The NFL (National Football League) is the top professional American football league in the United States. It has 32 teams split between the American Football Conference (AFC) and the National Football Conference (NFC), and its season runs from September through early February, ending with the Super Bowl. What would you like to know? I can help with: - **Current standings, scores, or schedules** (I may not have the latest, so check NFL.com or ESPN) - **Rules and how the game works** - **Team or player information** - **History**, such as Super Bowl winners or record-holders - **Fantasy football** advice - **Betting or draft basics**
THE FAILURES OF TRUMP’S INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS
Found 0 image(s):
Much of Trump’s international engagement has been a hodgepodge of impulsive and contradictory actions. To the extent there is a Trump doctrine, it amounts to this: Use tariffs, sanctions and other means of economic pressure to compel U.S. adversaries and, as often, allies to accede to White House demands. This has not worked. First, Trump set wildly unrealistic goals. Trump’s next mistake was assuming that unilateral U.S. action was enough to succeed, and that he didn’t need the international cooperation obtained by previous presidents. Trump’s biggest miscalculation was that economic weapons were enough to strong-arm the likes of Kim, Khamenei and Maduro. But these dictators only care for their own survival and that of their extreme ideologies.
- Trump promised to end the interminable wars that began in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to make a fundamental change in US dealings with the world but U.S. troops still remain in Afghanistan. And Syria. And Iraq.
- Trump's gambit to reach a deal with North Korea's Kim Jong Un has yielded nothing. Maximum pressure was supposed to induce the regime of Kim Jong Un to surrender its entire arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. North Korea is still building them and it has now publicly sworn off any further negotiations with the Trump administration.
- Trump and members of his party like to talk tough about China, but that mainly appears motivated by domestic political considerations, including the need for a coronavirus scapegoat. Of all the Trump administration’s foreign policy failures, it is hard to think of one more comprehensive or consequential than its China policy. It is hard to think of a single aspect of Sino-American relations that has evolved favorably for the United States. The bilateral trade deficit is now around the same size as when Trump took office. U.S. goods exports to China have fallen every year since 2017. Manufacturing jobs have not returned to the United States. Most of China’s nefarious trade and cyber practices have continued or even expanded. The narrow “phase one” trade deal Trump announced in January did little more than lift some of the tariffs Trump had imposed on American importers in exchange for Chinese promises to purchase more American goods that will almost certainly never be fulfilled. Internationally, China has reneged on its commitments to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy and continued to expand its military activities in the South China Sea. It has sunk or harassed ships from Vietnam, Malaysia, and Japan, confronted India militarily over a disputed border, launched multiple cyber-attacks against Australia and done little to support U.S. diplomacy on North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile, China is domestically increasing repression and brutally imprisoning nearly a million Uighurs in Xinjiang, with Trump’s apparent approval. Trump’s decision to blame China for tens of thousands of American deaths from what he now calls “the China plague” and the “Kung Flu” is unlikely to improve matters. Far from forging either a better relationship or reaching a better trade deal, the two countries now risk sliding into a new form of Cold War that could deeply damage U.S. interests or even lead to a devastating military conflict. There is the impossible task of building a coherent and consistent approach to China out of an incoherent and inconsistent set of administration positions and actions.
- Diplomacy around the world is barely functional as the diplomatic corps has been hollowed out and because Trump himself regularly and gratuitously insults allies while praising dictators in return for nothing at all.
- Trump administration has gone out of its way to align the United States more one-sidedly than ever before with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
- The President expanded American involvement in the Saudi war in Yemen.
- The President made the decision to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal and impose rounds of sanctions on Tehran. The latter, in particular, has accomplished less than nothing, with bilateral relations between the U.S. and Iran at something close to an all-time low. Maximum pressure was going to force Iran to renegotiate the curbs on its nuclear program and maybe cause the regime to collapse. But the regime has ruled out negotiations with Trump.
- In Venezuela, Trump cut off the income stream of oil revenues confident it would cause the collapse of a socialist dictatorship already in economic and political free fall. Instead, the regime of Nicolás Maduro appears to have stabilized. The lights are back on in Caracas, once-empty stores are full of goods, and the U.S.-backed opposition has been ousted at least physically from the National Assembly. Trump’s demand that Maduro leave office and make way for fresh elections won’t be realized anytime soon.
- Transatlantic relations are at a new low. There is little left to the relationship but a bitter taste for EU leaders who spent three years trying and failing to coast and cajole Trump into buying the Western alliance. The administration has never sought to engage Europe. Amid the corona virus, things have gotten worse. In Brussels and other EU capitals, recent events have only confirmed the genuineness of Trump’s instincts regarding transatlantic relations i.e. to treat America’s closet allies as punching bags. EU leaders also have little hope that outstanding trade disputes will be resolved before the November election. European Commission President Ursula von der Reyen has not visited Washington since taking office on December 1.
PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
Found 0 image(s):
The European Union appears powerless to stop the violence and the deadly conflict that has erupted in Gaza. As the Gaza death toll mounts given Europe’s role as Israel’s top trade partner and the biggest aid donor to the Palestinians, the EU should be able to exercise more influence and use its economic weight to put pressure on the belligerents.
