Israel to bulldoze Jerusalem women's organization

09/11/2009 21:53

Jerusalem – Ma’an – Israeli municipality staff delivered a notice to demolish the Women's Society office in the Old City of Jerusalem, accusing the organization of 100 square meters of unlicensed construction.

Wafa'a At-Taweel, executive officer of the Women's Society, stated that the organization provides a range of services to women and children in the field of rehabilitation and culture, further explaining that it remains the sole society offering such services in the area. Founded in 2009, At-Taweel emphasized that the demolition of the organization's office will harm its ongoing programs and activities.

The women’s organization is located in the Al-Magharbeh neighborhood south of the Al-Aqsa Mosque,

The Israeli municipality delivered 17 demolition notices in the Al-Bustan, Ein Al-Luzeh and Al-Yaman neighborhoods in Silwan, also in East Jerusalem on Sunday. Around 100 Palestinian houses are already slated for demolition in the same area.

Israeli authorities most often issue demolition orders citing a lack of construction permits. Palestinians in Jerusalem say that such permits are nearly impossible to obtain from the Israeli-controlled Municipality of Jerusalem, which administers both West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem.

Correa Defends Alliance Between Petroecuador and PDVSA

EFE News Services
11/09/2009 15:07

President Rafael Correa defended the strategic alliance between Petroecuador and Venezuelan state-owned oil giant PDVSA for the operation of the Amazon's Sacha field, one of Ecuador's largest oil fields.

Correa criticized politicians who oppose the alliance, arguing that Petroecuador holds a 70 percent stake in the venture while PDVSA has only a 30 percent interest.

The state-owned companies formed the Rio Napo consortium, which will be a "service provider" in the Sacha field, Correa said Saturday.

Rio Napo will only receive reimbursement for production costs from the 50,000 barrels per day (bpd) currently produced at Sacha, the president said, adding that the benefits from the deal would come from increased production due to new investment by the consortium.

The alliance will make it possible to increase Sacha's output by some 20,000 bpd, with Rio Napo barely receiving $1 for each additional barrel produced and Petroecuador getting 70 cents out of each of those dollars, Correa said.

Ecuador is also receiving environmental protection technology in the deal, the president said.

An average of 48 oil spills used to occur annually in the Ecuadorian Amazon, but this year there have been only three spills, Correa said.

Ecuador produces some 480,000 bpd of crude, with Petroecuador accounting for some 60 percent of output and about a dozen private companies the rest.

Oil is Ecuador's main export product and revenues from its sale finance about 35 percent of government spending.

Can attacks on a military base constitute "terrorism"?

If attacks on soldiers now qualify, how is it possible to exclude many American actions?

By Glenn Greenwald

November 9, 2009

The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman said yesterday on Fox News that he intends to launch an investigation into "the motives of [Nidal] Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder, if a terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11." Hasan's attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one's views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers -- particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war -- fall within any legitimate definition of "terrorism," which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?

The obvious problem with answering that question is that, as even the U.S. State Department recognizes, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance" -- despite the centrality of that term in our political discourse. In its 2001 publication, Patterns of Global Terrorism, the State Department did define "terrorism" to mean "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets," and in turn defined "noncombatant targets" to include "military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty." Only by accepting that definition (or one similar to it) could the attack on Fort Hood possibly be defined as "terrorism."

But if one accepts that broadened definition of "terrorism" -- that it includes violence that targets not only civilians but also combatants who are unarmed or not engaged in combat at the time of the attack -- it seems impossible to exclude from that term many of the acts in which the U.S. and our allies routinely engage. Indeed, a large part of our "war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or "combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan? Indeed, we currently have a "hit list" of individuals we intend to murder in Afghanistan on sight based on our suspicion that they're involved in the drug trade and thus help fund the Taliban. During its war in Gaza, Israel targeted police stations and, with one strike, killed 40 police trainees while in a parade, and then justified that by claiming police recruits were legitimate targets -- even though they weren't engaged in hostilities at the time -- because of their nexus to Hamas (even though the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said the targeted recruits "were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order").

