Month: May 2010

  • INGILTERE: ‘Peace convoy’? This was an Islamist terror ambush

    INGILTERE: ‘Peace convoy’? This was an Islamist terror ambush

    Melanie Phillips

    As the international community rushes to condemn Israel for the violence on board one of the ships in the Gaza flotilla, which left a reported 10 people dead and dozens injured, it is now obvious that the real purpose of this ‘armada of hate’ was not merely the further delegitimisation of Israel but something far worse.

    Gaza’s markets are full of produce, thousands of tons of supplies are travelling into Gaza every week through the Israeli-controlled border crossings, and there is no starvation or humanitarian crisis. It was always obvious that the flotilla was not the humanitarian exercise it was said to be. Here is footage of the IDF offering to dock the Marmara — the main flotilla ship — at Ashdod and transfer its supplies and being told ‘Negative, negative, our destination is Gaza’.

    And now we can see that the real purpose of this invasion — backed by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a radical Islamic organization outlawed by Israel in 2008 for allegedly serving as a major component in Hamas’s global fund-raising machine — was to incite a violent uprising in the Middle East and across the Islamic world. As I write, reports are coming in of Arab rioting in Jerusalem.

    The notion – uncritically swallowed by the lazy, ignorant and bigoted BBC and other western media – that the flotilla organisers are ‘peace activists’ is simply ludicrous. This research by the Danish Institute for International Studies details the part played by the IHH in Islamist terror in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya. According to the French magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testifying at the Seattle trial of would-be al Qaeda Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressamin, the IHH had played ‘[a]n important role’ in the al Qaeda Millenium bomb plot targeting Los Angeles airport. It was also involved in weapons trafficking, and played in addition a key role in galvanizing anti-Western sentiment among Turkish Muslims in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. ‘Peace activists’ these people most certainly are not.

    And this flotilla was but the latest jihadi attack, deploying the Islamists’ signature strategy of violence and media manipulation. Here from MEMRI (viaJust Journalism) is a clip showing the hysteria against Israel being whipped up on board before the ships set sail, with the chanting of intifada songs about ‘Khaybar’ – the iconic slaughter of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century which is used as a rallying cry to kill the Jews today — and threats of ‘martyrdom’. This was not merely a propaganda stunt, but a terrorist attack.

    This is what the Jerusalem Post reported earlier today about what happened last night:

    According to the IDF, the international activists ‘prepared a lynch’ for the soldiers who boarded the ships at about 2 a.m. Monday morning after calling on them to stop, or follow them to the Ashdod Port several hours earlier.

    … Upon boarding the ships, the soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd. The activists, according to an IDF report, succeeded in stealing two handguns from soldiers and opened fire, leading to an escalation in violence.

    Also in the Jerusalem Post, David Horowitz wrote:

    Benayahu said soldiers, who had been dispatched to block the flotilla because of fears that it was carrying weaponry and other highly dangerous cargo into the Hamas-controlled Strip, were attacked with knives and bars and sharpened metal implements.

    Benayahu said two pistols that had been fired were subsequently found aboard the one ship, the Marmara, on which the violence erupted. And, most dramatically, he said that one IDF soldier had his weapon snatched away by one of the ‘peace activists’ on board, that this weapon was then turned against the IDF soldiers, who came under fire, and that they had no choice but to shoot back in self-defense.

    … What seems urgent now is to make publicly available footage that shows exactly what did unfold. In early afternoon, video footage screened on Israel’s Channel 2 appeared to show one of those aboard the Marmara stabbing an IDF soldier. Any such footage should have been made available hours earlier. Critically, if footage showing a soldier’s weapon being snatched and turned on the IDF troops exists, it should be broadcast, and the sooner the better.

    Some of this footage is now available on the web but much of it is hard to follow: as ever, the Israelis have been far too slow in making the most telling images and information available in comprehensible form (including in English rather than in Hebrew, for heaven’s sake!). This clip appears to show masked and armed flotilla activists beating Israeli soldiers (although here is the BBC reportaccompanying that footage, in which the voiceover appears to be claiming, perversely, that the people in masks were Israeli soldiers. That said, the report on Radio Four’s World at One was fair and balanced).