For the record, the European Union (EU) has long been one of the most reliable foreign sources of humanitarian, economic and political aid to Palestinians , providing € 426 million in 2013 of which € 168 million was Direct Financial Support to the Palestine Authority under the so-called PEGASE-mechanism. PEGASE helps the PA to meet its recurrent expenses through paying salaries, pensions and social allowances to people in extreme poverty, and through supporting essential public services and revitalizing the private sector through policy reforms, institution-building and strengthening the relations between Palestinian enterprises and European counterparts. In addition to the direct financial support, humanitarian aid is provided through the European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO), which spent € 35 million in 2013 on areas such as humanitarian coordination, legal assistance and emergency response to demolitions and evictions.
Every day of ineffective actions means further victims. Every single day of shameful silence causes sufferings and destruction. What else is the EU waiting for? The EU must behave as a serious political actor by calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and then lead a comprehensive peace conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There can be no excuse for the lack of an EU political initiative.
The EU should support all international and regional efforts aimed to stop the on-going violence in the Gaza Strip and in Israel. The continued firing of rockets by Palestinian militants into Israel is not acceptable, but neither is the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli army in Gaza : an estimated 70 per cent of the more than 1000 Palestinian victims are civilians, including many children – and the EU should call for an end to this military operation through the de-escalation of the conflict.
The longer we wait, the less room there is to achieve a rapid ceasefire and a final appeasement of this bloody conflict based on the two-state solution – with 1967 borders and Jerusalem as capital of both states – with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.
The nearly 1.7 million people living in Gaza have been subjected to an inhuman siege. They are unable to leave the Gaza Strip, the entry of all goods, including food and medicine is controlled, and their only crime is to have been born in that area. If the EU is serious about defending freedom and dignity for all people throughout the world, then why it is not making its voice heard? Enough of the political pandering. The EU must act now to stop the killing of more innocent civilians, on both sides of the conflict.
Gaza is only 4 hours away from Brussels and what is happening right now is in the EU’s backyard. By turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering in the West Bank and Gaza, the EU is committing a crime of silence.
THE TWO STATE SOLUTION: THE WAY FORWARD OR UTOPIA?
Found 0 image(s):
This article below has been co-authored by Manuel Hassassian and Raphael Cohen-Almagor. It has been edited somewhat by AALEP. His Excellency Ambassador Manuel Hassassian is the PLO ambassador to the UK. He was a consultant to UNESCO, the Palestinian Negotiating Team on Refugee Final Settlement, and Minister of State Affairs – Head of the Jerusalem File. Professor Hassassian received his PhD in Comparative Politics from University of Cincinnati, and was President of the Rectors’ Conference of the Palestinian Ministry of Higher Education, and President of the Palestinian-European-American Cooperation in Education (PEACE) programme. Raphael Cohen-Almagor received his DPhil in Political Theory from Oxford University. He is Chair and Professor of Politics, Founder and Director of the Middle East Study Group, University of Hull, UK, human rights and peace activist. In 2003-2007 he was the Founding Director of the Center for Democratic Studies, University of Haifa, Israel.
Wheras:
The Palestinians aspire to have an independent state in the 1967 borders, with Arab Jerusalem as its capital and a substantial return of refugees to Israel. The Israelis wish to retain the Jewish character of Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world. Both sides wish to enjoy life of tranquility and in security, free of violence and terror. Both sides need to make painful concessions and reach a compromise.
Now therefore, both parties agree to the following:
- A State of Palestine will be declared and respected. Israel shall recognise the State of Palestine. Palestine shall recognise the Jewish State of Israel. Israel and Palestine shall immediately establish full diplomatic relationships with each other, appointing ambassadors in the capital of the respective partner. Each State is free to choose its own capital; West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The border will be on the 1967 line. Having an undisputed, internationally-recognised border is the best security arrangement for both sides. Israel will agree to withdraw in principle to the Green Line, evacuating settlements and resettling settlers in other parts of the country. The major settlement blocs – Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev, Gush Etzion, Modiin Illit and Ariel – which account for approximately 70 per cent of the Jewish population in the West Bank and for less than four per cent of its territory, may be annexed to Israel upon reaching an agreement with the PA as part of the land swap equal in size and quality. Border adjustment must be kept to the necessary minimum and must be reciprocal. A corridor would connect the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to allow safe and free passage. As long as peace is kept, the road will be permanently open and solely Palestinian. No Israeli checkpoints will be there. Palestinians will not be able to enter Israel from this corridor, nor shall Israelis enter Palestine from the corridor. Palestine will ensure that this safe passage won’t be abused for violent purposes. Such abuse would undermine peace and trust between the two parties. The Separation Wall creates a political reality. It should run roughly along the 1967 mutually agreed borders. Both Israel and Palestine will take all necessary measures to ascertain that their citizens could live free of fear for their lives. Security is equally important for both Israelis and Palestinians as this is the key for peace. Palestine and Israel shall base their security relations on cooperation, mutual trust, good neighbourly relations, and the protection of their joint interests. There will be zero tolerance for terrorism and violence. Both sides will work together to curb violence. Both sides will see that their citizens on both sides of the border reside in peace and tranquility. Zealots and terrorists, Palestinian and Jews, will receive tough penalties for any violation of peace and tranquility.
- What is Palestinian will come under the territory of the new capital Al-Quds. Al-Quds would include East Jerusalem and the adjacent Palestinian land and villages. Abu Dis, Al-Izarieh, Al-Sawahreh, and Kufr Aqab will be included in the Palestinian capital. The Israeli capital would include West Jerusalem and the adjacent Israeli settlements.
