving lectures to students.
The legislation has been dubbed the “Breaking the Silence” law, a reference to the Israeli group of that name which collects and publishes testimony from Israeli veterans about the military’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and during conflicts with militants in Gaza.
Bennett has been critical of the organization along with other right-wing politicians who accuse the group of damaging Israel’s image abroad and putting soldiers and officials at risk of prosecution for alleged war crimes. “Anyone who wanders around the world attacking Israeli soldiers, will not enter a school,” Bennett said in a statement.
Breaking the Silence said the law is meant to weaken it and other rights groups. “It’s really about trying to silence and cover up what’s been going on in the occupied territories for 51 years,” said the group’s director, Avner Gvaryahu.
Israel has maintained a brutal military occupation on the West Bank since 1967 which saw a major illegal settler activity in the region that has compromised the two-state solution and peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis. Gaza has been under a strict Israeli blockade since 2006. The enclave is ruled by the Hamas resistance movement.
Ram Cohen, a headmaster at Tel Aviv’s Tichonet high school, said he hosted Breaking the Silence at the school last year and planned to invite the group again, even if it meant breaching the law. “As a principal, as an educator, it is my duty to stand up and say - no more,” Cohen said. “These laws are meant to harm democracy. I shall not be a part of it. I do not agree with it and I shall object to it.”
Amir Fuchs, who heads the Israel Democracy Institute’s Defending Democratic Values Program, said the law was part of a wider phenomenon in Israel of trying to discredit left-wing groups. “Education is about thinking critically. It’s about hearing people you don’t agree with. And this is what we want to teach our children,” Fuchs said.
“In order for us to educate our young people to be democratic, to be liberal, they have to hear the other side.


Login to post comments


(0)



Tougher Times for Afghanistan

Asad Rehman in Islamabad

In the changing geopolitical scenario, President Trump’s Afghanistan policy signifies tougher times for an already fallen regime.
The US urgency for an exit from this decades’ old Afghan war is being felt by the policy thinkers and onlookers though there is no working time line given by the President Trump. Determining the cost and productiveness of the troops in Afghanistan, the businessman turned President of the United States is now interested in withdrawing those troops from this costly war. The uncertainty produced in the region thus has translated into a situation where the other regional actors are responding to the reservations by aligning their own interests.
For these countries there is no uncertainty about the bottom line. The White House is looking for an exit with the shortest considerable time line. This has also been confirmed by the departure of ex-trump advisor on Afghanistan, H.R. McMaster, and the appointment of Iran and North Korea focused, John Bolton as his successor.
The US military commanders are seen moving quickly to finish the job. The situation has become so obscure that the other powers in the region — the two influentials, China, Russia and the neighboring Iran, India, and Pakistan — have started recognizing their security options, threats and opportunities once the United States fully withdraws, while minutely weighing in the limitations of the Kabul government.
The US is building up the strength of Afghan units with a re-energized air campaign and new advisory units emplaced with Afghan army battalions while the administration pushes for talks with the Taliban in order to bring a negotiated end to the conflict. China has made it clear that it will support Afghan government-led efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict with the Taliban – an approach which is supported by the United States. It has also signed a defense agreement with Afghanistan to build a base in northern Afghanistan and set up a trilateral contact group with Afghanistan and Pakistan to combat terrorism.
Moscow, on the other hand, has heightened cooperation between Russia and Pakistan that is empirically visible. In February of this year, Moscow appointed an honorary consul in the city of Peshawar, Pakistan. Moreover, the addition of Russian language signage in the tribal belt and even around Islamabad also reflect upon the camaraderie both the countries are enjoying. Iran’s concern about ISIS spillover beyond her boundaries can be seen as a reason behind its move to cement relation with Pakistan. In the past Iran and India have traditionally worked together at many visible times, however, as India has now moved closer to the United States and Israel, Iran has begun to take on a more adversarial tone vis-à-vis India. This became quite visible in 2017 when Iran rejected Trump’s call for greater Indian engagement in Afghanistan and criticized Indian military actions in Kashmir.
Other small non-aligned countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have joined Russia and China in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) thus putting their weight behind these big regional powers. Apparently, India seems to be the only odd man out in the aligning of interests in the region. It has a long and most of the time troubled relationship with both China and Pakistan having a history of hostile conflicts with both. Her relations with Iran have become more difficult in recent years as New Delhi deepened her relations with the United States. This new friendship with the US has actually dismissed the chances of allying with her long-gone love of the past, Russia also.
Russia is the dominant military partner for Central Asia while China takes the lead in economic activities. Owing to the changing US policies in Afghanistan, both the countries, for varied reasons, are concerned about the ability of the Afghan government to keep control of its territory and its capability to fully contain the radical elements without the support of US army. Besides, they also recognize the importance of the role Pakistan is playing in reigning in the militants. And this recognition has made them adopt a two track policy: providing support for the Afghan government while trying to get Pakistan on board vis-a vis the Taliban.
This is coming at a time when the United States has relegated Pakistan’s role in the Afghan conflict culmination strategy and blocked the military assistance funds to Islamabad on the pretext of not doing more. The inability of the Afghan government to address the prevailing security situation is having a negative impact on her economic development consequently leading the major regional powers to look for other options to stabilize the region. Moreover, India will never put her boots on the ground because she is still been haunted by her failed experience with intervention in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. Also, given the uneasy relationship with Pakistan and Iran, the geography of the region precludes an easy way to do this and Indian army is neither trained to nor have the courage to go for a war in this terrain single-handedly.
Stake holders in Afghanistan need to understand new ground realities. Any viable regional mechanism for taking on the Afghan cauldron cannot be seem possible without having Pakistan on board. Especially at a time when both Pakistan and Afghanistan are on the course of redefining mutual relations. For a peaceful and economic exit plan, the US also cannot deny that Pakistan provides unmatchable logistic routes for the foreign forces engaged in Afghan war.
Routes through Pakistan are the shortest and cheapest and presently are the safest owing to the Pakistan army’s resolve to ascertain peace in the country. Another exit option could be through aligning the SCO with US exit policy, since all the major regional powers are available under this one umbrella. Interestingly, and quite contrary to the US beliefs, the members of the SCO also trust Pakistan of being the lone brave lion to handle this menace impeccably. Better understanding of regional sensitivities will help the US to better grasp the situation in Afghanistan if she really wants to end this decades old deadly conflict.

