October 28, 2009

Richard Goldstone confuses International Law

Written by M.Idrees - Pulse Media - October 28, 200

While Richard Goldstone deserves credit for publishing a fair report about Israel’s war crime during its assault on Gaza — especially in light of the storm of vilification that he has had to endure — one need not be so swayed as to exempt him claims from scrutiny. There are serious problems with his interpretation of International law, and far from being too critical of Israel, he is too generous.

In this interview Goldstone makes the tendentious claim that jus in bello, that is conduct during war, is unrelated to jus ad bellum, the justness of the war. He in fact goes so far as to claim that ‘it was a given’ that Israel had a right to attack Gaza. He makes this claim despite stating before hand that it wasn’t his remit to investigate jus ad bellum. This is therefore an astonishing statement to make for someone even remotely familiar with international law. Before one can consider jus in bello, the conditions for jus ad bello need to be satisfied. That is to say that before you investigate conduct you have to make sure that the war was just. And if this wasn’t the case — and it wasn’t — then Israel is responsible for launching a war of aggression, the ’supreme crime’ in international law. This also means that Israel bears the responsibility even for the violations of human rights carried out by Hamas because the supreme crime carries within it the accumulated evil of all that follows. For more on this, see my detailed argument in this earlier article.

Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi talks to Judge Richard Goldstone about the investigation into the Gaza war. He travelled to the United Nations in New York to find out if the war on Gaza has transformed Richard Goldstone from a sober jurist into a man on a mission to discredit Israel on an international stage.


Bahrain Parliament Votes to Penalize Contacts with Israel

Al-Manar













28/10/2009
Bahrain's parliament on Tuesday approved legislation penalizing contacts with the Zionist entity. "Whoever holds any communication or official talks with Israeli officials or travels to Israel will face a fine...and/or a jail sentence of three to five years," member of parliament Jalal Fairooz from Al-Wefaq bloc, an opposition group that was the driving force behind the move.

"The motivation is that steps are being taken by certain countries to allow certain talks to be held with Israeli officials. Israeli delegates have managed to participate in events in Arab countries with no treaties with Israel."

Diplomats and analysts say Arab governments have been pressured by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to make steps towards normalizing ties in order to help encourage Israel to enter “peace talks” with Palestinians.

But popular sentiment has been opposed to such moves. An Egyptian writer is facing disciplinary action by the journalists union for meeting the Israeli ambassador in Cairo.

Bahrain's Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa wrote in the Washington Post in July that Arabs had not done enough to communicate directly with Israelis. Bahraini officials visited the occupied Palestinian territories in July in an official capacity for the first time to collect five of their nationals Israel was deporting after seizing them on a ship bound for the Palestinian territory of Gaza, blockaded by Israel.

Bahrain's parliament has limited powers and bills must pass through an upper house whose members are chosen by the king. Ultimate power lies with the ruling family. Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania are the only Arab League states with formal ties with Israel.

Kouchner acting 'against interest of French people'

Press TV - October 28, 2009 19:19:03 GMT

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner

Iran reacts to cynical comments by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner regarding the Tehran government's response to an IAEA-brokered deal for overseas treatment of the country's low-enriched uranium.

In a series of interviews with a number of media outlets, Kouchner had accused Iran of "wasting time" and showing "negative indications" about its nuclear intentions.

His comments came after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) drafted a deal, according to which Iran will ship out 80 percent of its low-enriched uranium in exchange for highly-enriched uranium converted into metal fuel rods for a Tehran research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer care.

"I cannot say that the situation regarding Iran is very positive. Now, meetings are being held in Vienna. But via the indications we are receiving, matters are not very positive," Kouchner had said during an official visit to Lebanon on Friday.

An informed source in the Iranian Foreign Ministry said on condition of anonymity that such remarks are "counter-productive" at a time, when Tehran and the West are working to find common ground on the nuclear issue.