- The Old City should be under a special regime accepted by both sides. Special arrangements and recognition will be made to honour the importance of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter for Jews, and similarly special arrangements and recognition will be made to honour the importance of the Islamic and Christian holy places. There will be Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in providing municipality services to both populations.
- Israel and Palestine should seek a fair solution that would not infringe the rights of any of the sides and will assure that the Palestinian people will have the required water supply for sustenance and growth.
- Israel and Palestine will enjoy fishing rights in their respective territorial waters.
- Israel and Palestine will institute a shared curriculum on good neighbourhood, understanding cultures and religions, respect for others and not harming others. This education programme will commence at the kindergarten and continue at primary and high schools. In every age group vital concepts for understanding the other will be studied. This programme is critical for establishing peaceful relationships and trust between the two parties.
- Starting in primary schools, Arabic will be a mandatory language for pupils to study in Jewish schools. Similarly, Hebrew will be a mandatory language for pupils to study in Palestinian schools. Language is the most important bridge between different cultures and nations. Israelis will master Arabic to the same extent that they presently master English. Palestinians will master Hebrew as their second language.
- Both sides need to clean up the atmosphere, fight bigotry, racism, incitement and hate on both sides of the fence/wall. This includes a close study of the education curricula in both the PA and Israel. Both sides need to overhaul their school books, excluding incitement, racism, bigotry and hate against one another. The curricula should reflect a language of peace, tolerance and liberty. Both sides should utilise the media to promote peaceful messages of reconciliation and mutual recognition.
- As an act of good will, part of the trust-building process, Israel will release a number of agreed upon prisoners. With time, as trust will grow between the two sides, all security prisoners will return home.
- The question of refugees and their right of return is a major concern for both Palestine and Israel. For Palestinians, this issue is about their history, justice and fairness. For Israelis, this is a debated issue, where many Israelis are unwilling to claim responsibility for the Palestinian tragedy and most Israelis object to the right of return as this would mean the end of the Jewish State. What needs to be done is to identify the population, establish the numbers, and after mapping the refugee population conduct a survey among them that would include the following options: Return to Israel; Return to the West Bank; Return to the Gaza Strip; Emigrate to third countries that would commit to absorbing a certain quota (appeal will be made to countries that receive immigration on a regular basis to participate in this settlement effort); Remain where they are.
- The 1948 Palestinian refugees will be able to settle in Palestine. The rest of the world will be able to set immigration quotas for absorbing Palestinians who apply for settlement in their designated choice of country. Unification of families should be allowed in Israel on a limited quota scale annually. But massive refugee return to Israel will not be allowed. In addition, an international tribunal of reputable historians and international lawyers, including equal representatives of Israel and Palestine, will determine the level of monetary compensation. If needed, Israel and Palestine may establish an international relief fund to which humanitarian countries that wish to see the end of the conflict can contribute. Israel, Europe, the Muslim World, North America and other countries of good will would be able to secure the required funding. The United Nations and the World Bank may also be approached to offer assistance.
- Israel and Palestine will consider opportunities for economic cooperation for the benefit of both societies, aiming to capitalise on the potential of both, to optimise resources and coordinate efforts. Israel would help Palestine develop an independent economy and open doors for Palestine in the Western world and elsewhere. Palestine will pave the way for Israel’s integration into the Middle East as an equal member in the community of neighbouring countries. Palestine will help Israel develop economic, industrial, tourist and other relationships with the Arab and Muslim countries.
- Israel and Palestine will be free to conduct international commerce as they see fit. In order to develop trust between the two parties, some level of transparency about logs of commerce will be agreed and memorandums of understanding will be signed by the two parties.
- Israel and Palestine will coordinate efforts in promoting tourism to the region, this via collaboration with the neighbouring countries in order to facilitate cultural and religious experiences that are unique to this region.
- Mutual channels of communication will be opened on television, radio and the internet. These media channels will transmit their broadcast in two or three languages: Arabic, Hebrew and possibly also English. Communication and language are important for the development of good neighbourly relations.
Following the signing of a comprehensive agreement covering all issues and concerns, an official statement will be issued declaring the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA WILL HURT THE EU
Found 0 image(s):
Just as the EU is trying its best to revive a stagnant economy, attempting to mend a fragile debt market and tackle high unemployment, sanctions against Russia will hurt the economies of major EU member states such as Germany, Britain, Italy, Holland and France with Germany being hit the hardest.
As a block, the European Union exports about € 100 billion worth of goods and services to Russia and takes in roughly € 200 million of the latter's imports.
Germany
For Germany, curtailed trade with Russia could really bite. Germany is Russia’s biggest European investor, with German companies pouring in over € 16 billion last year. Last year, Germany and Russia had trade in goods of close to €77 billion . Russia primarily supplies petroleum and natural gas to Germany. Germany, on the other hand, exports mechanical engineering products, medicines, trains and automobiles to Russia. Some 300,000 German workers depend on Germany's trade with Russia for their livelihoods. Sectors like the automotive industry, defense and engineering which have haemorrhaged jobs since the 2008 crisis would be hit hard once again.
More than 6,000 German companies are registered in Russia and, together, they have invested €20 billion in recent years. German chemical giant BASF has holdings in Siberian gas fields and Russian gas monopoly Gazprom obtained natural gas storage facilities in the state of Lower Saxony in exchange. German retailer Metro wanted to take its Russian subsidiary public this year, but the plan is now imperiled. Volkswagen also wants to invest a further €1.2 billion in the expansion of its Russian plants. It is now uncertain whether this will happen. Germany's state-owned KfW development bank had planned to sign a contract together with Russia's government-held VEB bank for a €900 million investment initiative on behalf of mid-sized companies, but the German side cancelled the event at the last minute.
