Daily news sites

In a February 1941 editorial in Life magazine, Time and Life publisher Henry Luce called on his readers to "create the first great American Century." The term radiates hubris, but it has proved long-lived. In today's hyperpartisan America, embracing or rejecting the concept has become a measure of patriotism.

At the idea's heart, however, is the basic truth of American exceptionalism. For much of the 20th century, the United States was a stabilizing force, with its military and economic power dominating world affairs. There have been plenty of ups and downs: anchoring the fight against Nazi Germany on the one hand, and becoming embroiled in a debilitating Southeast Asian war on the other, not to mention championing a global human-rights agenda while failing to ensure basic freedoms for minority Americans.

Harvard professor Joseph Nye, well known for his explorations of soft power, considers the American prospect in his newly published book, Is the American Century Over? (Polity, $12.95) His answer is a carefully constructed "No," which is based partly on the fact that there is no logical successor to convincingly claim dominance over the next century. Even the United States finds itself sharing the world stage with a growing cast of states and non-state actors, all with influence enhanced by new information and communication technologies.

China is most often cited as the leading superpower for the coming century, but Nye skillfully points out that there might be less to China than meets the eye. He notes that 46 percent of the top 500 transnational corporations are owned by Americans, and that 19 of the top 25 global brands are American. Further, writes Nye, "China remains weak in science and technological innovation." He adds that Chinese complain that they "produce iPhone jobs, but not Steve Jobs."

China has emphasized soft power as a way to become a more significant player in world affairs and has spent vast sums on international broadcasting, Confucius Institutes, and other means of reaching the rest of the world. But the soft-power tools that China wields are mostly manufactured by government, while American soft power is rooted in civil society: universities, popular culture, private foundations, and such. China, continues Nye, "makes the mistake of thinking that government is the main instrument of soft power. In today's world, information is not scarce but attention is, and attention depends on credibility. Government propaganda is rarely credible."

Setting China aside, the continued prominence of the United States is partly attributable to an innate appeal that is best appreciated by those living outside the country. Nye notes that "the upward mobility of immigrants is attractive to people in other countries." As evidence, Nye cites the fact that 25 percent of high-tech startups have an immigrant founder, and 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.

In a society in which power is often a function of information dissemination, soft power is ever more important. Nye writes, "Conventional wisdom has always held that the government with the largest military prevails, but in an information age it may be the state (or non-state) with the best story that wins."

Soft power is closely tied to multinational cooperation, and in an era of a "multipartner world" (Hillary Rodham Clinton's term), skillful collaboration is essential. Nye writes, "If the American century is to continue, it will not be enough to think in terms of American power over others. One must also think in terms of power to accomplish joint goals, which involves power with others" (Nye's emphases).

Nye concludes that "we have not entered a post-American world," and that "the American century is not over." In this short, thoughtful book, he presents his case convincingly. It is a case that policy makers should ponder carefully.

The other morning I opened The New York Times to the headline "Thailand's Junta Tries to Bury the Opposition in Endless Lawsuits." The story was referencing the civil takeover of that government by the military through institutions often hailed as bastions of democracy and stability -- the court system and regulatory agencies, specifically.

It's an example of a seemingly democratic government using any tactics available to stifle opposition, even those that are theoretically set up to preserve the diversity of political voices. The recent imprisonment of Chen Shui Bian, former President of Taiwan, is another one of those stories that fits into this narrative.

After leaving office, Mr. Chen was sentenced to 20 years in prison by the new president. While the charges brought were embezzlement and money laundering, Chen's real crime was the reforms that he had tried to implement and the corruption he had blocked while in office -- reforms that the new government directly opposed. Numbers tell the true nature of the manufactured crimes against him. Under Chen's eight years of presidency, many major infrastructure projects, such as Taipei 101, a new high-speed train system, a second north-south highway, a tunnel through central mountains (defying extreme engineering challenges), and reform of the banking systems, were all completed ahead of schedule and well under budget, saving the country several hundred billions of Taiwanese dollars.