"These baseless and unreasonable accusations against Tehran are clearly in line with the [Israeli government's] frame of mind. We believe these statements to be against the interests of the French people," he said on Wednesday.

Iranian officials had welcomed foreign cooperation on the Tehran research reactor from the very beginning, but their efforts were constantly undermined by the French government, he added.

"The idea of cooperation on the Tehran research reactor was first floated by the Iranian government," he said.

"The debate now is on a few technical issues, which relate to the Iranian nation's basic rights and have remained ambiguous so far," he added.

The Foreign Ministry source noted that Kouchner's cynical remarks show that Paris has absolutely no intention of cooperating with Tehran on its enrichment program.

Agony in Western Sahara

By SOLA BALOGUN - The Sun News Online

10-27-09 | At the mention of Western Sahara to many Nigerians, they would immediately think of the Sahara desert. Not many Nigerians, and indeed Africans realise that there is a country on this continent called Western Sahara. But then, perhaps it is not so popular because it remains shackled by bondage of Morocco.

Yes, in this age and time, a country still remains oppressed by another, worse still, they are both African countries. Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (the people are known as Saharawi) is a former colony of the Spanish protectorate which is rich in mineral resources like phosphate mineral rock, it also has some of the best fishing grounds in the world, and its off-shore oil resources are currently being explored.

When Spain pulled out of the colony in 1975, it didn’t finish the decolonisation process and Morocco as its neighbour quickly invaded and took over. Mauritania also seized part of the land but soon returned it to the Saharawi and made peace with the Polisario Front, the political movement that continued to fight against Morocco.

Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin aptly describes the situation and dire circumstances under which the Saharawi live. Water poisoning, torture, forced disappearances and other inhumane situations are some of the conditions under which the Saharawi live.

The book relays the experience of the author, Ike Abonyi who visited the country; Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. In his foreword, he laments that the story of the country as being an emotional one which has since been ignored by the rest of the world.
The book is divided into three parts with an easy to read and understandable style. Its full title is apt; Africa’s Last Colony: Spain’s Error, Morocco’s Sin; An African Journalist’s Diary On Western Sahara.

The foreword was written by Prof. Nuhu Yaqub, the immediate past Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja who described it as a timely addition to literature on Africa’s decolonization process. Yaqub also agrees that many Africans even enlightened ones are ignorant of a country called Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, not to mention its struggle for independence from Morocco.

His foreword decries the hypocrisy of some of the Western countries who claim to uphold human rights; (France, Germany and Spain) for turning a blind eye to Morocco’s flagrant abuse of human rights. He adds that it is Nigeria’s duty to the African continent to assist Western Sahara secure its independence.

The first part of the book collates the history of Western Sahara, its history with Spain, Spain’s pullout, and Morocco/Mauritania invasion of the country. It also explains how Mauritania returned the land it had seized while Morocco stubbornly held on to its seized part.

Abonyi and other analysts blame Spain for not finishing the decolonisation process i.e., handing over to the Polisario Front, a political group which had been formed in 1973 to fight Spanish colonial rule.

Despite the 1975 ruling of the International Court of Justice that Western Sahara was a country on its own at the time of its colonisation by Spain, its sovereignty still belonged to its people, while Morocco refused to leave the occupied land and the war with the Polisario Front continued. In 1992, the United Nations brokered a cease-fire and passed referendum on self-determination of the Saharawi people but Morocco refused to allow it.

Over 150,000 Saharawi are internally displaced refugees living on a daily ration provided by the United Nations Food Programme while many are hounded into detention without trials or forced into exile.

In the second part, Abonyi narrates his personal experience on the trip to the country; how as a presidential guest, his bed was a six-inch mattress usually used in boarding schools in Nigeria. According to him, the camp has enjoyed some peace in the last 17 years, but most young Saharawi are disillusioned especially since Morocco simply exploits the resources of the country for itself alone, while ignoring the needs of the Saharawi.