    This clip shows an Israeli soldier being stabbed. This IDF clip and this one show attacks on the commandoes including throwing one off the deck, attacking others with a metal pole and a firebomb and an attempted kidnap of another.

    It is also becoming clearer as the day wears on that, far from storming the boats in order to attack those on board, the Israelis were hopelessly ill-prepared for the violence they encountered. Israel’s Channel 10 and IDF radio have reported that the Israeli naval commandos were equipped with paint ball rifles to ensure minimum casualties among the flotilla terrorists, with their hand guns to be used only as a last resort. The terrorists tried connecting the steel cables from the overhead helicopters to the boat’s antenna, in order to cause the helicopters to crash. Only when the terrorists beat the soldiers with iron rods, stabbed them with knives and tried to lynch them did the soldiers respond. The Israeli commandoes were pushed down stairs, thrown overboard, and shot at.

    Here is a report by an Israel army radio reporter on board:

    ‘The activists had many things ready for an attack on the soldiers,’ Lev-Rom said, ‘including, for instance, a box of 20-30 slingshots with metal balls; these can kill. There were also all sorts of knives and many similar things. These are what they call “cold” weapons, as opposed to live fire.  It was quite clear that a lynch had been prepared.’

    Lev-Rom said, however, that it appears the army, ‘even though it prepared for many different scenarios, was not ready for this one. The army seems not to have known what type of people were there and what type of weapons they had. It was hard for Israel to conceive that the ship, sponsored by the country of Turkey, would have such weapons. Israel was prepared to deal with anarchists, and instead had to deal with terrorists – that’s the feeling here.’

    Here** is an even more vivid account showing how unprepared the Israeli soldiers were:

    Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

    However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.

    One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other ‘don’t shoot, don’t shoot,’ even though they sustained numerous blows.

    The Navy commandoes were prepared to mostly encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, rather than trained street fighters. The soldiers were told they were to verbally convince activists who offer resistance to give up, and only then use paintballs. They were permitted to use their handguns only under extreme circumstances.

    The planned rush towards the vessel’s bridge became impossible, even when a second chopper was brought in with another crew of soldiers. ‘Throw stun grenades,’ shouted Flotilla 13’s commander who monitored the operation. The Navy chief was not too far, on board a speedboat belonging to Flotilla 13, along with forces who attempted to climb into the back of the ship.

    The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandoes who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness.

    Only after this injury did Flotilla 13 troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: You can go ahead and fire. The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters’ legs, a move that ultimately neutralized them. Meanwhile, the rioters started to fire back at the commandoes.

    It is becoming ever more clear that Islamist terror attacks like this are fiendishly staged theatrical events in which the western media – and beyond them, western governments — play an absolutely essential role in the drama. If those media and governments refused to swallow the lies and instead called operations like this and the players behind it for what they actually are, such terrorist operations would not happen. The Islamist strategy of war against Israel is carefully calibrated to deploy the most effective weapon in its armoury in the cause of jihadi violence – the western media. Right on cue, western governments accordingly deliver their own script in condemning the victims of terror for defending themselves. And so, courtesy of the west’s fifth columnists, yet another nail is driven into the west’s own coffin.

    Let’s see whether this time the western elites show any signs of waking from their lethal trance.

    Update: I am told that the Jewish Chronicle website was taken down earlier (now restored) by a massive denial of service, apparently to shut down its balanced coverage of the Ashdod flotilla incident. The JC’s teccies, and the server hosts, say this hasn’t been caused by just one or two people — it’s clearly now co-ordinated and growing.

    **Update 2: The journalist who wrote this account, Ron Ben-Yishai, cannot be accused of being an Israel government stooge: it was Ben-Yishai who in 1982 was first into the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila in Beirut and blew the whistle on the massacre there that had been perpetrated by the Phalangists while Ariel Sharon looked the other way.