After exhaustive investigation, the government could only find a rather obscure and irrelevant land deal to pin on Chen. On the other hand, under the Ma administration, the country is now heavily in debt, approaching or exceeding the Greece's level, while no major infrastructure projects could be named. The new Taipei mayor, Dr. Ko, has become a national hero for unsealing classified documents to reveal the real nature of corruption under his two predecessors, including the current president Ma.

The world owes Chen a rigorous legal review to see if he received a fair trial. Or is his case clear-cut political persecution? There are some more facts to ponder here. Within one hour after Chen left his office as President of Taiwan on May 20, 2008, an order was issued by the new administration to limit Mr. Chen's travel while an investigation into allegations that he had misused his presidential discretionary fund was carried out. Six months later, on Nov. 12, 2008, he was placed in custody before any charges were filed. Over the next two years of custody, he was denied bail nine times while uncountable new charges continued to be filed against him. He had no client-attorney privilege; all his conversations with his attorneys were monitored and recorded by the prison authority.

For Chen, in those two years, there were many verdicts reversed and new trials ordered, and he was also found innocent in some. Initially Chen was sentenced to life in prison in his discretionary fund case by the same judge who had acquitted Ma Ying-Jeou, the current president, for misuse of his Taipei Major discretionary fund. Ma deposited half of his discretionary fund to his wife's account over several years, but the judge cited the fund management in ancient China (Song Dynasty) to justify his ruling in acquitting Ma. Eventually Chen was found innocent in the retrial of the discretionary fund case by the lower court, but the Highest Court invalided the innocent verdict and ordered another new trial. On Nov. 11, 2010, Taiwan's Highest Court issued a direct ruling to sentence Mr. Chen to 11 years in prison for the land deal case mentioned above. Note that Taiwan's Highest Court had never before issued a direct verdict; usually it returns the case to the lower courts for a retrial or agrees with the lower court's ruling. The day before this direct verdict Ma had dinner with many top officials of the judicial and justice departments to convey his personal view on Chen's guilt. Was this a coincidence? Even worse, the guilty verdict is based on a newly invented legal theory that speculates that because Chen was the president, he must have had some influence over the land deal, even though there is no direct evidence to link him at all. See a detailed account of all courts cases against Chen here.

You could say that there is somewhat of a tradition of leaders going from prison to the presidency; from Nelson Mandela to Lech Walesa of Poland, the world has seen men go from solitary confinement to inaugural parades as the political landscape beneath them suddenly changes. There is less of a tradition of going from ruling the country one day to competing for sleeping space in an overcrowded prison cell the next.

Chen Shui Bian, who had been in charge of a country for nearly eight years, found himself suddenly in prison under bright lights 24 hours a day as he struggled to get used to the prison food and the cold, concrete ground that was his bed. He'd been a successful lawyer before taking his place at the helm of the country and had done everything in his power to push for Taiwanese independence, which was at the centerpiece of his administration.

After six years in prison, the lack of access to medical care began to take its toll. As Chen Shui Bian grew weaker and weaker, the Taiwanese government grew increasingly concerned about the political fallout that would result from him dying in prison. They released him on house arrest for a 30-day recuperation period, which has now been extended for another 90 days.

Chen Shui Bian walked out of prison on the day of his temporary release with his head held high, shaking hands concealed in his coat pockets. He now endures house arrest as he struggles to recover, and his fate remains unclear.

The circumstances of his charges and trial are murky, wrapped up in the politics that have consumed Taiwan since after World War II: Taiwan's relationship with China. I agree with Chen Shui Bian that Taiwan should have its shot at true independence from the snaking economic and political arms of China. His view more closely aligns with that of the young people in Taiwan today and offers Taiwan a clearer shot at economic and political prosperity.