United Kingdom
The UK provides minor military hardware and sells cars to Russia. However if the EU hits Russian state-owned banks, London's financial centre would suffer. Russian companies are well represented on the London Stock Exchange, and UK Trade and Investment market. London is also a prime destination for Russian businesses, and Russian oligarchs are major property owners in Britain. The energy sector could also be hit.
Italy
Italy will be seriously hurt by further sanctions against Russia. The country is currently attempting to boost its economy and attract foreign investors, particularly Russians. Italian goods sell well in Russia, many Russian tourists go to Italy for holidays, and so the Italian government is reluctant to implement further sanctions against Moscow.
Netherlands
The Netherlands will also be affected if broader sanctions against Russia are implemented. The Netherlands is the largest single recipient of Russian exports 9.2 percent in total. Outside of the EU, Russia is the biggest Dutch market for flowers. In 2011, imports from Russia to the Netherlands amounted to € 16 billion and exports to Russia amounted to € 6 billion.
France
France is Europe’s largest supplier of arms to Russia. The billion euros contracts for Mistral warships, keeps some 1,000 people employed in a country with a 10% unemployment rate.
Boomerang Effect
Should Russia cut its gas to the West in response, the loss in European production would more damaging than the hit its trade balance would take. It is unlikely that punitive measures would go unanswered by Russia. Russia may expropriate foreign companies doing business in the country, freeze bank accounts held in Russian banks as well as seizing assets.
EU Positions on tougher Sanctions Against Russia
1. Pushing Towards (United KIngdom, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)
2. Most Reluctant (Portugal, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Italy, Malta)
3. Undecided (Ireland, France, Belgium, Germany, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania)
Possible EU Options
1. Cut off Russian bank finance: This option is the centerpiece of a proposal crafted by the European Commission in Brussels and circulated to national capitals. Specifically, it would ban all citizens of EU countries from purchasing new debt or stock issues by most of the Russian banking sector. The plan also proposes to bar Russian banks from listing new stocks on European stock exchanges, using those exchanges as an intermediary to raise funds from non-Europeans. The banks targeted would be those firms that are at least 50 percent owned by the Russian state which include the majority of the Russian banking system by assets. European markets account for about half of the total bond issuance of Russian banks, so the impact on the Russian banking sector and on the broader Russian economy would be dramatic.
2. Embargo Russia's arms trade: Many countries would like to see France refuse the delivery of Mistral helicopter carrier ships that Russia has ordered. France would prefer not to lose out on business worth over $1 billion. The Commission document notes, however, that Europe could hit Russia in the other direction. While the EU exports €300 million a year in weapons to Russia, EU countries import about €3.2 billion in Russian-made equipment. Those imports mostly go to former Warsaw Pact countries such as Poland, whose militaries have a legacy of using Russian arms.
3. End exports of energy equipment: The Commission proposal calls for Europe to halt the export of certain categories of equipment and technology that are used in fossil fuel extraction. The Commission would not target the natural gas sector, but does call for restrictions on the sale of equipment used in deep-sea drilling, arctic exploration, and shale oil extraction.
4. Block sales of dual-use technology: Possibility of curtailing the €20 billion market in the export of "dual use" technologies from Europe to Russia. These are technologies that have both civilian and military applications, such as certain microchips or precision tools. The Commission proposal especially focuses on €4 billion worth of "highly sensitive" equipment including "high-performance computers and electronics."
GAZA DAUNTING RECONSTRUCTION AND WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?
Found 0 image(s):
According to the UN, at least 3,695 homes have been completely destroyed while another 4,235 are damaged, but not beyond repair. Bombs have pounded 133 schools and 22 health centres, stadiums, playgrounds, mosques, roads, power and water supplies, sewage treatment plans, phone towers, communications centres, police stations and government buildings.
The Palestinian Housing Ministry estimates the costs of repairing homes far surpasses € 600 million. The total costs of reconstruction could be in the region of € 4 billion so far.
In the short term, the urgent humanitarian relief effort will entail many hundreds of million dollars of emergency aid. Treating the tens of thousands of wounded and traumatized, the homeless and penniless, the unemployed and already desperately poor will itself be a tremendous task. The destruction of essential public utilities, power plant, water provision, and sewage treatment, will further burden an already badly deteriorated infrastructure, with the full cost probably running into the billions.
The actual reconstruction of the Gaza Strip is less certain a matter, and will be highly dependent on ceasefire arrangements for border crossings, the speed with which donors are mobilized and the PA’s own capacities to design and manage an effective reconstruction program of such a scale. Once the war is over, the PA plans to call on all the countries of the world to assist in the rebuilding of Gaza. But where will the money come from? Shouldn't Israel be compelled to pay the lion’s share of the reconstruction costs?
PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
Found 0 image(s):
The European Union appears powerless to stop the violence and the deadly conflict that has erupted in Gaza. As the Gaza death toll mounts given Europe’s role as Israel’s top trade partner and the biggest aid donor to the Palestinians, the EU should be able to exercise more influence and use its economic weight to put pressure on the belligerents.