    Source: 
  • Israeli commandos attack civilians on Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid: 19 DEAD

    Israeli commandos attack civilians on Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid: 19 DEAD

    Israeli troops attack ship carrying aid to Gaza killing 16

    Israeli commandoes have stormed a flotilla of ships carrying activists and aid supplies to the blockaded Palestinian enclave of Gaza, killing as many as 16 of those on board.

    By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent and Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem

    Link to Al Jazeera’s report on board the Mavi Marmara before communications were cut:

    Fighting broke out between the activists and the masked Israeli troops, who rappelled on to deck from helicopters before dawn.

    A spokeswoman for the flotilla, Greta Berlin, said she had been told ten people had been killed and dozens wounded, accusing Israeli troops of indiscriminately shooting at “unarmed civilians”. But an Israeli radio station said that between 14 and 16 were dead in a continuing operation.

    “How could the Israeli military attack civilians like this?” Ms Berlin said. “Do they think that because they can attack Palestinians indiscriminately they can attack anyone?

    “We have two other boats. This is not going to stop us.”

    The Israeli government’s handling of the confrontation was under intense international pressure even as it continued. The Israeli ambassador to Turkey, the base of one of the human rights organisation which organised the flotilla, was summoned by the foreign ministry in Ankara, as the Israeli consulate in Istanbul came under attack.

    One Israeli minister issued immediate words of regret. “The images are certainly not pleasant. I can only voice regret at all the fatalities,” Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the trade and industry minister, told army radio.

    But he added that the commandoes had been attacked with batons and activists had sought to take their weapons off them.

    Israeli military sources said four of its men had been injured, one stabbed, and that they had been shot at.

    “The flotilla’s participants were not innocent and used violence against the soldiers. They were waiting for the forces’ arrival,” they were quoted by a news website as saying.

    The flotilla had set sail on Sunday from northern, or Turkish, Cyprus. Six boats were led by the Mavi Marmara, which carried 600 activists from around the world, including Mairead Corrigan Maguire, the Northern Ireland peace protester who won a Nobel Prize in 1976.

    It came under almost immediate monitoring from Israeli drones and the navy, with two vessels flanking it in international waters. The flotilla, which had been warned that it would not be allowed to reach Gaza, attempted to slow and change course, hoping to prevent a confrontation until daylight, when the Israeli military action could be better filmed.

    But in the early hours of this morning local time commandoes boarded from helicopters.

    The activists were not carrying guns, but television footage shown by al-Jazeera and Turkish television channels show hand-to-hand fighting, with activists wearing life-jackets striking commandoes with sticks.

    The Israeli army said its troops were assaulted with axes and knives.

    The television footage did not show firing but shots could be heard in the background. One man was shown lying unconscious on the deck, while another man was helped away.

    A woman wearing hijab, the Muslim headscarf, was seen carrying a stretcher covered in blood.

    The al-Jazeera broadcast stopped with a voice shouting in Hebrew: “Everyone shut up”.

    Israel imposed its blockade on Gaza after the strip was taken over by the militant group Hamas in 2007. It has allowed some food and medical supplies through, but has prevented large-scale rebuilding following the bombardment and invasion of 2008-9.

    The flotilla is the latest in a series of attempts by activists to break through the blockade. The boats were carrying food and building supplies.

    Activists said at least two of the other boats, one Greek and one Turkish, had been boarded from Israeli naval vessels. Activists said two of the other boats in the flotilla were American-flagged.

    The confrontation took place in international waters 80 miles off the Gaza coast.

    It was attacked by the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh.

    “We call on the Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, to shoulder his responsibilities to protect the safety of the solidarity groups who were on board these ships and to secure their way to Gaza,” he said.

    Turkish television meanwhile showed hundreds of protesters trying to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul. The incident will be particularly damaging for Israel’s relations with what had been seen as its closest ally in the Muslim world.

    “By targeting civilians, Israel has once again shown its disregard for human life and peaceful initiatives,” a Turkish foreign ministry statement said. “We strongly condemn these inhumane practices of Israel.