Comment

Asad Rehman in Islamabad

In the changing geopolitical scenario, President Trump’s Afghanistan policy signifies tougher times for an already fallen regime.
The US urgency for an exit from this decades’ old Afghan war is being felt by the policy thinkers and onlookers though there is no working time line given by the President Trump. Determining the cost and productiveness of the troops in Afghanistan, the businessman turned President of the United States is now interested in withdrawing those troops from this costly war. The uncertainty produced in the region thus has translated into a situation where the other regional actors are responding to the reservations by aligning their own interests.
For these countries there is no uncertainty about the bottom line. The White House is looking for an exit with the shortest considerable time line. This has also been confirmed by the departure of ex-trump advisor on Afghanistan, H.R. McMaster, and the appointment of Iran and North Korea focused, John Bolton as his successor.
The US military commanders are seen moving quickly to finish the job. The situation has become so obscure that the other powers in the region — the two influentials, China, Russia and the neighboring Iran, India, and Pakistan — have started recognizing their security options, threats and opportunities once the United States fully withdraws, while minutely weighing in the limitations of the Kabul government.
The US is building up the strength of Afghan units with a re-energized air campaign and new advisory units emplaced with Afghan army battalions while the administration pushes for talks with the Taliban in order to bring a negotiated end to the conflict. China has made it clear that it will support Afghan government-led efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict with the Taliban – an approach which is supported by the United States. It has also signed a defense agreement with Afghanistan to build a base in northern Afghanistan and set up a trilateral contact group with Afghanistan and Pakistan to combat terrorism.
Moscow, on the other hand, has heightened cooperation between Russia and Pakistan that is empirically visible. In February of this year, Moscow appointed an honorary consul in the city of Peshawar, Pakistan. Moreover, the addition of Russian language signage in the tribal belt and even around Islamabad also reflect upon the camaraderie both the countries are enjoying. Iran’s concern about ISIS spillover beyond her boundaries can be seen as a reason behind its move to cement relation with Pakistan. In the past Iran and India have traditionally worked together at many visible times, however, as India has now moved closer to the United States and Israel, Iran has begun to take on a more adversarial tone vis-à-vis India. This became quite visible in 2017 when Iran rejected Trump’s call for greater Indian engagement in Afghanistan and criticized Indian military actions in Kashmir.
Other small non-aligned countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have joined Russia and China in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) thus putting their weight behind these big regional powers. Apparently, India seems to be the only odd man out in the aligning of interests in the region. It has a long and most of the time troubled relationship with both China and Pakistan having a history of hostile conflicts with both. Her relations with Iran have become more difficult in recent years as New Delhi deepened her relations with the United States. This new friendship with the US has actually dismissed the chances of allying with her long-gone love of the past, Russia also.
Russia is the dominant military partner for Central Asia while China takes the lead in economic activities. Owing to the changing US policies in Afghanistan, both the countries, for varied reasons, are concerned about the ability of the Afghan government to keep control of its territory and its capability to fully contain the radical elements without the support of US army. Besides, they also recognize the importance of the role Pakistan is playing in reigning in the militants. And this recognition has made them adopt a two track policy: providing support for the Afghan government while trying to get Pakistan on board vis-a vis the Taliban.
This is coming at a time when the United States has relegated Pakistan’s role in the Afghan conflict culmination strategy and blocked the military assistance funds to Islamabad on the pretext of not doing more. The inability of the Afghan government to address the prevailing security situation is having a negative impact on her economic development consequently leading the major regional powers to look for other options to stabilize the region. Moreover, India will never put her boots on the ground because she is still been haunted by her failed experience with intervention in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. Also, given the uneasy relationship with Pakistan and Iran, the geography of the region precludes an easy way to do this and Indian army is neither trained to nor have the courage to go for a war in this terrain single-handedly.