The narration by Abonyi would elicit sympathy from every reader; he narrates how young Saharawi have lost their limbs, and in some cases their lives, with explosion of the mines, which Morocco has placed at the 2500km long wall erected on occupied Western Sahara.

He also narrates gory details of about 140 inmates of the Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Mines and War located at the headquarters of administrative headquarters of the Saharawi camp.

The third part of Africa’s Last Colony is a collection of interviews with some dignitaries of Saharawi Government. In the interview, President Mohammed Abdulaziz praised Nigeria’s attitude towards other African nations, and its leadership role in the African continent. Other dignitaries who spoke to Abonyi include Mohamed Salem, the Commander of the Saharawi Military School, and Mohammed Yeslem Beisat, who is the Minister of African Affairs.

The author raises some very important questions; why did Spain not complete the decolonisation process by handing over to the Polisario Front? Why is the commonness of religion, language and geography not helping solve the problem between the two nations? Who manufactures and provides the weapons being used by the Moroccans to unleash terror on the Saharawi? Which other countries are benefitting from Morocco’s exploitation of the Saharawi? What is the role of France, as the former colonial master of Morocco, in the whole situation?

Some other questions begging for answers are; why is the rest of the Arab world adopting an indifferent approach to the oppression of their ‘brothers’? How much pressure are the African Union and other regional organisations applying to Morocco especially as Western Sahara is also being recognised as a sovereign state.

Africa’s Last Colony brings to fore a true but pitiable situation that, while other people have moved on to battling internal problems such as ethnicity, nepotism and so on, an African nation is being deprived of self-rule by another African nation. The gruesomeness of the situation is that soldiers readily torture and kill, without a war situation in Saharawi, regardless of age or gender.

Shot after photographing the Gaza sea

Eva Bartlett writing from the occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Palestine, 28 October 2009

Ashraf Abu Suleiman (Eva Bartlett)
On 4 October, Ashraf Abu Suleiman, a 16-year-old from Gaza's Jabaliya refugee camp, went to the northwest coast town of Sudaniya to visit an ill school friend. The teen then went to the sea, where he rolled up the legs of his pants, waded into the water and enjoyed the late summer morning. He took some photos of the sea and of the area around him, intending to play with the photos later on Photoshop, a hobby he and his father share.

Minutes later, Ashraf was running in blind terror as Israeli soldiers in a gunboat off the coast began shooting at Palestinian fishermen. He was hit by an Israeli soldier's bullet which bore through his neck and grazed his vertebrae, fracturing C-4 and C-5, leaving him bleeding on the ground and unable to stand up.

"They were shooting at Palestinian fishermen in hassakas [small fishing vessels]," he said of the Israeli soldiers in the gunboat. "Some of the bullets were hitting near where I stood. I started to run north. I didn't think about where to run, I just ran."

He estimates he ran for a few minutes, soon approaching the northern border before an Israeli soldier's voice shouted over a megaphone for him to stop. Seeing an Israeli military vehicle in the distance ahead, Ashraf was afraid that the soldiers north of him would start shooting. He kept running, hoping to take cover behind a low hill nearby.

Then he was grounded, one of the bullets hitting him in the neck.

The Ma'an news agency reported, "an Israeli military spokeswoman says soldiers identified a 'suspicious Palestinian man' approaching the border fence, and fired warning shots in the air. After the Palestinian ignored warning shots, the spokeswoman said, the army fired at and lightly injured him."

At least eight Palestinians have been killed and at least 33 injured in the Israeli-imposed "buffer zone" along Gaza's border since the 18 January ceasefire. Three of the killed and 12 of the injured were minors, including many children.

The "buffer zone" was imposed by Israeli authorities about a decade ago, initially at 150 meters and now while Israeli authorities say the no-go zone runs 300 metres from the boundary between Gaza and Israel, it ranges up to two kilometers in some areas. The buffer zone renders off-limits approximately 30 percent of Gaza's most fertile agricultural land, as well as the land adjacent to it. Israeli authorities warn that anyone entering that area is subject to being shot by the Israeli army.