• Continue Reading

Is there any legitimate definition of "terrorism" that allows the Fort Hood attack to qualify but not those above-referenced attacks? The U.S., of course, maintains that it is incapable of engaging in "terrorism," by definition, because "terrorism" is something only "subnational groups or clandestine agent" can do, but leaving that absurdly self-serving and incoherent exclusion aside, how can the Fort Hood attacks targeted at soldiers be "terrorism" but not our own acts?

Just to provide what ought to (but won't) be an unnecessary caveat: whether the U.S. is noble, righteous and good, and radical Muslims are rotten and evil, is completely irrelevant to the issue here. The laws of war and definitions of terrorism apply -- as is true, by definition, for all things that we call "laws" and "definitions" -- equally to everyone, regardless of how good or bad someone is. Nor do any of these issues have anything to do with whether an act is justifiable; many things that are wrong and evil -- indeed most -- are not "terrorism."

Isn't it fairly clear that the term "terrorism" is being applied to what Hasan did due to his religion rather than the acts themselves? Put another way, as ThinkProgress' Matt Duss put it: "the definition of terrorism is not 'any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason'." But that -- along with the repellent claim that saying "Allahu Akbar" is "suggestive of terrorism," rather than suggestive of someone who is Muslim (obviously the same thing in the minds of the people claiming that) -- is exactly what seems to be driving discussions of this attack. It's likely that there will always be a lack of clarity about exactly what motivated Hasan -- some combination of mental instability, religious fervor and political conviction -- but, regardless of motive, the only way to define an attack on soldiers as an act of "terrorism" is to indict ourselves in the same way.

UPDATE: Just to underscore the last point, Tucker Carlson in his Washington Post chat suggested today that there is nothing that could fairly be called "Christian-inspired terror." The only way not to view the murder of numerous abortion doctors and the blowing up of gay bars as qualifying is if one believes that "terrorism," by definition, means: "violent acts committed by Muslims in which their religious beliefs play a role."

China Calls on U.S. to Control Deficit

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao urged the U.S. to limit the size of its deficit to ensure the stability of the dollar, Reuters reported.

America should play a responsible role in contributing to a global recovery, Wen was quoted as saying yesterday at a briefing in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. It should keep the deficit at an appropriate size, the premier said.

Wen is renewing concerns expressed in March, when he said he was “worried” about China’s holdings of Treasuries and wanted assurances that the nation’s U.S. investments were safe. The dollar fell today after the Group of 20 governments agreed to keep stimulus measures and remained silent on the greenback’s decline this year.

The U.S. currency has dropped about 13 percent against a basket of currencies of major trading partners in the past seven months and the International Monetary Fund indicated in a Nov. 7 report that it may still be overvalued.

China’s foreign-exchange reserves climbed to a record $2.273 trillion in September and the nation is the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries, owning $797.1 billion of the securities in August.

China is closely watching its U.S. assets, which are a very important part of the nation’s wealth, Wen was quoted as saying. He reiterated that his government sought safety, liquidity and good value when investing its currency holdings.

China is facing calls to let its own currency gain against the dollar.

Chinese central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan told Bloomberg News on Nov. 6 that “the pressure from the international community to allow yuan appreciation is not that big,” deflecting calls from Europe and Japan to let it rise.

Seymour Hersh’s latest article only portrays his well-known anti-Pakistan bias: Pakistani FO spokesman

Associated Press of Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Nov 8, 2009 (APP): Commenting on Mr. Seymour Hersh’s latest article "Defending the Arsenal-In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear warheads be kept safe?" posted on the website of "The New Yorker" magazine, the Foreign Office Spokesman termed the assertions made in the article as utterly misleading and totally baseless. "The author of the article yet again portrays his well-known anti-Pakistan bias by making several false and highly irresponsible claims by quoting anonymous and unverifiable sources".

"The article is thus nothing more than a concoction to tarnish the image of Pakistan and create misgivings among its people," the Spokesman said in statement here on Sunday.

The Spokesman underlined that Pakistan’s strategic assets are completely safe and secure. The multi-layered custodial controls, which have been developed indigenously, are as foolproof and effective as in any other nuclear weapons state, he added.