Stake holders in Afghanistan need to understand new ground realities. Any viable regional mechanism for taking on the Afghan cauldron cannot be seem possible without having Pakistan on board. Especially at a time when both Pakistan and Afghanistan are on the course of redefining mutual relations. For a peaceful and economic exit plan, the US also cannot deny that Pakistan provides unmatchable logistic routes for the foreign forces engaged in Afghan war.
Routes through Pakistan are the shortest and cheapest and presently are the safest owing to the Pakistan army’s resolve to ascertain peace in the country. Another exit option could be through aligning the SCO with US exit policy, since all the major regional powers are available under this one umbrella. Interestingly, and quite contrary to the US beliefs, the members of the SCO also trust Pakistan of being the lone brave lion to handle this menace impeccably. Better understanding of regional sensitivities will help the US to better grasp the situation in Afghanistan if she really wants to end this decades old deadly conflict.


Login to post comments


(0)



Delusions of US hegemony as Donald Trump visits Europe

Dr Arshad M Khan

To say that U.S. foreign policy is delusional is not an exaggeration. It seeks political hegemony and a relationship with China and Russia akin to what it has had with Japan and Germany. That is: go ahead and develop in the economic sphere, but don’t try to flex political or military muscle.
There are at least two problems with this scenario: China is now the world’s largest economy on a purchasing power parity basis, and the Russians have the nuclear capacity to make a wasteland out of the United States. Russian weapons systems can also be superior.
Take the S-400 in comparison with the US Patriot missile defense system: the purpose of these surface-to-air systems is to shoot down incoming missiles or aircraft. The S-400 has a more powerful radar; double the range; is faster (Mach 6 vs Mach 5); takes five minutes to set up against one hour for the Patriot, and is cheaper.
China has just bought 32 launchers and is expected to buy more, thereby challenging Japan, Taiwan (which it claims) and other neighbors for control of the skies, as it is doing over the seas that border it. NATO member Turkey has recently signed a purchase deal, and Iran wants to, as does Qatar after its recent spat with Saudi Arabia. If Russia supplies Iran, any attack planned by the United States or Israel would prove to be very costly and politically infeasible.
In our world of instant and continuous news feeds, one can imagine a bemused Vladimir Putin listening to Trump exhorting NATO members to increase contributions to NATO – an organization designed to counter the Russian threat – specifically castigating Germany’s Angela Merkel for being beholden to Russia with her country’s reliance on Russian natural gas.
Early next week Trump meets Putin in Helsinki, fresh from his soft power World Cup triumph as the world beat a path to Russia. What does Trump tell the leader of the world’s largest country covering 11 time zones? U.S. political hegemony is a non-starter.
Europeans clearly want access to China, its labor, its markets, even finance. With that comes Russia and their numerous initiatives together, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIE) – their answer to the U.S.-sponsored World Bank. That Britain joined AIIB contrary to U.S. wishes is a clear sign of China rising as the United States declines comparatively;  Britain, having faced up to the United States, was followed by a rush of European countries.
Russia wants sanctions lifted. What does the United States want? Crimea is a non-starter.  Help with Iran? For the Russians, it has become an important ally both with regard to Syria and as a Middle Eastern power in its own right. Trump’s instincts are right, but what he achieves is another matter. Childish petulance accompanied by a different story for different leaders would leave an observer with little optimism.
Meanwhile, Trump manufactures and markets his own reality; this time on his popularity (“I think they like me a lot in the U.K.”), despite avoiding roads and traveling by helicopter whenever possible during his pared-down UK visit. Hordes of demonstrators, undeterred, had a giant parade balloon several stories high of a bloated child with the trademark blonde hair. It is one the largest demonstrations ever outside the United States against a sitting president.

