Archive for May, 2017

Ukraine’s Jewish prime minister meets with Netanyahu in Jerusalem – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

JERUSALEM (JTA) Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman of Ukraine met with Israeli officials, including his counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, after an earlier visit was canceled over Ukraines support of a United Nations resolution condemning settlements.

Groysman, his nations first Jewish prime minister, met Monday withNetanyahu in Jerusalem. They are the only Jewish prime ministers in the world.

This is a moment of great friendship because there is a common history that binds Ukraine and Israel,Netanyahu said, according to his office. Some of it is laced with tragedy, but it is also laced with hope and with sympathy.

In December, Netanyahu canceled theGroysman visit after Ukraine was one of 14 countries to vote in favor of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel for continuing to build in West Bank settlements. The United States abstained in the vote, sparking controversy.

Netanyahu said Monday that Ukraine reaffirmed its friendship to Israel withits vote against a UNESCO resolution earlier this month thatdenied Jewish ties to Jerusalem, which headded sets our relations on a future course, which I deeply appreciate.

I know your own personal involvement in this decision, and its doubly appreciated, the Israeli leader said. And I know your stance and the stance of the government against anti-Semitism, and thats triply appreciated.

Groysman invited Netanyahu to visit Ukraine at his earliest convenience, and Netanyahu accepted the invitation.

On Monday, Israel and Ukraine signed several agreements, including a joint declaration regarding cooperation in preventing disasters and dealing with their consequences; a five-year plan for bilateral cooperation in health and medicine; an administrative agreement between the Israel Tax Authority and the Ukraine Fiscal Service on the exchange of statistical data regarding bilateral trade, and a protocol for a bilateral agreement on the temporary employment of Ukrainian workers in specific sectors in the Israeli labor market.

Originally posted here:
Ukraine's Jewish prime minister meets with Netanyahu in Jerusalem - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Netanyahu: Ukraine’s UNESCO vote is a sign of great friendship – Jerusalem Post Israel News


Jerusalem Post Israel News
Netanyahu: Ukraine's UNESCO vote is a sign of great friendship
Jerusalem Post Israel News
Ukraine was one of a minority of 10 countries that tried but failed to quash the resolution. It was a move that made amends for Ukraine's vote in the UN Security Council in December in favor of Resolution 2334 which condemned Israeli settlement ...

and more »

Link:
Netanyahu: Ukraine's UNESCO vote is a sign of great friendship - Jerusalem Post Israel News

The Two Parts of Ukraine’s Donbas – Carnegie Europe

Commentators at the final of the Eurovision Song Contest on May 13 kept repeating how normal the host city of Kyiv appeared. However, with a travel ban imposed on the Russian entrant, who had performed in the annexed peninsula of Crimea, the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine left a clear mark on the event. The human and political costs of this war have been high: the total death toll is about 10,000; some 1.8 million inhabitants of the Donbas region have been displaced inside Ukraine; and about 1 million have fled to Russia.

Little attention has been paid to the population of Donbas, in particular the inhabitants of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics. Access to these territories has been restricted, and journalists have caught only occasional glimpses of the situation on the ground. The newly founded Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS) has conducted opinion polls across the whole of Donbas. Between November and December 2016, 1,200 people were surveyed in both the Kyiv-controlled parts of the region and the occupied territories (the latter by telephone interview).

The survey shows that those living through the war are not characterized by clear-cut ethnic or political identities, the intensity of contact across the front line remains high, and Kyiv-controlled Donbas diverges in parts from the political consensus across Ukraine.

When asked about a change in their personal identity as a result of the events of 20132016, one-quarter of the respondents in the occupied territories said they now felt more Russianand one-fifth in Kyiv-controlled Donbas said they felt more Ukrainian. Interestingly, however, 14 and 20 percent in government-controlled and occupied Donbas respectively reported feeling more strongly that they were both Ukrainian and Russian. Majorities in both parts of Donbas described no change in identity: 62 percent in the government-controlled areas and 45 percent in the self-declared republics. Thus, the war has led to a greater realignment of identities in the occupied territories, although a significant number of respondents reported not only a stable identity but also an increase in a mixed identification.