You may not agree with me or with Chen Shui Bian. You may have an equally powerful and entirely different point of view. The point here is not to debate the validity of Taiwan's independence or lack thereof but to assert that Chen Shui Bian should not suffer any longer for his own political platform and beliefs, to argue that government institutions set up to protect diversity should not be used to stifle opposing voices, and to suggest that Chen Shui Bian, whatever his political positions, should not have to sacrifice his life because of a shift in the political winds sweeping across Taiwan.

NEW YORK (AP) — The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority backed a series of terrorist attacks in the early 2000s in Israel that killed or wounded Americans, a U.S. jury found Monday in awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in damages at a high-stakes civil trial.

The case has been viewed as one of the most notable attempts by American victims of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to use U.S. courts to seek damages, and the verdict is a setback for the Palestinians' image as they seek to rally international support for their independence and to push for war crime charges against Israel. The damages could be a financial blow to the cash-squeezed Palestinian Authority, though the Palestinian authorities plan to appeal and the plaintiffs may face challenges in trying to collect.

In finding the Palestinian entities liable in the attacks, a Manhattan federal jury awarded the victims $218.5 million in damages for the bloodshed in attacks that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more — damages their lawyers said would automatically be tripled under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act.

Palestinian Authority Deputy Minister of Information Dr. Mahmoud Khalifa called the verdict "a tragic disservice" to Palestinians and to the international community in working toward a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The charges that were made against us are baseless," he said.

The victims' lawyers called the jury's decision a win in the fight against terrorism.

"It's about accountability. It's about justice," attorney Kent Yalowitz said.

While the Israeli government said it had no involvement in the case, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said officials "expect the responsible elements in the international community to continue to punish those who support terrorism, just as the U.S. federal court has done."

The suit against the PLO and Palestinian Authority — and another case in Brooklyn federal court against the Jordan-based Arab Bank — had languished for years as the defendants challenged the American courts' jurisdiction. Recent rulings found they should go forward under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows victims of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations to seek compensation for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and other hardship.

While the Palestinian Authority has settled some suits concerning U.S. citizens' killings, this was the first case in which it defended an Anti-Terrorism Act suit through a trial, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

The plaintiffs aim to collect "every dollar" of the damages by pursuing Palestinian Authority and PLO bank accounts, securities accounts, real estate and other property that may be in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere, said attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, of Shurat HaDin/Israel Law Center.

That may be difficult, international law experts said.

Collecting judgments can be time-consuming in any case and all the more arduous when they involve a foreign entity with a complicated status as an international actor, noted Jens David Ohlin, a Cornell Law School professor who specializes in international law. The Palestinians gained observer status at the United Nations in 2012, clearing the way for them to join various international organizations.

Diplomacy and foreign policy considerations could enter the equation for countries where the possible assets are held, said Karen Greenberg, the director of Fordham Law School's Center on National Security.

"This is why this case has always been so high-profile — understanding what the consequences would be," she said.

It concerned bombings and shootings in 2002 and 2004, during the second Palestinian uprising. Overall, the second uprising killed around 3,000 Palestinians and more than 1,000 Israelis.

Jurors, who deliberated for less than two days, heard dramatic testimony from relatives of people killed and survivors who never fully recovered. One, Rena Sokolow, described how a family vacation to Israel in 2002 turned to tragedy with a bomb blast outside a Jerusalem shoe store.

The Long Island woman testified that blood flowed so quickly from a broken leg she thought she would die.

"I looked to my right and saw a severed head of a woman about 3 feet from me," she said.

The plaintiffs also relied on internal records showing the Palestinian Authority continued to pay the salaries of employees who were put behind bars in terror cases and paid benefits to families of suicide bombers and gunmen who died committing the attacks. Yalowitz put up a photo of Yasser Arafat on a video screen, telling the jury that the late Palestinian leader had approved martyrdom payments and incited the violence with anti-Israeli propaganda.

"Where are the documents punishing employees for killing people?" Yalowitz asked. "We don't have anything like that in this case."