"I don't know how close I was, maybe less than 400 meters from the fence," Ashraf said.

Three Israeli soldiers approached him on foot, Ashraf explained. "An Israeli soldier kicked me in the mouth and told me to stand up. I couldn't, my legs wouldn't move."

According to Ashraf, an Israeli soldier dragged him by his arms over the rough ground. After another kick to the face, he was put on a stretcher and carried across the northern border to a waiting Israeli jeep.

After they checked his identity via computer, Ashraf said that the Israeli soldiers told him: "You're 16 years and one month old. You're a student." Although the soldiers realized that he was harmless, they continued to treat him with contempt.

"They put me in a jeep and we drove for a while, maybe 20 minutes, I don't know exactly. Then they transferred me to an Apache helicopter and flew me to a military base near Erez. I don't know the name but I know it wasn't so far from Erez. There was a small clinic there where they gave me a little first aid," he said, recalling that this treatment was at least 30 minutes after his injury.

"They put some gauze and bandaging on my neck wound," Ashraf said. He then was made to wait as a Palestinian medic negotiated his return to a Gaza hospital.

Hassam Ghrenam, a Palestine Red Crescent Society medic and ambulance driver, had approval to cross into Israel for two medical cases unrelated to Ashraf. While on the Israeli side, Ghrenam saw Ashraf and requested to take him back to Gaza.

Ashraf explained that Ghrenam wanted to bring three other men, to transfer him carefully as medical procedure dictates. The Israeli soldiers refused the request and Ashraf had to wait for more than an hour until the soldiers finally relented.

"There were maybe 30 Israeli soldiers around us. The ambulance driver kept saying, 'he's critical, very critical, take him to Israel,' but the soldiers just pointed their guns at him and did nothing," Ashraf explained.

Ghrenam noted that there was blood and signs that Ashraf was beaten or kicked in the face. According to Ghrenam, "The Israelis only put a bandage on his wound, no neck collar, no proper treatment. I immediately put a neck collar on him. Injuries to the neck and spinal cord can lead to paralysis."

At the Palestinian side of the Erez crossing, Ghrenam passed Ashraf to a waiting Red Crescent ambulance which immediately transferred the youth to Gaza's al-Shifa hospital. He is now in the al-Wafa rehabilitation hospital, and doctors and Ashraf's parents wait to see whether his fractured vertebrae will heal well enough so he can walk again.

Ashraf's father is not optimistic. "Every day we wait I feel like his life is withering. I'm worried about his future."

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian human rights advocate and freelancer who arrived in Gaza in November 2008 on the third Free Gaza Movement boat. She has been volunteering with the International Solidarity Movement and documenting Israel's ongoing attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. During Israel's recent assault on Gaza, she and other ISM volunteers accompanied ambulances and documenting the Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.

Source

Taliban Already Vastly Outnumbered, NATO Making No Progress

McChrystal Escalation Moves US In Line With Failed Soviet Strategy

by Jason Ditz, October 27, 2009

Analysts are increasingly concerned that General Stanley McChrystal’s calls for massive escalation in Afghanistan seem to ignore the numerical superiority already enjoyed over the Taliban, and how little this has accomplished so far.



“It’s impossible to regain the initiative by introducing more foreign forces, which will only breed more resentment and more recruits for the enemy,” noted Ljubomir Stojadinovic. “The Soviets tried the exact same thing in Afghanistan in the 1980s with disastrous results.”

Indeed, the Soviet strategy came at roughly the same period in their failed occupation. About eight years after their invasion, the Soviets started throwing increasing amounts of money and troops at the nation.