For the record, the European Union (EU) has long been one of the most reliable foreign sources of humanitarian, economic and political aid to Palestinians , providing € 426 million in 2013 of which € 168 million was Direct Financial Support to the Palestine Authority under the so-called PEGASE-mechanism. PEGASE helps the PA to meet its recurrent expenses through paying salaries, pensions and social allowances to people in extreme poverty, and through supporting essential public services and revitalizing the private sector through policy reforms, institution-building and strengthening the relations between Palestinian enterprises and European counterparts. In addition to the direct financial support, humanitarian aid is provided through the European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO), which spent € 35 million in 2013 on areas such as humanitarian coordination, legal assistance and emergency response to demolitions and evictions.
Every day of ineffective actions means further victims. Every single day of shameful silence causes sufferings and destruction. What else is the EU waiting for? The EU must behave as a serious political actor by calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and then lead a comprehensive peace conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There can be no excuse for the lack of an EU political initiative.
The EU should support all international and regional efforts aimed to stop the on-going violence in the Gaza Strip and in Israel. The continued firing of rockets by Palestinian militants into Israel is not acceptable, but neither is the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli army in Gaza : an estimated 70 per cent of the more than 1000 Palestinian victims are civilians, including many children – and the EU should call for an end to this military operation through the de-escalation of the conflict.
The longer we wait, the less room there is to achieve a rapid ceasefire and a final appeasement of this bloody conflict based on the two-state solution – with 1967 borders and Jerusalem as capital of both states – with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.
The nearly 1.7 million people living in Gaza have been subjected to an inhuman siege. They are unable to leave the Gaza Strip, the entry of all goods, including food and medicine is controlled, and their only crime is to have been born in that area. If the EU is serious about defending freedom and dignity for all people throughout the world, then why it is not making its voice heard? Enough of the political pandering. The EU must act now to stop the killing of more innocent civilians, on both sides of the conflict.
Gaza is only 4 hours away from Brussels and what is happening right now is in the EU’s backyard. By turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering in the West Bank and Gaza, the EU is committing a crime of silence.
THE TWO STATE SOLUTION: THE WAY FORWARD OR UTOPIA?
Found 0 image(s):
This article below has been co-authored by Manuel Hassassian and Raphael Cohen-Almagor. It has been edited somewhat by AALEP. His Excellency Ambassador Manuel Hassassian is the PLO ambassador to the UK. He was a consultant to UNESCO, the Palestinian Negotiating Team on Refugee Final Settlement, and Minister of State Affairs – Head of the Jerusalem File. Professor Hassassian received his PhD in Comparative Politics from University of Cincinnati, and was President of the Rectors’ Conference of the Palestinian Ministry of Higher Education, and President of the Palestinian-European-American Cooperation in Education (PEACE) programme. Raphael Cohen-Almagor received his DPhil in Political Theory from Oxford University. He is Chair and Professor of Politics, Founder and Director of the Middle East Study Group, University of Hull, UK, human rights and peace activist. In 2003-2007 he was the Founding Director of the Center for Democratic Studies, University of Haifa, Israel.
Wheras:
The Palestinians aspire to have an independent state in the 1967 borders, with Arab Jerusalem as its capital and a substantial return of refugees to Israel. The Israelis wish to retain the Jewish character of Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world. Both sides wish to enjoy life of tranquility and in security, free of violence and terror. Both sides need to make painful concessions and reach a compromise.
Now therefore, both parties agree to the following:
- A State of Palestine will be declared and respected. Israel shall recognise the State of Palestine. Palestine shall recognise the Jewish State of Israel. Israel and Palestine shall immediately establish full diplomatic relationships with each other, appointing ambassadors in the capital of the respective partner. Each State is free to choose its own capital; West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The border will be on the 1967 line. Having an undisputed, internationally-recognised border is the best security arrangement for both sides. Israel will agree to withdraw in principle to the Green Line, evacuating settlements and resettling settlers in other parts of the country. The major settlement blocs – Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev, Gush Etzion, Modiin Illit and Ariel – which account for approximately 70 per cent of the Jewish population in the West Bank and for less than four per cent of its territory, may be annexed to Israel upon reaching an agreement with the PA as part of the land swap equal in size and quality. Border adjustment must be kept to the necessary minimum and must be reciprocal. A corridor would connect the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to allow safe and free passage. As long as peace is kept, the road will be permanently open and solely Palestinian. No Israeli checkpoints will be there. Palestinians will not be able to enter Israel from this corridor, nor shall Israelis enter Palestine from the corridor. Palestine will ensure that this safe passage won’t be abused for violent purposes. Such abuse would undermine peace and trust between the two parties. The Separation Wall creates a political reality. It should run roughly along the 1967 mutually agreed borders. Both Israel and Palestine will take all necessary measures to ascertain that their citizens could live free of fear for their lives. Security is equally important for both Israelis and Palestinians as this is the key for peace. Palestine and Israel shall base their security relations on cooperation, mutual trust, good neighbourly relations, and the protection of their joint interests. There will be zero tolerance for terrorism and violence. Both sides will work together to curb violence. Both sides will see that their citizens on both sides of the border reside in peace and tranquility. Zealots and terrorists, Palestinian and Jews, will receive tough penalties for any violation of peace and tranquility.
- What is Palestinian will come under the territory of the new capital Al-Quds. Al-Quds would include East Jerusalem and the adjacent Palestinian land and villages. Abu Dis, Al-Izarieh, Al-Sawahreh, and Kufr Aqab will be included in the Palestinian capital. The Israeli capital would include West Jerusalem and the adjacent Israeli settlements.