    “This deplorable incident, which took place in open seas and constitutes a fragrant breach of international law, may lead to irreparable consequences in our bilateral relations.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/7789175/Israeli-troops-attack-ship-carrying-aid-to-Gaza-killing-16.html

    [2]

    31 May 2010, [Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs] Press Release Regarding the Use of Force by the Israeli Defense Forces Against the Humanitarian Aid Fleet to Gaza

    We protest in the strongest terms the use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces against the civilians from many countries who want to transport humanitarian assistance to the people in Gaza, and among whom there are women and children, which, according to the initial information available, resulted in the death of 2 persons and injury of more than 30 people.

    Israel has once again clearly demonstrated that it does not value human lives and peaceful initiatives through targeting innocent civilians. We strongly condemn these inhuman acts of Israel. This grave incident which took place in high seas in gross violation of international law might cause irreversible consequences in our relations.

    Besides the initiatives being conducted by our Embassy in Tel Aviv, this unacceptable incident is being strongly protested and explanation is demanded from Israeli Ambassador in Ankara, who has been invited to our Ministry.

    Whatsoever the motives might be, such actions against civilians who are involved only in peaceful activities cannot be accepted. Israel will have to bear the consequences of these actions which constitute a violation of international law.

    May God bestow His mercy upon those who lost their lives. We wish to express our condolences to the bereaved families of the deceased, and swift recovery to the wounded.

    [3]

    Israel is a terrorist state by definition: Chomsky

    Avram Noam Chomsky, 80, is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, and a libertarian socialist intellectual.

    Following is an excerpt of Professor Chomsky’s interview with Christiana Voniati, who is head of International News Department POLITIS Newspaper, Nicosia, Cyprus.

    Voniati: The international public opinion and especially the Muslim world seem to have great expectations from the historic election of Obama. Can we, in your opinion, expect any real change regarding the U.S. approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

    Chomsky: Not much. Quite the contrary: it may be harsher than before. In the case of Gaza, Obama maintained silence, he didn’t say a word. He said well there’s only one president so I can’t talk about it. Of course he was talking about a lot of other things but he chose not to talk about this. His campaign did repeat a statement that he had made while visiting Israel six months earlier — he had visited Sderot where the rockets hit- and he said “if this where happening to my daughters, I wouldn’t think of any reaction as legitimate”, but he couldn’t say anything about Palestinian children. Now, the attack on Gaza was at time so that it ended right before the inauguration, which is what I expected. I presume that the point was so that they could make sure that Obama didn’t have to say something, so he didn’t. And then he gave his first foreign policy declaration, it was a couple of days later when he appointed George Mitchell as his emissary, and he said nothing about Gaza except that “our paramount interest is preserving the security of Israel”. Palestine apparently doesn’t have any requirement of security. And then in his declaration he said of course we are not going to deal with Hamas — the elected government the U.S. immediately, as soon as the government was elected in a free election the U.S. and Israel with the help of European Union immediately started severely punishing the Palestinian population for voting in the “wrong way” in a free election and that’s what we mean by democracy. The only substantive comment he made in the declaration was to say that the Arab peace plan had constructive elements, because it called for a normalization of relations with Israel and he urged the Arab states to proceed with the normalization of relations. Now, he is an intelligent person, he knows that that was not what the Arab peace plan said. The Arab peace plan called for a two state settlement on the international border that is in accord with the long standing international consensus that the U.S. has blocked for over 30 years and in that context of the two state settlement we should even proceed further and move towards a normalization of relations with Israel. Well, Obama carefully excluded the main content about the two state settlement and just talked about the corollary, for which a two state settlement is a precondition. Now that’s not an oversight, it can’t be. That’s a careful wording, sending the message that we are not going to change their (Israel’s) rejectionist policy. We’ll continue to be opposed to the international consensus on this issue, and everything else he said accords with it. We will continue in other words to support Israel’s settlement policies — those policies are undermining any possible opportunity or hope for a viable Palestinian entity of some kind. And it’s a continued reliance on force in both parts of occupied Palestine. That’s the only conclusion you could draw.