On the other hand, this came as the Soviet Union was looking for an “exit strategy,” something which NATO fervently refuses to do. In February 1989 the Soviets fled Afghanistan and just two years later the Union collapsed entirely. NATO’s deeper pockets seem to have convinced it to continue down the road of occupation longer than the Soviets could, but the strategy still amounts to throwing more and more troops and money at the problem.

Source

Jail terms for 'Angola-gate' guilty

October 27, 2009

Jean Christophe Mitterand, left, was given a suspended sentence and a $550,000 fine [AFP]

Arkadi Gaydamak, a Russian-born Israeli businessman and Pierre Falcone, his French associate, have been sentenced to six-year jail terms for organising the illegal trafficking of weapons to Angola.

Gaydamak, who fled France before the trial, and Falcone were among 42 politicians, businessmen and members of the Paris elite accused of defying a UN embargo to arm the Angolan government during a civil war in the 1990s.

Charles Pasqua, France's former interior minister, was handed a one-year jail term on Tuesday for his involvement in the case dubbed "Angola-gate".

Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, the son of France's late president, was handed a two-year suspended sentence and fined $550,000 for receiving commissions linked to the illegal arms deals.

Al Jazeera's David Chater, reporting from the court in Paris, said many people do not believe that justice has been carried out.

"Many people that I've spoken to here ... say that really they've only half-lifted the veil - that many people have escaped justice and they've escaped the spotlight," he said.

But he added that Gaydamak, who is now believed to be in Russia, "has escaped the long arm of French justice", and that Pasqua, who is now in his eighties, will find it hard to cope with his jail sentence.

Gaydamak had initially fled to Israel from France, even standing for mayor of Jerusalem during attempts to extradite him.

Falcone, who holds French, Canadian and Angolan citizenship, and was Angola's ambassador to the UN cultural body Unesco, had claimed diplomatic immunity in the case, but this was overturned by the judge.

Weapons arsenal

The alleged weapons arsenal, which included 420 tanks, 150,000 shells, 170,000 anti-personnel mines, 12 helicopters, and six warships, is said to have propped up the government of Eduardo Dos Santos, the then-president, during its war against the US-backed Unita rebels.

Angola is littered with mines, a legacy of the civil war that killed thousands of people [EPA]
The arms sales began in 1993, when Francois Mitterrand was president, and continued into 1998, three years into the presidency of his successor, Jacques Chirac.

Prosecutors argued that the shipment was in itself illegal, although the main defendants disputed this, and claim that millions of dollars were skimmed off the contract to pay bribes to senior French and Angolan figures.

Although no Angolan officials have been indicted, court papers allege that Dos Santos and his inner circle received millions of dollars in kickbacks.

Several defendants have also said the trade was carried out in full view of the French authorities, but that the government kept quiet to protect an important source of oil.

Angola pushed to have the trial abandoned as relations soured between the countries.

In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy, the president, visited Angola in an effort to mend ties strained by the case.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Curry, new anti-cancer treatment

Press TV - October 28, 2009 13:40:15 GMT

Curry had long been thought to have healing powers in certain cultures; a new study finds that the bright yellow curry spice, turmeric, can also kill off cancer cells.

While many studies are assessing the effects of curcumin -- a compound commonly found in curry -- in treating arthritis and dementia; the study published in the British Journal of Cancer reported that the extract can start killing cancer cells within 24 hours.

It, however, loses its anti-cancer properties as soon as it is digested.

Faulty cells normally die through apoptosis or programmed suicide when proteins known as caspases are switched on in these cell; curcumin, however, is believed to use an alternative cell signaling system to make these cells digest themselves.

The extract has shown promising results in killing esophageal cancer cells — one of the leading cancers in the modern world linked to rising rates of obesity, alcohol intake and reflux disease — in the laboratory.

Scientists are optimistic that their findings will help develop new methods to treat cancer.

Report from J-street

The most difficult moment for me at the J Street came this morning. I was listening to a panel called Messaging Pro-Israel Pro-Peace.