- The Old City should be under a special regime accepted by both sides. Special arrangements and recognition will be made to honour the importance of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter for Jews, and similarly special arrangements and recognition will be made to honour the importance of the Islamic and Christian holy places. There will be Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in providing municipality services to both populations.
- Israel and Palestine should seek a fair solution that would not infringe the rights of any of the sides and will assure that the Palestinian people will have the required water supply for sustenance and growth.
- Israel and Palestine will enjoy fishing rights in their respective territorial waters.
- Israel and Palestine will institute a shared curriculum on good neighbourhood, understanding cultures and religions, respect for others and not harming others. This education programme will commence at the kindergarten and continue at primary and high schools. In every age group vital concepts for understanding the other will be studied. This programme is critical for establishing peaceful relationships and trust between the two parties.
- Starting in primary schools, Arabic will be a mandatory language for pupils to study in Jewish schools. Similarly, Hebrew will be a mandatory language for pupils to study in Palestinian schools. Language is the most important bridge between different cultures and nations. Israelis will master Arabic to the same extent that they presently master English. Palestinians will master Hebrew as their second language.
- Both sides need to clean up the atmosphere, fight bigotry, racism, incitement and hate on both sides of the fence/wall. This includes a close study of the education curricula in both the PA and Israel. Both sides need to overhaul their school books, excluding incitement, racism, bigotry and hate against one another. The curricula should reflect a language of peace, tolerance and liberty. Both sides should utilise the media to promote peaceful messages of reconciliation and mutual recognition.
- As an act of good will, part of the trust-building process, Israel will release a number of agreed upon prisoners. With time, as trust will grow between the two sides, all security prisoners will return home.
- The question of refugees and their right of return is a major concern for both Palestine and Israel. For Palestinians, this issue is about their history, justice and fairness. For Israelis, this is a debated issue, where many Israelis are unwilling to claim responsibility for the Palestinian tragedy and most Israelis object to the right of return as this would mean the end of the Jewish State. What needs to be done is to identify the population, establish the numbers, and after mapping the refugee population conduct a survey among them that would include the following options: Return to Israel; Return to the West Bank; Return to the Gaza Strip; Emigrate to third countries that would commit to absorbing a certain quota (appeal will be made to countries that receive immigration on a regular basis to participate in this settlement effort); Remain where they are.
- The 1948 Palestinian refugees will be able to settle in Palestine. The rest of the world will be able to set immigration quotas for absorbing Palestinians who apply for settlement in their designated choice of country. Unification of families should be allowed in Israel on a limited quota scale annually. But massive refugee return to Israel will not be allowed. In addition, an international tribunal of reputable historians and international lawyers, including equal representatives of Israel and Palestine, will determine the level of monetary compensation. If needed, Israel and Palestine may establish an international relief fund to which humanitarian countries that wish to see the end of the conflict can contribute. Israel, Europe, the Muslim World, North America and other countries of good will would be able to secure the required funding. The United Nations and the World Bank may also be approached to offer assistance.
- Israel and Palestine will consider opportunities for economic cooperation for the benefit of both societies, aiming to capitalise on the potential of both, to optimise resources and coordinate efforts. Israel would help Palestine develop an independent economy and open doors for Palestine in the Western world and elsewhere. Palestine will pave the way for Israel’s integration into the Middle East as an equal member in the community of neighbouring countries. Palestine will help Israel develop economic, industrial, tourist and other relationships with the Arab and Muslim countries.
- Israel and Palestine will be free to conduct international commerce as they see fit. In order to develop trust between the two parties, some level of transparency about logs of commerce will be agreed and memorandums of understanding will be signed by the two parties.
- Israel and Palestine will coordinate efforts in promoting tourism to the region, this via collaboration with the neighbouring countries in order to facilitate cultural and religious experiences that are unique to this region.
- Mutual channels of communication will be opened on television, radio and the internet. These media channels will transmit their broadcast in two or three languages: Arabic, Hebrew and possibly also English. Communication and language are important for the development of good neighbourly relations.
Following the signing of a comprehensive agreement covering all issues and concerns, an official statement will be issued declaring the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
LOBBYISTS AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK
Found 0 image(s):
The effects of lobbying in the European Parliament are contingent and not certain. They fluctuate in accordance with inter-institutional interactions, national interests, types of policy, types of legislation, as well as the style of lobbying, the coalitions formed around specific policies and the nature of resources deployed by lobbyists themselves. The most effective collectively organised interests and lobbyists know that Brussels is very much an insider’s town. They are aware that knowing who to speak to, and when, are vital resources in the informal interpersonal and inter-institutional networks operating in Brussels.
Interest representation and lobbying in parliaments are normally justified in terms of information transmission, translation and timing. The transmission of information from interest organisations to MEPs is deemed essential as it provides pre-digested information for elected representatives who are often not experts in the particular policy area under consideration. This ‘briefing’ function also allows specific groups and organisations to translate often complex and technical information into accessible data for busy elected representatives. Successful lobbyists supply information in a clear fashion so that the MEP doesn’t have to be an expert in the field. In these interchanges the preferences of MEPs and lobbyists alike are for issue-specific briefings and the provision of detailed amendments at appropriate times. Of most use for both sides in the MEP–interest relationship is contact on ‘issues of particular interest’ and ‘propositions for amendments to the directives under discussion’. The clear preference in the EP is for direct, personal, well-timed and pertinent contact; with lobbyists providing targeted information on specific legislative amendments.