Comment

Dr Arshad M Khan

To say that U.S. foreign policy is delusional is not an exaggeration. It seeks political hegemony and a relationship with China and Russia akin to what it has had with Japan and Germany. That is: go ahead and develop in the economic sphere, but don’t try to flex political or military muscle.
There are at least two problems with this scenario: China is now the world’s largest economy on a purchasing power parity basis, and the Russians have the nuclear capacity to make a wasteland out of the United States. Russian weapons systems can also be superior.
Take the S-400 in comparison with the US Patriot missile defense system: the purpose of these surface-to-air systems is to shoot down incoming missiles or aircraft. The S-400 has a more powerful radar; double the range; is faster (Mach 6 vs Mach 5); takes five minutes to set up against one hour for the Patriot, and is cheaper.
China has just bought 32 launchers and is expected to buy more, thereby challenging Japan, Taiwan (which it claims) and other neighbors for control of the skies, as it is doing over the seas that border it. NATO member Turkey has recently signed a purchase deal, and Iran wants to, as does Qatar after its recent spat with Saudi Arabia. If Russia supplies Iran, any attack planned by the United States or Israel would prove to be very costly and politically infeasible.
In our world of instant and continuous news feeds, one can imagine a bemused Vladimir Putin listening to Trump exhorting NATO members to increase contributions to NATO – an organization designed to counter the Russian threat – specifically castigating Germany’s Angela Merkel for being beholden to Russia with her country’s reliance on Russian natural gas.
Early next week Trump meets Putin in Helsinki, fresh from his soft power World Cup triumph as the world beat a path to Russia. What does Trump tell the leader of the world’s largest country covering 11 time zones? U.S. political hegemony is a non-starter.
Europeans clearly want access to China, its labor, its markets, even finance. With that comes Russia and their numerous initiatives together, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIE) – their answer to the U.S.-sponsored World Bank. That Britain joined AIIB contrary to U.S. wishes is a clear sign of China rising as the United States declines comparatively;  Britain, having faced up to the United States, was followed by a rush of European countries.
Russia wants sanctions lifted. What does the United States want? Crimea is a non-starter.  Help with Iran? For the Russians, it has become an important ally both with regard to Syria and as a Middle Eastern power in its own right. Trump’s instincts are right, but what he achieves is another matter. Childish petulance accompanied by a different story for different leaders would leave an observer with little optimism.
Meanwhile, Trump manufactures and markets his own reality; this time on his popularity (“I think they like me a lot in the U.K.”), despite avoiding roads and traveling by helicopter whenever possible during his pared-down UK visit. Hordes of demonstrators, undeterred, had a giant parade balloon several stories high of a bloated child with the trademark blonde hair. It is one the largest demonstrations ever outside the United States against a sitting president.


Login to post comments


(0)



METROPOLITAN
EDITORIAL
COMMENTS
INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS
INFOTECH
CULTURE
MISCELLANY
AVIATOUR
LETTERS
LAST WORD
FOUNDING EDITOR: ENAYETULLAH KHAN; EDITOR: SAYED KAMALUDDIN
Contents Copyrighted © by Holiday Publication Limited
Mailing address 30, Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208, Bangladesh.
Phone 880-2-8170462, 8170463, 8170464 Fax 880-2-9127927 Email holiday@bangla.net
Site Managed By: Southtech Limited
Southtech Limited does not take any responsibility for any news content of this site