Defense attorney Mark Rochon had argued there was no proof Palestinian authorities sanctioned the attacks as alleged in the lawsuit, brought by 10 American families, even though members of Palestinian security forces were convicted in Israeli courts on charges they were involved.

"What they did, they did for their own reasons ... not the Palestinian Authority's," he said, arguing that it was illogical to conclude that payments made after the attacks motivated the attackers in the first place.

"Do you have any evidence that they caused these attacks? No," he said.

Last year, a Brooklyn jury decided that Arab Bank should be held responsible for a wave of Hamas-orchestrated suicide bombings that left Americans dead or wounded, based on claims the financial institution knowingly did business with the terror group.

A separate phase of the Brooklyn trial, dealing with damages, is set to begin in May.

___

PARIS (AP) — French president Francois Hollande said that the country must offer its protection and affection to the Jewish community as anti-Semitism is on the rise in France.

"Jewish are at home in France, it's the anti-Semites who have no place into the Republic", Hollande said in a speech at a prestigious annual dinner of the country's main Jewish organization. Many French Jews feel increasingly worried about anti-Semitism, particularly coming from young Muslims who embrace radical ideology propagated online.

France has Europe's largest Jewish population, about half a million. More than 7,000 emigrated to Israel last year.

Hollande noted that acts against Muslims are also on the rise in France.

About 10,000 soldiers and police forces are protecting synagogues, but also mosques, schools and cultural centers, Hollande recalled. They will stay mobilized "as long as necessary", he said.

Earlier Monday, France's Muslim leaders have refused to attend the dinner, angry over comments by a Jewish leader associating young Muslims with violence.

Roger Cukierman, head of the CRIF Jewish council, was denouncing a growing number of acts against Jews in France. He specified that he was talking about a "very small minority" of Muslims.

The French Muslim Council (CFCM), in a statement denounced Cukierman's comments as unfounded, including his use of the expression "Islamo-fascism."

Cukierman explained later that he was specifically thinking of the authors of recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen who had "claimed allegiance" to Islam. "Jews and Muslims, we are all in the same boat", he said.

Leaders of the CFCM have attended the event since the creation of the Council in 2003.

This year's event comes amid increasing fears of anti-Semitism and religious tension in France after attacks by Islamic extremists against a kosher market and satirical newspaper.

Let's reflect for a moment. What pulled you out of bed this morning? How do you spend the hours of your day? What would you like to experience in this one life?

We build our lives of moments that matter to us: getting a degree, helping others, building a business, inventing something new, enjoying our families. These moments are meaningful on a personal level. But personal moments become meaningless if they combine to destroy the one planet that we share.

Climate change is a threat to our very existence. Wherever we live and whatever we do. We all contribute to it. And we all have a responsibility to do something about it.

At home, we can take a series of small actions that add up to a positive impact: change your light bulbs, reuse and recycle, use less plastic, turn off electronics when not in use, buy more environmentally-friendly products like an electric car, for example. As communities, we can opt for more and better public transport, build bike lanes or recondition city parks. This, too, adds up and makes a difference on a larger scale.

There is still one big piece of the puzzle missing: a global climate change agreement. The framework for all our individual climate actions.

This is easier said than done and world leaders have stumbled in the past. But there is hope. Last week at the Geneva Climate Change Talks, 194 countries came together and agreed on a negotiating text as the basis for the final agreement they hope to reach at the Paris Climate Summit in December. Every country's position has been included. A good foundation for a collective global pledge to confront the threat to our future.

This is your climate agreement. It is not simply a piece of paper to be discussed in a dusty conference hall. It is about your life. Let's help leaders keep the momentum: Write to your local parliamentarian. Petition party leaders. Use social media. Get your kids and community involved. Start a climate neutral group in your neighbourhood to lead by example.

Global action is woven by local commitment. It is the only way we can ensure that we can all keep waking up in a world where we can safely build our lives: individually and together. It is your life - and it is your climate agreement.