Jim Gerstein, the first panelist presented good polling data about the attitude of American Jews towards Israel and the US role in the region. Lots of good numbers here, the kind of numbers that AIPAC prefers to ignore.

The survey shows that 7 out of 10 American Jews support US policies that help Israelis and Palestinians resolve their conflict–and this includes the US publicly disagreeing with both sides as well as exerting pressure on both sides (in other words, disagreeing also with Israel and exerting pressure also on Israel).

You can find all the survey info here:
http://www.jstreet.org/page/media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community

Matt Dorf, the next panelist talked about communications and messaging: what we say matters a lot, he said.

Keep this in mind as we move to the third panelist, Dr. Calvin Goldscheider. Here comes demography to help us say what we need to say about being pro-Israel pro-peace.

Dr. Goldscheider did a rapid survey in no more than a few minutes about the changing ratio of Jews to Arabs in what is now Israel. In a few seconds, we heard about the role of Jewish immigration, the Russians (not all of them are Jewish), the temporary workers from Asia (now numbering a quarter of a million) and so forth. Not a word about the Nakba, isn’t that a bit odd?

But let’s focus on the present. The question on the table, Is there a demographic threat?

The good news, says Dr. Goldscheider, is that in the context of the State of Israel, Arab minorities present no demographic threat unless we include the occupied territories and give the inhabitants there equal rights. Inclusion without equal rights leads to the end of democracy. Inclusion with equal rights leads to the end of the Jewish majority in the state. And that is why a two-state solution is a must: to preserve Jewish democracy.

The Palestinians are of course non-players in this Jewish democratic drama. At most, they are a threat just for being there. At best, they are a minority that we must keep under demographic control.

Oh, but the Palestinians are playing their part well. You see, in the 1960’s Palestinians had an average of nine children per family. Now they only have four. (Phew).

Four children is a lot, but nine is a lot more, explains the kind demographer in case we cold not do the math. Audience laughs.

Now, I am Jewish and I am also a Latino man living in California–a state where we have a pluralistic demographic composition: not one group, not even non-Latino whites, amount to 50% of the population. If I were to hear white people bemoaning the demographic threat that the rise of people of color in the state represents, I would call it like it is, and that is racism, pure and simple. I have no use for the phrase demographic threat. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a sharp pain in my gut.

What we say matters a lot; that’s what we were told in this workshop. If we need to use racism to message ourselves as Pro-Israel pro-peace, there is something very wrong here.

Is this the best J Street can come up with?

To be clear, I am not talking now about one-state, two-states, or three. I am talking about saying dayenu to this demographic threat mentality. I am talking about understanding fully and completely that you cannot save Israel’s democracy one bit when you celebrate the fact that 20% of its citizens has an increasingly lower birth rate (yeay!) so that their proportion in the population will not grow (double yeay!). If this is what you believe, don’t waste your time on avoiding the threat; you’ve lost the democratic values a long time ago.

My only consolation is that at least I can bring these issues to the public’s attention — even to the attention of the J Street conference participants.

Were I to be in Israel this very week, I would be furiously fighting against a bill advancing in the Knesset that would bar the Israeli government from providing funding to activities that deny Israel’s definition as a Jewish or democratic state.

– Sydney Levy

UN approves nuclear free resolution

Press TV - October 28, 2009 07:58:58 GMT

The UN General Assembly

The United Nations has approved a draft resolution proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran on destruction of nuclear weapons under international supervision.

The resolution was ratified at the First Committee of the UN General Assembly despite the opposition of the United States and its allies.

Based on the resolution, the UN General Assembly calls upon all nuclear countries to comply fully with all commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that might compromise either cause or lead to a new nuclear arms race.

It also asks member states to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

The assembly stressed that Israel join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allow its nuclear installations to come under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The United State, France, United Kingdom and Israel voted against the resolution.