As important as transmission and translation of information, however, is the timing of its dissemination. The timing of the provision of information at the appropriate point in the EU’s legislative cycle is a key resource of groups and lobbyists. Certainly, under the co-decision procedure lobbyists have become increasingly aware of the need to act more quickly to get their views across to MEPs.
Within the EP itself there is recognition of the intimate connection between substantive policy concerns and the procedural constraints and opportunities affecting the timing of influence. In this context, timing is particularly acute when amendments to Commission proposals are to be tabled in committee. Committees that have heavy legislative loads are especially colonised by representatives of organised groups and consultants.
The provision of information is not simply ‘supply-led’ but is also ‘demand-led’. Committee rapporteurs, committee chairmen, vice-chairmen and shadow rapporteurs are particularly prominent ‘targets’ for the supply of information and, in reverse, are significant ‘consumers’ of information from outside organisations. Rapporteurs in drafting their reports routinely seek information not only from other EU institutions but also from interest associations and lobbyists. In addition, committee members often request draft amendments from interested organisations when the groups concerned have not already suggested their own favoured amendments. As a consequence, the process of amendment in committee is often characterised by intensive negotiation, dialogue and compromise not only among committee members but, crucially, between MEPs and affected interests across Europe.
Amendment Overload
While the provision of detailed legislative amendments by lobbyists may be welcomed by busy MEPs in reducing their need to review complicated texts and draft amendments personally, one consequence of a preference for specific amendments is ‘amendment overload’. It is not unknown for a single legislative proposal to attract up to 500 amendments in committee. Indeed, the rise in the number of amendments tabled in Parliament, and the increased time-costs associated with voting, has resulted in electronic voting becoming more widely used in EP committees.
Of course, the tabling of amendments does not necessarily ensure their adoption when voted on. Nonetheless, the fact remains that interest representatives are currently responsible for the initial drafting of a very high proportion of the amendments tabled in Parliament’s committees. More generally, few insiders would contest the fact that, even in the absence of specifically drafted amendments, the inspiration behind individual legislative (and other) amendments often flows from outside the EP.
The sheer complexity of processing amendments should not be underestimated, with each amendment having to be translated into all EU languages, distributed to all committee members, and then voted on, or a compromise brokered. This process is complicated still further in instances (frequent in practice) of overlap between individual amendments, and of multiple amendments to individual articles and paragraphs of proposals and to draft reports. Moreover, duplication of tabled amendments is a common phenomenon, with different MEPs, even from different party groups, submitting identical amendments. Besides the embarrassment factor in such cases, it is thus apparent which MEP has been successfully influenced by which interest. This does, of course, raise the intriguing normative question of whether such amending capacity is necessarily ‘sinister’ or ‘anti-democratic’.
Nonetheless, MEPs can, and do, defend their tabling of amendments, generated outside Parliament, as attesting to their responsiveness to societal demands rather than as evidence of their domination by unelected interests. They would also contend that each amendment has not simply to be tabled, but also presented, justified, argued, frequently compromised, and only then voted on in Parliament’s committees or plenary. Amendments are often subject to intense controversy, with votes on individual amendments in committee frequently being more contested than the final vote in committee or plenary.
Inter-institutional and Intra-institutional Intelligence
MEPs and interest representatives trade not only substantive information on policies but also exchange ‘inter-institutional’ information. The reciprocal trading of information on the thinking and scheduling of legislation within the Commission or Council is a vital commodity in the MEP–Lobbyist relationship. Of particular currency in this exchange is intra-institutional information on the work patterns of, and rate of legislative progress in, the various parliamentary committees engaged in processing specific directives. Representatives of interest associations and lobbyists often provide informal monitoring for MEPs of the asymmetries of committee activity on a particular directive. They track the different deadlines imposed by the various committees for the tabling of amendments; variations in the speed of processing proposals across committees; and possible divergences of policy emphases in the different committees dealing with the same issue.
In this way, interest groups with a mastery of the EP’s procedural complexities and a developed surveillance capacity provide not only substantive policy briefing but also inter- and intra-institutional intelligence for MEPs.
Hearings
The capacity of the EP to gain (and disseminate) information has been enhanced through the procedure of public hearings. Such hearings are convened by the EP’s committees with the permission of the Bureau. The purpose of hearings is to invite experts and interested organisations to provide evidence and engage in structured dialogue with committee members. Representatives of the Commission and Council attend the hearings, and the Commission is frequently invited to respond to the views expressed during the course of the hearing.
The main advantages of public hearings are that they help committee members to familiarise themselves with a particular policy (either in terms of detail or the broader context). One dimension is that they provide a procedure whereby MEPs can engage in ‘exploratory dialogue’ and ‘forward thinking’ and so raise issues for consideration by the other EU institutions. Another dimension of hearings is that they provide MEPs with supplementary sources of advice and information from independent experts, organised interests and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with which to assess the outcomes of the Commission’s own pre-legislative consultations.
PRINCIPLES OF ENGAGEMENT WITH PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS
Found 0 image(s):
Lobbying is a legitimate, unavoidable, and when conducted properly even a desirable activity. Lobbying can be a reflection of the principles of representativeness and voter participation, and can provide decision makers with information vital to their work.