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein

So, that happened. This week, the fight over President Barack Obama's immigration policy returns to the halls of Congress, with opponents of the president's executive actions threatening to cease funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Is this a smart idea? Of course not. But we'll talk about it as if it might make sense to someone.

Listen to this week's "So, That Happened" below:




* * *

Some highlights from this week:

"Ultimately the borders aren't going to be open if DHS shuts down. People are not going to be getting on planes without being checked. Immigration is not going to stop deporting people." -- Elise Foley

Meanwhile, potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush went through the ancient campaign ritual of giving a foreign policy philosophy speech, to prove that he cares about foreign policy, and ancient rituals. Did you notice that Jeb Bush has the same last name as another president with a foreign policy? Because this was the week that every political reporter finally noticed that.

"It's weird because we come to this point and then we start talking about 'Oh, it's the so-and-so doctrine.' I was looking for signs of a 'Jeb Doctrine' and not a 'Bush Doctrine,' and I didn't see much distinctions." -- Jason Linkins

Finally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been having what we are told are world-historical chitchats with people like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen. What do these meetings augur? Well, none of us was present at the meetings, so we'll do what media experts call "guessing."

"I think that sometimes Clinton's people will say, 'Look, they aren't that far away on most policy issues,' and to some extent that's true, but actually the rhetoric kind of does matter in a political campaign. ... Hillary Clinton is just not that good at talking populist." -- Zach Carter

* * *

"So, That Happened" is available on iTunes. We've been working to create an eclectic and informative panel show that's constantly evolving, a show that's as in touch with the top stories of the week as it is with important stories that go underreported. We'll be here on a weekly basis, bringing you the goods.

Never miss an episode: Subscribe to "So, That Happened" on iTunes, and if you like what you hear, please leave a review. We also encourage you to check out other HuffPost Podcasts: HuffPost Comedy's "Too Long; Didn't Listen," the HuffPost Weird News Podcast, HuffPost Politics' "Drinking and Talking," HuffPost Live's "Fine Print" and HuffPost Entertainment's Podcast.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Opponents of President Nicolas Maduro poured into the streets Friday to condemn the surprise arrest of Caracas' mayor for allegedly participating in a U.S.-backed plot to overthrow his government.

The protests came a day after an armed commando unit dressed in camouflage raided Mayor Antonio Ledezma's office and hauled him away. The detention, recorded by security cameras, set off a wave of spontaneous demonstrations in middle-class neighborhoods loyal to the opposition and on Friday a few hundred supporters gathered peacefully to denounce Ledezma's "kidnapping." The mayor was charged with conspiracy, a crime punishable by 8 to 16 years in jail, and sent Friday night to a military prison outside Caracas where other prominent government foes are being held.

The arrest of the 59-year-old mayor, one of Maduro's fiercest critics, comes as the government struggles to avert a crisis years in the making but made worse by a recent tumble in oil prices. The president's approval rating was hovering around 22 percent in January, the lowest in 16 years of socialist rule, as Venezuelans are forced to cope with widespread shortages, runaway inflation and a plunge in the currency that shows little sign of abating.

Maduro has taken to the airwaves in recent days to rail against his opponents, accusing them of conspiring with the United States to sabotage the oil-dependent economy, sowing chaos and carry out a coup timed to coincide with the anniversary this month of 2014 anti-government protests that left more than 40 dead.

As part of the crackdown, he's also seized control of a major retail chain, jailed several executives and handed more power to the military to control protests and smoke out saboteurs.

However, the dire situation hasn't translated into support for the frequently out-maneuvered opposition.

Turnout at Friday's demonstration was the largest for an anti-government rally in months but nowhere near the throngs that rocked cities a year ago, a sign of the steep challenge the opposition still faces connecting with mistrustful voters ahead of legislative elections later this year.