    Voniati: Let U.S. talk about the timing of the assault on the Gaza Strip. Was it accidental or did it purposefully happen in a vacuum of power? To explain myself, the global financial crisis has challenged the almost absolute U.S. global hegemony. Furthermore, the attack on Gaza was launched during the presidential change of guard. So, did this vacuum of power benefit the Israeli assault on Gaza?

    Chomsky: Well, the timing was certainly convenient since attention was focused elsewhere. There was no strong pressure on the president or other high officials of the U.S. to say anything about it. I mean Bush was on his way out, and Obama could hide behind the pretext that he’s not yet in. And pretty much the same was in Europe, so that they could just say, well we can’t talk about it now, it’s too difficult a time. The assault was well chosen in that respect. It was well chosen in other respects too: the bombing began shortly after Hamas had offered a return to the 2005 agreement, which in fact was supported by the U.S. They said, ok, let’s go back to the 2005 agreement that was before Hamas was elected. That means no violence and open the borders. Closing the borders is a siege, it’s an act of war……… not very harmful but it’s an act of war. Israel of all countries insists on that. I mean Israel went to war twice in 1956 and 1967 on the grounds, it claimed, that its access to the outside world was being hampered. It wasn’t a siege, its access through the Gulf of Aqaba was being hampered. Well if that is an act of war then certainly a siege is, and so it’s understood.

    So Khaled Mashaal asked for an end of the state of the war, which would include opening the borders. Well, a couple of days later, when Israel didn’t react to that, Israel attacked. The attack was timed for Saturday morning — the Sabbath day in Israel — at about 11:30, which happens to be the moment when children are leaving school and crowds are milling in the streets of this very heavily crowded city… The explicit target was police cadets… Now, there are civilians, in fact we now know that for several months the legal department of the Israeli army had been arguing against this plan because it said it was a direct attack against civilians. And of course, plenty civilians will be killed if you bomb a crowded city, especially at a time like that. But finally the legal department was sort of bludgeoned into silence by the military so they said alright. So that’s when they opened –on a Sabbath morning. Now two weeks later, Israel — on Saturday as well — blocked the humanitarian aid because they didn’t want to disgrace Sabbath. Well, that’s interesting too. But the main point about the timing was that there was an effort to undercut the efforts for a peaceful settlement and it was terminated just in time to prevent pressure on Obama to say something about it. It’s hard to believe that this isn’t conscious. We know that it was very meticulously planned for many months beforehand.

    Voniati: In a recent interview with LBC, you said that the policies of Hamas are more conducive to peace than the United States’ or Israel’s.

    Chomsky: Oh yes, that’s clear.

    Voniati: Also, that the policies of Hamas are closer to international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of Israel and the U.S. Can you explain your stance?

    Chomsky: Well for several years Hamas has been very clear and explicit, repeatedly, that they favor a two state settlement on the international border. They said they would not recognize Israel but they would accept a two state settlement and a prolonged truce, maybe decades, maybe 50 years. Now, that’s not exactly the international consensus but it’s pretty close to it. On the other hand, the United States and Israel flatly reject it. They reject it in deeds, that’s why they are building all the construction development activities in the West Bank, not only in violation of international laws, U.S. and Israel know that the illegal constructions are designed explicitly to convert the West Bank into what the architect of the policy, Arial Sharon, called bantustan. Israel takes over what it wants, break up Palestine into unviable fragments. That’s undermining a political settlement. So in deeds, yes of course they are undermining it, but also in words: that goes back to 1976 when the U.S. vetoed the Security Council resolution put forward by the Arab states which called for a two state settlement and it goes around until today. In December, last December, at the meetings of the UN’s General Assembly there were many resolutions passed. One of them was a resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. It didn’t call for a state, just the right of self-determination. It passed with 173 to 5. The 5 were the U.S, Israel and a few small pacific islands. Of course that can’t be reported in the U.S. So they are rejecting it even in words, as well as — more significantly- in acts. On the other hand, Hamas comes pretty close to accepting it. Now, the demand which Obama repeated on Hamas is that they must meet three conditions: they must recognize Israel’s right to exist, they must renounce violence and they must accept past agreements, and in particular the Road Map. Well, what about the U.S. and Israel? I mean, obviously they don’t renounce violence, they reject the Road Map — technically they accepted it but Israel immediately entered 14 reservations (which weren’t reported here) which completely eliminated its content, and the U.S. went along. So the U.S. and Israel completely violate those two conditions, and of course they violate the first, they don’t recognize Palestine. So sure, there’s a lot to criticize about Hamas, but on these matters they seem to be much closer to — not only international opinion — but even to a just settlement than the U.S. and Israel are.