"Pakistan therefore does not require any foreign assistance in this regard. Nor will Pakistan, as a sovereign state, ever allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear and strategic facilities".

"Any suggestion to this effect is simply preposterous. Our second-to-none professional armed forces are fully capable to take care of our nuclear arsenal", he added.

The Spokesman further said, "to set the record straight, no talks have ever taken place on the issue of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal with US officials".

He said it needs to be emphasized that contrary to what Mr. Hersh claims, the US has repeatedly expressed its full confidence in our custodial controls. Most recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself denied any US concerns in this regard, he added.

The Spokesman said that Mr. Hersh is known to write sensational stories premised in far-fetched and imaginary scenarios. "His latest article is no exception and is, therefore, strongly rejected", he added.

US-Israel military drill involved chemical arms

Press TV - November 9, 2009 17:20:34 GMT

In a joint military drill held in October, the US and Israeli military
simulated unconventional attacks on Israeli towns, a report says.

Israeli and American soldiers launched the three-week Juniper Cobra military exercise in October 21, during which they fired chemical and biological warheads into Tel Aviv, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Israeli soldiers from the Home Front Command and American soldiers from the Ohio National Guard's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and high-yield Explosive Enhanced Response Force (CERF) took part in the drill.

During the Home Front Command-Ohio National Guard CERF exercise, chemical protection suits were donned by participants, the report said.

The soldiers in protective suits were hosed down with water to practice avoiding overheating.

"Israelis and US soldiers need to train to prepare for the defense of their countries, whether that training involves firing a weapon or preparing for any scenario," US Army spokesman Maj. Daniel J. Meyers told the post.

The US has brought advanced-capability Patriot missiles into Israel for the drill, which lasted until November 5.

West Bank rabbi: Jews can kill Gentiles who threaten Israel

Israeli settlers from the Yitzhar settlement watch after a Palestinian olive tree field was set ablaze by a group of Jewish settlers on June 19, 2008 in the West Bank village of Burin.

(AFP Getty Images)

09/11/2009
Haaretz

Just weeks after the arrest of alleged Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel, a West Bank rabbi on Monday released a book giving Jews permission to kill Gentiles who threaten Israel.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book "The King's Torah" that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation.

Shapiro based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he adds his opinions and beliefs.
Advertisement
"It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," he wrote, adding: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder."

Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book to their students and followers.

Japanese FM Rules Out Base Deal During Obama Visit

Massive Protests Against US Base on Okinawa

by Jason Ditz, November 08, 2009

Though the rising dispute over US military bases in Okinawa has been a hot subject for Japanese foreign policy, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada says that his government will not finalize any deals during President Obama’s visit later this week.

US bases (red) on Okinawa

Tensions have been rising between Japan and the United States since Japan’s Democratic Party (DPJ) took power in August, the first major regime change the nation has seen since World War 2. The DPJ ran on the basis of ending US dictation of Japanese foreign policy, and called for a renegotiation of the Okinawa base deal.

But the US has absolutely ruled out any renegotiations, and has demanded the new government accept the deals the previous government signed, even though the unpopularity of those deals was in no small way responsible for the DPJ’s election. The US has grown impatient with the delay, and Japan has threatened to oust them entirely from Okinawa.

Which it seems may suit the Okinawans just fine, as an estimated 21,000 organized a massive protest along the beach calling for the removal of the US Marine base. Okinawans have complained that since the US occupation, they have been asked to bear an inordinate amount of responsibility for housing American forces, and the crime and pollution they bring with them.

Source

Nuclear sites to be fast-tracked as Government warns of energy shortage

By Tim Shipman
November 9, 2009

The Government today insisted the country needed nuclear power as it prepared to unveil plans to fast-track a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is expected to give the green light to most of the 11 potential sites unveiled earlier this year - and could even back all of them.

And under changes to the planning laws, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will be able to speed through the proposals for new schemes.

Mr Miliband acknowledged anxieties about nuclear power but said it had a 'relatively good' safety record in this country.

Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria

'The basic message here is, we can't say no to all of the nuclear or all of the low carbon fuels that are out there,' he told GMTV.

'We need nuclear, we need renewables, we need clean coal, we need all of those things if we are going to make that transition to cleaner energy.'

Although a backlash against the regulations is expected from Labour MPs, he will insist that energy firms need to know they will not fall foul of planning chiefs if they invest in new sites.

Nine of the 11 on the shortlist are next to existing reactors, including two at Sellafield in Cumbria, Sizewell in Suffolk, Wylfa in North Wales and Dungeness in Kent.

In each instance the communities concerned are believed to support expansion because it will create jobs.

Ed Miliband is expected to approve the next generation of nuclear power plants

Indicating that most or all of the sites will be given the green light, an insider said: 'The companies have been pretty good at coming up with locations.

'Ed will make it clear that we can't tackle climate change without nuclear power. We need an energy infrastructure that's fit for the future.'

It came as the Government was expected to announce that radioactive waste will be buried underground in a new storage facility that could cost up to £18billion to build.

The 'deep geological repository' would permanently dispose of Britain's annual 200 tonnes of high-level waste.

Each of the new reactors will produce about 20 tonnes of highly radioactive waste that will remain lethal for 100,000 years.

It is also expected to store 5,000 canisters of nuclear waster from the country's past military programme that is currently kept in West Cumbria.

A source close to Mr Miliband denied reports that he will give the go-ahead to further plants on green-field sites.

Britain gets 15 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power. Ministers want to increase this to 25 per cent by 2025. Demand is set to rise 55 per cent by 2050.

Mr Miliband hopes the first new plants can open by 2018. He admitted people were concerned about nuclear power but insisted it had a 'relatively good' safety record.

'The basic message here is, we can't say no to all of the nuclear or all of the low carbon fuels that are out there. We need nuclear, we need renewables, we need clean coal, we need all of those things if we are going to make that transition to cleaner energy,' he said.

Shadow energy secretary Greg Clark condemned the fact the plans were being unveiled in a ministerial statement, arguing they needed more 'democratic legitimacy'.

'It is a national emergency and it's been left far too late - we've known for the last 10 years that most of our nuclear power fleet would come to the end of its planned life,' he said.

'So whatever happens with these statements we've got a black hole, but actually we do need a different planning system, we need a fast track for major items of infrastructure.

'The trouble with the way the Government's doing it is, it has no democratic component. The statements will just be read out to MPs without a vote and the decisions will be taken by an unelected, unaccountable official.'

Enlarge

Mr Miliband said an independent commission would decide whether power stations were built in certain areas and insisted the plans are crucial to shaping Britain's future energy supply.

'We know the low-carbon transition is a huge challenge. We now need to move on to getting the actions in place to make it happen.

'That is why the national policy statements and Infrastructure Planning Commission are important, because the truth is that we are not going to be able to deliver a 21st century energy system with a 20th century planning system,' he said.

Green groups criticised the plans. Robin Oakley, of Greenpeace, said: 'Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance.

'We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions.'

Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said: 'Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.'

Source

Mullen: ‘Nuclear Iran’ an Existential Threat to Israel

Admiral Open to US Attack, Concedes War Would Be Incredibly Destabilizing

by Jason Ditz, November 08, 2009

Speaking today at the National Press Club, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen declared that “it’s very clear to me that a nuclear weapon in Iran is an existential threat to Israel.”

Adm. Mullen has repeatedly met with Israel’s military chief Gen. Ashkenazi, and says foiling Iran’s nuclear program is “the number one priority for Israel.” This has been underscored in recent days as Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran.

But while Admiral Mullen said he still wanted President Obama to continue with diplomacy, he was fully prepared to see the US attack Iran to prevent a nuclear Iran from “undermining the stability” of the Middle East. At the same time, Mullen admitted that attacking Iran itself “would also be incredibly destabilizing.”

Though Western officials have repeatedly issued warnings about Iran’s nuclear program, the IAEA has repeatedly certified that none of Iran’s uranium has been enriched to anywhere near weapons-grade level and that none of it is being diverted to anything but civilian use.

Source