The government's case against Ledezma appeared to stem from a public letter he wrote with two other hardliners calling for a transitional government. Maduro said the letter, published in an anti-government newspaper, was the green light for a secretly hatched putsch and on Friday said that next week he would present videos and recordings detailing U.S. Embassy involvement in the plot.

The U.S. called the accusations "baseless and false."

While Ledezma's arrest may be the boldest action against his rivals, it's unlikely to rattle Maduro's core base, which is better organized and more at ease in the throes of the crisis than the opposition, according to David Smilde, a Venezuelan researcher and senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America.

"The 20 percent that are left (supporting Maduro) are pretty hardcore and Ledezma is not a likable character," Smilde said.

The embattled president could also be gambling that the allegations of a coup will enable him to distract attention from the mounting woes and weaken the opposition enough to allow him to prevail in legislative elections slated for later this year.

But the growing crackdown is not without risks. Opponents, who seemed lifeless in recent weeks even as the country's problems have worsened, are enraged and international condemnation of Maduro's human rights record is likely to rise.

On Friday, the Obama administration said it is considering additional actions to pressure the government after it expanded this month a travel ban on individuals accused of corruption and abuses. It also called on regional governments to ensure Venezuela lives up to its commitments to democracy.

"Venezuela's problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporter.

So far reaction has been muted, with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, the U.S.'s top ally in the region, urging that Ledezma's due process rights be respected but stopping short of calling for the mayor's release. Brazil, whose Workers Party government is close to Maduro and a major investor in Venezuela, expressed concern and called on both sides to "work for peace and the maintenance of democracy."

Foreign ministers from the two countries and Ecuador are expected to arrive in Caracas in the coming days to try and open a channel of dialogue between the government and opposition.

Ledezma has been a thorn in the side of the ruling party since he was elected mayor in 2008, beating out a member of the socialist party led by the late President Hugo Chavez. The government subsequently transferred most of his powers to a newly created office run by a loyalist.

He was re-elected in 2013 and has been on the attack ever since alongside Leopoldo Lopez, a former mayor whom he'll now join in jail. Lopez was arrested a year ago for allegedly inciting violence at anti-government protests.

Despite Ledezma's reputation as a rabble-rouser he's rare among opposition leaders in having family ties to the ruling elite by way of his stepdaughter, who is married to Tourism Minister Andres Izarra, a top government spokesman.

Government critics say that as the administration loses strength, it is becoming more dangerous.

"The mayor of the capital arrested just like that? That never happens. It's too ugly," said Maria Fernandez, who lives in the shadow of the presidential palace and makes her living selling loose cigarettes, candy and pirated movies. "I'm worried we're going to see more repression."

___

Associated Press writers Luis Alonso Lugo in Washington, Jacobo G. Garcia in Bogota, Colombia, and Bradley Brooks in Rio de Janeiro contributed to this report.

___

BAUCHI, Nigeria, Feb 22 (Reuters) - A young girl with explosives strapped to her killed five people and wounded dozens at a security checkpoint outside a market in the northeast Nigerian town of Potiskum on Sunday, witnesses said.
"(She) refused to be checked at the gate to the market and an argument ensued," witness Ibrahim Maishago told Reuters by telephone. "She let off the bomb, killing herself and five others, while many were injured."
No one claimed responsibility for the bombing, which bore the hallmarks of Islamist militant group Boko Haram. The insurgents have suffered a string of defeats in a military offensive by Nigeria and neighbors Cameroon, Niger and Chad.
Resident Bala Potiskum said he saw dozens of wounded being rushed to hospital after the blast.
Both witnesses described the bomber as a "small girl," estimating that she could not have been more than eight years old.
The Islamist fighters appear to be on the run in many parts of Nigeria and regions near its borders, after being subjected to a major offensive on all sides, but retain the ability to mount deadly surprise attacks.
The use of female suicide bombers, sometimes young girls, has been a common tactic of Boko Haram since last year, as have revenge attacks on civilians when the group is under pressure.
Nigerian forces backed by air strikes seized the northeastern border town of Baga from Boko Haram on Saturday, the military said, a significant victory and one of a string of recent successes.
President Goodluck Jonathan, who has been strongly criticized for not taking tougher action against Boko Haram, faces an election on March 28 in which security is a key issue. (Reporting by Ardo Abdallah; writing by Tim Cocks; editing by Rosalind Russell)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new campaign ad compares the leader's defiance in seeking to address the U.S. Congress despite White House opposition with legendary Israeli leader David Ben Gurion's refusal to bow to U.S. State Department opposition when he helped create the state of Israel. (Watch above.)