    Voniati: On the other hand, Hamas has been accused of using human shields to hide and protect itself. Israel insists that the war was a matter of defense. Is Hamas a terrorist organization, as it is accused to be? Is Israel a terrorist state?

    Chomsky: Well, Hamas is accused of using human shields, rightly or wrongly. But we know that Israel does it all the time. Is Israel a terrorist state? Well yes according to official definitions. I mean, one of the main things holding up ceasefire right now is that Israel insists that it will not allow a ceasefire until Hamas returns a captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit — he’s very famous in the West everybody knows he was captured. Well, one day before Gilad Shalit was captured, Israeli forces went into Gaza City and kidnapped two Palestinian civilians (the Muamar Brothers) and brought them across the border to Israel in violation of international law and hid them somewhere in the huge Israeli prisons. Nobody knows what happened to them since. I mean, kidnapping civilians is a much worse crime than capturing a soldier of an attacking army. And furthermore this has been regular Israeli practice for decades. They’ve been kidnapping civilians in Lebanon or on the high seas…They take them to Israel, put them into prisons, sometimes keeping them as hostages for long periods. So you know, if the capturing of Gilad Shalit is a terrorist act, well, then Israel’s regular practice supported by the U.S. is incomparably worse. And that’s quite apart from repeated aggression and other crimes.

    Voniati: Though of Jewish decent, you have been repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism. How do you respond?

    Chomsky: The most important comment about that was made by the distinguished statesman Abba Eban, maybe 35 years ago, in an address to the American people. He said that there are two kinds of criticism of Zionism (by Zionism I mean the policies of the state of Israel). One is criticism by anti-Semites and the other is criticism by neurotic self-hating Jews. That eliminates 100% of possible criticism. The neurotic self-hating Jews, he actually mentioned two, I was one and I.F. Stone, a well-known writer was another). I mean that’s the kind of thing that would come out of a communist party in its worst days. But you see, I can’t really be called anti-Semite because I’m Jewish so I must be a neurotic self-hating Jew, by definition. The assumption is that the policies of the state of Israel are perfect, so therefore any kind of criticism must be illegitimate. And that’s from Abba Eban, one of the most distinguished figures in Israel, the most westernized … praised, considered a dove.

    Source: Countercurrents.org

  • Turkish PM: Critics of Iran should get rid of nukes

    Turkish PM: Critics of Iran should get rid of nukes

    By MARCO SIBAJA (AP)

    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, center, and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attend the Third Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations in Rio de Janeiro, Friday, May 28, 2010. The AoC is a high-level group of experts that explore the roots of polarization between societies and cultures today and recommend a practical program of action to address the issue. (AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo

    RIO DE JANEIRO — Nations criticizing an Iranian nuclear fuel-swap deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey should eliminate their own nuclear weapon stockpiles, Turkey’s leader said Friday.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made the comments just hours after claiming that the West was “envious” of Brazil and Turkey’s achievement in getting Iran to agree to the deal. U.S. officials have criticized the agreement, in part because it does not stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium. The U.S. also says the deal is a ploy by Iran to delay new international sanctions.

    “Those who speak to this issue should eliminate nuclear weapons from their own country and they should bear the good news to all mankind by doing that,” Erdogan said while attending a U.N. conference in Rio de Janeiro.

    His comments were aimed at the U.S. and its massive nuclear stockpile.

    On Thursday, he remarked that “Those who criticize the accord are envious.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Washington on Thursday that the U.S. has “very serious disagreements with Brazil’s diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran.”