In Kyiv-controlled Donbas, face-to-face interviews allowed for a more detailed question about identity. Of the respondents, 53 percent picked Ukrainian citizenship as their primary self-reported identity, down only marginally from 54 percent in 2012, demonstrating that a civic identity already prevailed over ethnic or regional identities before the war. Only 7 and 4 percent chose ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian as their main identity five years ago. These figures have now risen to 11 and 6 percent, respectively. Self-identification as mixed ethnic Russian and Ukrainian has risen from 4 to 7 percent over the last five years.

Self-identification as a Ukrainian citizen marks an important difference between the Kyiv-controlled areas and the occupied territories. In the latter, 54 percent reported that they felt less like Ukrainian citizens than before 2013, while only 8 percent stated they felt more like Ukrainian citizens now, and 38 percent reported no change. Thus, a previously strong sensegenerally underestimated in the Westof being a Ukrainian citizen has been the price paid during the war.

Looking at the cause of the war, the views in government-controlled Donbas are surprisingly split: 37 percent blame the conflict on Russia and 10 percent on Ukraine. Thirty percent think it was the result of Western intervention, and 23 percent see it as a local reaction against the Kyiv government. The figures for the occupied territories are more similar than might be expected, with the exception of the perceived role of Russia: 50 percent think the war resulted from Western intervention, 30 percent see it as a local reaction against the national government, 11 percent blame Ukraine, and 9 percent hold Russia responsible.

The biggest discrepancy between the two parts of Donbas is over the future status of the occupied territories. In Kyiv-controlled Donbas, a clear majority of 65 percent wants the territories to be parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts without a special status, while 26 percent think a special status in Ukraine is necessary, and about 9 percent see the future of these territories in Russia.

The views in the self-declared republics are more diverse than might be expected: 21 percent want these areas to be parts of Ukraine without a special status, and 35 percent would prefer a special status in Ukraine. Conversely, 11 percent want to see the territories as parts of Russia without a special status, and 33 percent would prefer a special status in Russia. Thus, the respondents main emphasis is on recognizing the territories special status, while there is an even split between those who see these areas as parts of Ukraine and those who consider them parts of Russia.

In terms of foreign policy, the two areas of Donbas are more in line than one might have thought. While vast majorities in both parts reject NATO membership, the widespread negative views of the EU might come as a surprise: 72 percent of respondents in government-controlled Donbas and 82 percent in the self-declared republics are against Ukraine joining the EU.

Overall, two trends stand out. First, on some issues, the gap in attitudes between the two parts of Donbas is not as wide as the current political dynamics suggest, in particular with regard to mixed identities, the causes of the war, and relations with the EU. Second, attitudes in the occupied territories are more differentiated than might have been anticipated. Mixed identities across Donbas and a wide range of preferences regarding the status of the area in the occupied territories are factors of which Ukrainian, Western, and Russian policymakers should take note.

Gwendolyn Sasse is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and director of the Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS) in Berlin.

Read the original post:
The Two Parts of Ukraine's Donbas - Carnegie Europe

Ukraine: Pigs in quarantine zone can be slaughtered – Pig Progress (registration) (blog)

Pigs from quarantine zones in African Swine Fever-infected areas in Ukraine will be allowed to be sent for slaughter and used for processing and further production of sausages.

That was announced in updated veterinary instructions aimed to combat the virus released by Ukraines State Veterinary and Phytosanitary Service (Gosvetphitosluzba), late April.

Previously, instructions in place since March 2014 had ordered that all pigs from affected areas should be culled and burnt, while pigs from the surrounding quarantine areas were not allowed to be sold, transported or slaughtered.

Boris Kobal, the head of the food safety department of Gosvetphitosluzba said that the old version of the instruction was no longer meeting the needs of the time and required updating, the services website reported.