The ad, which is in Hebrew and features grainy, black-and-white graphics, flashes back to 1948 as a voiceover intones the following, per a Haaretz translation: "In 1948, Ben-Gurion stood before a fateful decision: The creation of the State of Israel. The U.S. secretary of state firmly objected. Ben-Gurion - contrary to the State Department's position - announced the establishment of the state. Would we be here today had Ben-Gurion not done the right thing?"

The ad was posted on Netanyahu's Facebook page, accompanied by text declaring his commitment to addressing Congress. "Congress is the only place where a bad deal can be stopped. It is the right and essential thing to do to safeguard Israel's security and existence," Netanyahu wrote, according to a translation by the Times of Israel.

Netanyahu is expected to address Congress on March 3 on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, of which he has been a fierce critic. He was invited by Speaker of the House John Boehner -- not President Barack Obama -- and the episode has significantly widened the already-wide rift between the American president and the Israeli prime minister. The White House is reportedly considering options to undercut Netanyahu's message according to the Associated Press.

Israel goes to the polls on March 17. Recent polling shows Netanyahu's Likud in a tight race with the center-left Zionist Union.

The Times of Israel notes that while Secretary of State George C. Marshall did indeed oppose recognizing Israel at the time, President Harry Truman was a firm supporter, "making the US the first country to provide Israel with de facto recognition moments after it declared independence."

(Adds comment from Ledezma's daughter; Unasur details)
By Alexandra Ulmer
CARACAS, Feb 21 (Reuters) - The mayor of Venezuela's capital Caracas will fight charges of plotting violence against the socialist government, his lawyer said on Saturday, denouncing the accusations as baseless.
Intelligence agents seized 59-year-old Antonio Ledezma, a trained lawyer, at his office on Thursday night.
He was indicted the next day on conspiracy charges against President Nicolas Maduro and is held at the Ramo Verde military prison, where fellow hardline opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez has been jailed for a year.
The opposition said Ledezma's arrest indicated an increasingly unpopular Maduro was cracking down on dissent to hold on to power and distract citizens from chronic shortages of basic goods, the region's highest inflation, a recession, and sky-high crime.
But Ledezma's lawyer Omar Estacio says he believes in Venezuela's justice system and he planned to lodge a first appeal as early as Monday or Tuesday.
"We're going to appeal the judge's decision," he said. "I feel very confident that the Venezuelan justice will rectify this because these charges are truly unfounded."
Officials have said a public document signed by Ledezma and two other opposition leaders urging a transition is a roadmap for an uprising. They also said he was among various politicians supporting a new plot with dissident military officers to topple the president via air strikes.
Ledezma is the highest-profile Maduro opponent arrested after Lopez, who was detained for his role in last year's protests that brought four months of violence and led to 43 deaths.
The mayor's arrest prompted isolated demonstrations in the capital and fresh violence in the opposition stronghold of San Cristobal in western Venezuela, witnesses said.
"This is when people need to take to the street to defend democracy, without succumbing to violence, which would only benefit the government," Luis Pulido, a former member of Ledezma's media team, said on Friday at a small rally in Caracas.
Ledezma's daughter Antonietta on Saturday urged Venezuelans to take to the streets amid what she termed a "critical moment" for the country.
But while Ledezma's arrest brought condemnation from the United States and rights groups, it has so far failed to ignite major protests in deeply polarized Venezuela.
Many Maduro supporters loathe Ledezma, whom they call "The Vampire," and say he is part of an undemocratic, elitist clan intent on recouping power in oil-rich Venezuela.
Separately, Uruguay, which currently holds the presidency of South American bloc Unasur, said it was coordinating an imminent trip by foreign ministers of regional powerhouse Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador to meet with Maduro in Caracas. (Additional reporting by Diego Ore in Caracas and Esteban Farat in Montevideo; Editing by Stephen Powell and Franklin Paul)