    “We think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear program, makes the world more dangerous, not less,” Clinton said during a talk at the Brookings Institution. “They have a different perspective on what they see they’re doing.”

    Clinton said one of the U.S. government’s main concern is that despite the fuel-swap deal, Iran is insisting on continuing to enrich uranium at a high level.

    Both Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva say they do not see the nuclear fuel-swap deal as a solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, but as a starting point to get Iran back to the negotiations.

    Under the deal, submitted this week to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran agrees to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of uranium to Turkey, where it will be stored. In exchange, Iran would get fuel rods made from 20-percent enriched uranium; that level of enrichment is high enough for use in research reactors but too low for nuclear weapons.

    Among concerns by opponents of the deal is that Iran has continued to churn out low-enriched material and is running a pilot program of enriching to higher levels, near 20 percent.

    Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told reporters in Rio the fuel swap deal contains all the elements that the U.S. and other nations were seeking in similar agreement last year.

    “We are not defenders of Iran. We are trying to help peace,” Amorim said. “The agreement contains all that which was proposed by the Group of Vienna, especially by Russia, the United States and France, and now we need time to see if it will bear results.”

    Silva said that the deal was meant to resolve “a conflict that threatens much more than the stability of an important region of the planet.”

    The world needs a peaceful Middle East.”

    Last month, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new arms-control treaty that would limit each country’s stockpile of nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current level of 2,200 — bringing the arsenals to a level last seen in the 1950s. It replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.

    The treaty must be ratified by both the Russian parliament and the U.S. Congress.

    Associated Press Writers Bradley Brooks in Rio de Janeiro, Stan Lehman in Sao Paulo, and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.

    , 28 May 2010

  • Turks won 2nd Property Case at the ECHR

    Turks won 2nd Property Case at the ECHR

    ECHR RULING

    GREEK CYPRIOTS LIVING SECOND SHOCK IN PROPERTY CASES AT ECHR

    The Greek Cypriot Administration is living its second shock following a new ruling concerning property in Cyprus . Following the ruling in April which recognised the North Cyprus based Immovable Property Commission as being able to provide a domestic legal remedy to Greek Cypriots, a second ruling made yesterday has also gone against the Greek Cypriots concerning the use of property in Northern Cyprus which previously belonged to Greek Cypriots. Let’s view our report….

    The European Court of Human Rights had made a ruling in April which recognised the North Cyprus based Immovable Property Commission as being able to provide an effective domestic legal remedy to Greek Cypriot applicants, even though it recognised the body as being a subordinate authority of Turkey.  The same ruling had also ruled that cases can be resolved through compensation, exchange and restitution – and another striking feature of the ruling was that the human right of the current property possessor also had to be respected.

    Following this ruling, two more Greek Cypriot brought cases against Turkey concerning property in the TRNC was dealt with and a ruling was made by the ECHR yesterday. The two cases of “Asproftas and Petrakidu” were brought under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which says:

    CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, ARTICLE 8:

    1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home

    and his correspondence.

    2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of

    this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary

    in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety

    or the economic well-being of the country…

    The two cases alleged that Turkey had violated this Article, particularly the part of the Article referring to “his home.” However the case had actually been brought by the next of kin (children) of the original, previous owner.

    The question which the court sought to answer was whether the “next of kin” or children could benefit from this Article. In the two cases, it was alleged that the applicants had lived in the properties until 11-12 years of age, and so it was argued that the term “family home” covered them. However the ECHR ruled that the Article was not applicable, and the ruling means that the respecting family life, his home and correspondence has not passed to the new generation of Greek Cypriots, whose families may have possessed property in North Cyprus prior to the Turkish peace intervention in 1974.

    The ruling of the ECHR did not stop there. According to Greek Cypriot press reports, the ruling has also stated that when such applications were being made, “there was a need to have a manifest concrete relation to the property with no weaknesses”. The court ruled that this was not the case in these cases. It also said that “they should not have realistic expectations” of seeking to reinstate legal rights on a property following the long passing of time.

    The ECHR ruling has once again gone against the Greek Cypriot point of view that “Property Rights belong to the original owner”.