The new instruction, he said, introduces new definitions of biological safety. It distinguishes between farms with high levels of biological safety versus infected facilities, and also specifies closed pig farm operations. It facilitates veterinary control during African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreaks, as it, not only allows healthy pigs to be sent for slaughter, but it also reduces the required limits of quarantine zones. This is because surveillance zones are also being installed, where enhanced veterinary control is applied, but not as strict as in quarantine zones.

Irina Palamar, head of the Association of Livestock Producers (ALP) in Ukraine has welcomed the adopting of the new veterinary instruction. On the ALPs website, she said that it should gradually improve the effectiveness of the anti-epizootic measures.

Ms Palamar added that the permission to send healthy pigs for processing instead of destroying them was the essential change that for a long time has been requested by professional organisations and industry experts. The safety of manufactured meat, she said, can be confirmed by clinical tests.

Previously, instructions in place since March 2014 had ordered that all pigs from affected areas should be culled and burnt, while pigs from the surrounding quarantine areas were not allowed to be sold, transported or slaughtered. Photo: Iwona Markowska-Daniel

ALP spent a lot of effort sharing the pig farmers opinion to authorities and now believes that this has paid off. On some points, however, Ms Palamar said that even the new regulation still needs further specification.

The new regulation gives much power to the state services regional offices, which is believed to work highly efficiently as well as professionally, Ms Palamar said.

According to Gosvetphitosluzba, 2017 has already become the worst year in terms of the ASF spread in Ukraine with nearly 70 outbreaks reported since the beginning of the year. In comparison to 2016, which for the entire year Ukraine officially registered 91 outbreaks of the virus.

Read more from the original source:
Ukraine: Pigs in quarantine zone can be slaughtered - Pig Progress (registration) (blog)

Obama: Decision not to bomb Syria required ‘political courage’ – CNN

In an interview with Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of the late President John F. Kennedy, for his Profile in Courage award, Obama said the "most political courage" came from his "decision not to bomb Syria."

In December 2016, Obama told CNN's Fareed Zakaria that in retrospect he still believes he handled Syria the right way.

Obama's latest remarks came more than a month after President Donald Trump authorized a strike against a Syrian air base in April in response to a chemical weapons attack carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian government air base, the first time the US has directly attacked the Assad regime in the country's six-year civil war.

Trump's decision to strike Syria earned him rare bipartisan praise, with Republicans largely supporting him in his decision to respond to the chemical attack, while Democrats were more concerned with discussing Trump's next step to address Syria.

Instead, the Obama administration reached a deal with Russia -- a Syrian ally -- on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons.

The request was for Syria -- with Russia brokering the agreement -- to turn over its chemical weapons as part of a process overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The removal of the weapons was confirmed by the OPCW, but the Obama administration said at the time that it couldn't confirm that there weren't still undeclared stocks in country.

US intelligence has estimated that less than 10% of the stockpile is suspected to have remained in place and Syria has the ability to make more.

So even though the Obama administration embraced the process as a victory, it still left Syria with chemical weapons. Republicans also charged that it was a display of weakness as the White House didn't enforce its red line. But Obama didn't want to bomb Syria without approval from Congress, which didn't happen.

Obama did launch airstrikes in Syria a year later, but against ISIS, as the US began a military campaign against the terror in Iraq and Syria. However, those airstrikes were not in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.

The Trump administration criticized Obama's strategy toward Syria when the chemical attack happened there in April.

The chemical attack against Assad's own citizens in Syria was the Obama administration's fault, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, declaring it a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham quickly tweeted a rebuttal to Obama's remarks in the interview, writing, "What President Obama calls 'political courage' -- most everyone else calls weakness and poor judgement."

He added: "It's not 'courageous' to allow a ruthless dictator to kill thousands and cross red lines regarding chemical weapons. #syria"

Graham sent out two more tweets, writing, "Giving Assad a pass for his outrageous behavior was not 'political courage,'" and "President Obama's 'courageous' approach to Syria has come back to haunt the people of Syria, the Middle East, and the world at large."

CNN's David Wright, Barbara Starr, Nicole Gaouette and John Kirby contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Obama: Decision not to bomb Syria required 'political courage' - CNN