Fierce debate continues in Washington over the proposed trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), between the United States and 11 Asia-Pacific nations, including Japan. Hundreds of members of Congress (from both parties!) are joining economists left and right to include an enforceable provision on currency manipulation in the TPP, but there are still some who argue that this rule isn't needed.

That's why we put together this handy list of the top 10 facts you need to know about currency and the TPP. (Hint: It's about middle-class jobs).

1. Japan, a potential TPP partner, is gaming the United States, and it's getting worse. The country's currency, the yen, is down by over 50 percent over the past three years. Meanwhile, Japan's export growth is way up. Example: Japan ships 1.5 million cars to the U.S. every year -- while we ship 20,000 to Japan.



2. History tells us that Japan responds to pressure on currency. Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration compelled Japan via the Plaza Accord to raise the value of the yen and shift some production to the U.S. or lose some access to the U.S. market. And, wouldn't you know it, Japan complied.



3. If we want to ensure that China doesn't write the rules of trade in Asia, then the TPP must include currency, because China will be the prime beneficiary of the TPP if we don't apply pressure on currency, both inside and outside the trade agreement. China spent much of 2014 manipulating its currency, the yuan, to boost its exports. Partly as a consequence, the U.S. trade-in-goods deficit with China grew from $226.9 billion in 2009 to a record $342.6 billion in 2014. The yuan essentially hasn't increased in value since President Obama and 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney stopped talking about it on the 2012 campaign trail.



4. We also know that China responds to pressure. The only significant movements in the yuan over the past 14 years have occurred when:
   a. Congress voted to put pressure on China (see 2005, 2010, 2011);
   b. The Obama administration made a credible threat (see 2010);
   c. When China's currency cheating was part of the national political conversation (see 2012).



5. Defining currency manipulation isn't rocket science. Clear guidelines have been in place for decades, through organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), along with the Treasury Department's semi-annual exchange rate report.



6. The United States is not a currency manipulator (despite what some misguided pundits have argued), nor would it ever be considered one. We don't have persistent current account surpluses, and we don't accumulate massive quantities of foreign currency reserves -- two things you need to be defined as a currency manipulator by the IMF and any other credible source.



7. Even if you don't believe Japan is currently manipulating its currency, having a deterrent in place through the TPP simply makes sense. Establishing clear consequences for currency cheating right from the start ensures a level playing field for all parties involved.



8. The TPP doesn't stand a chance of passage without currency in it. Large, bipartisan majorities of the House and Senate have weighed in. So have a significant group of domestic manufacturers and economists.



9. Ignore the naysayers. A currency provision for the TPP is not a poison pill for the agreement. That's why traditional free-trade proponents such as Reagan administration veteran and economist Art Laffer and former Bush administration U.S. Trade Representative and current Ohio Sen. Rob Portman feel so strongly about it.



10. Above everything else, this isn't an academic debate. It's about American jobs. More than 900,000 U.S. jobs -- 466,000 of them in manufacturing -- were lost in 2013 due to the trade deficit with Japan (which was driven by Japan's currency manipulation). China's currency manipulation displaced 3.2 million U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2013.

But projections show that ending currency manipulation would create 5.8 million jobs over three years. And that effort starts by making sure there is a strong, enforceable rule against currency cheating in the TPP.