In order to increase transparency in lobbying, lobbyists should observe the following principles when engaging with Public Office Holders
- Lobbyists shall not engage in any conduct that is corrupt, dishonest or illegal, or unlawfully cause or threaten any detriment;
- Lobbyists shall use all reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements and information provided by them to clients whom they represent, the wider public and Public Office Holders;
- Lobbyists shall not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims about, or otherwise misrepresent, the nature or extent of their access to Public Office Holders e.g. Government representatives, members of political parties or to any other person;
- Lobbyists shall keep strictly separate from their duties and activities as lobbyists any personal activity or involvement on behalf of a political party;
- When making initial contact with Public Office Holders with the intention of conducting lobbying activities, lobbyists who are proposing to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of clients must inform the Public Office Holders that (i) they are lobbyists or employees of, or contractors or persons engaged by, lobbyists; (ii) whether they are currently listed on the Register of Lobbyists; (iii) the name of their relevant client or clients; and (iv) the nature of the matters that their clients wish them to raise with Public Office Holders.
EU Code of Conduct (Transparency Register)
In their relations with the EU institutions and their Members, officials and other staff, registrants shall:
a. always identify themselves by name and by their entity or entities they work for or represent; declare the interests, objectives or aims promoted and, where applicable, specify the clients or members whom they represent;
b. not obtain or try to obtain information, or any decision, dishonestly, or by use of undue pressure or inappropriate behaviour;
c. not claim any formal relationship with the EU or any of its institutiions in their dealings with third parties, nor misrepresent the effect of registration in such a way as to mislead third parties or officials or other staff of the EU;
d. ensure that, to the best of their knowledge, information which they provide upon registration and subsequently in the framework of their activities within the scope of the register is complete, up-to-date and not misleading;
e. not sell to third parties copies of documents obtained from any EU institutions;
f. not induce Members of the EU institutions, officials or other staff of the EU, or assistants or trainees of those Members, to contravene the rules and standards of behaviour applicable to them;
g. if employing former officials or other staff of the EU or assistants or trainees of Members of the EU institutions, respect the obligations of such employees to abide by the rules and confidentiality requirements which apply to them;
h. observe any rules laid down on the rights and responsibilities of former Members of the European Parliament and the European Commission;
i. inform whomever they represent of their obligations towards the EU institutions.
Individuals representing or working for entities which have registered with the European Parliament with a view to being issued with a personal, non-transferable badge affording access to the European Parliament's premises shall:
j. comply strictly with the provisions of Rule 9, of, and Annex X and the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex I to, the European Parliament's Rules of of Procedure;
k. satisfy themselves that any assistance provided in the context of Article 2 of Annex I to the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure is declared in the appropriate register;
l. in order to avoid possible conflicts of interest, obtain the prior consent of the Member or Members of the European Parliament concerned as regards any contractual relationship with or employment of a Member's assistant, and subsequently declare this in the register.
STANDARDS/GUIDANCE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS DEALING WITH LOBBYISTS
Found 0 image(s):
The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) of the Council of Europe recommends that Codes of Conduct and Guidance (wherever they exist) be reviewed in order to ensure that public office holders have appropriate standards/guidance for dealing with lobbyists and others whose intent is to sway public policy on behalf of specific interests. We define “Public Office Holders” in broad terms as anyone holding positions which, by any title have decision-making or advisory responsibilities such as cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and advisors, ministerial appointees, deputy ministers, heads of government agencies, members of parliament, senators and their staff.
First of all, lobbying has an important role to play to play in securing the democratic right to make representations to government and to have access to the policymaking process [which] is fundamental to the proper conduct of public life and the development of sound policy.
- Public office holders should take particular care not to give the impression of giving greater weight to representations because they come from paid lobbyists;
- Representations should be given such weight as they deserve based on their intrinsic merit;
- Public office holders must in their dealings with lobbyists observe the prohibitions on paid advocacy and on the provision of advice or services for payment or other reward. The prohibition on accepting payment in return for services means that public office holders may not, in return for payment or other incentive or reward, assist outside organisations or persons in influencing ministers, officials, members of parliament. This includes conferring exclusive benefits upon the organization or making use of their position to lobby, or to help others to lobby, ministers, officials and members of parliament, by whatever means.
- A Public Office Holder may never provide services in return for payment or other incentive or reward (regardless of whether the Public Office Holder intends to register and declare the interest.
- Public Office Holders should decline all but the most insignificant or incidental hospitality, benefit or gift offered by a lobbyist.
Basic Rules of Ethics for Members of Parliament (MPs, MEPs) in their relations with Lobbyists
A "Lobbyist" - anyone who engages, as an occupation, in acts to convince a Member of Parliament on matters of legislation and Parliament’s resolutions.
- A Member of Parliament shall avoid employing a lobbyist, or any activity on behalf of a lobbyist, in the Parliament or outside the Parliament , whether directly or by means of an assistant of the Member of Parliament.
- A Member of Parliament shall avoid giving a personal undertaking to a lobbyist, his sponsors or his agents, that he will vote or act in the Parliament in a certain manner.
- A Member of Parliament shall avoid deceiving a lobbyist regarding matters that are being dealt with by the Parliament or its Committees.
- A Member of Parliament shall refuse to receive from a lobbyist, directly or indirectly, payment or other benefit, whether for himself or for another person or body.
- A Member of Parliament, who wishes to speak on a certain matter in a committee of the Parliament , after a lobbyist or any other person with an interest has approached him on that matter, in writing or orally, shall disclose in his speech that a certain lobbyist or person with an interest approached him on this matter, on behalf of a certain body.