    Source: ATCA, London

  • London bombs inquest to investigate MI5

    London bombs inquest to investigate MI5

    MI5 and police failures under spotlight in London bomb inquests

    Allegations of flawed intelligence before 7/7 suicide attacks to be investigated by coroner without jury

    Richard Norton-Taylor

    52 people died when terrorists blew up a bus and three tube trains on 7 July 2005 Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/PA

    Inquests into the deaths of 52 people in the 7 July London suicide bombings will investigate alleged failings of MI5 and the police before the attacks, a coroner decided today in a ruling that received a mixed response from relatives.

    Lady Justice Hallett said the inquests, due to start in October, would include the “alleged intelligence failings and the immediate aftermath of the bombings” and would be heard without a jury. Survivors would have a limited role but the inquests into the deaths of the four bombers would not be held at the same time.

    She said: “It is not too remote to investigate what was known in the year or two before the alleged bombings. Plots of this kind are not developed overnight.” As far as the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) was concerned: “Whatever its good intentions, it could not fulfil the role of independent investigator.”

    She added: “There may be practical difficulties in doing more, it may take sometime, but it is a counsel of defeat to say the difficulties cannot be overcome before one has even embarked upon the task.”

    The coroner, who is also an appeal court judge, argued that because of the sensitivity of the intelligence surrounding the bombers, “my sitting with a lay jury without security clearance would inhibit a full and fearless investigation“.

    MI5’s lawyers argued that if its intelligence was disclosed, al-Qaida would be handed an “invaluable weapon”.

    MI5 told the ISC that though two of the suicide bombers – Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer – had been on its radar, specifically by talking to known terror suspects, their identities were not known at the time. The evidence was they may have been involved in fraud, not planning terror plots.

    MI5 also argued that they did not have enough resources to follow individuals considered less dangerous than others.

    Some of those affected by the attacks said they were disappointed not to be granted a special status to question witnesses. Instead, they or their lawyers could suggest lines of inquiry in what Hallett called a “valuable role”. Their solicitor Clifford Tibber said he would not rule out appealing against the coroner’s decision.

    Jacqui Putnam, who survived the attack at Edgware Road, said: “Our role now will be one of answering questions, which we will do, but our questions are not going to be answered.

    “Once again we have been shunted aside by officialdom and those questions may or may not be answered. They need to be answered because they involve the safety of everyone on public transport.”

    Janine Mitchell, whose husband Paul survived the King’s Cross explosion, said the inquests would be a chance to examine the work of MI5. She said: “We have been campaigning for a very long time now for an inquiry, we are just ordinary people caught up in an atrocity.”

    The bombers – Khan, 30, Tanweer, 22, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Jermaine Lindsay, 19 – met at Luton station and took a train to King’s Cross in London.

    Tanweer detonated his bomb at Aldgate, Khan at Edgware Road. Lindsay blew himself up between King’s Cross and Russell Square and Hussain detonated his device on a bus at Tavistock Square. As well as killing themselves and 52 others, they injured more than 700 people.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/mi5-police-failures-london-bomb, 21 May 2010

  • Torture claims investigation ordered by William Hague

    Torture claims investigation ordered by William Hague

    Judge will investigate allegations that UK was complicit in abuse of detainees

    Patrick Wintour, Nicholas Watt, Ian Cobain

    William Hague arrives at Downing Street for a cabinet meeting. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

    A judge will investigate claims that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects, William Hague, the foreign secretary, said tonight.

    The move was welcomed by civil liberties campaigners and may put pressure on the Labour leadership candidate and former foreign secretary David Miliband, who was accused by Hague, while in opposition, of having something to hide.

    Miliband has repeatedly rejected the accusation and broadly indicated that he or his officials may have been misled by foreign intelligence agencies about the degree of British complicity.

    Hague’s remarks appear to have caught the Foreign Office by surprise, as no details were yet available on how the inquiry will be conducted, its terms of reference or when it will start work.

    Hague will come under pressure to ensure the inquiry is public and comprehensive. He first called last year for an independent judicial inquiry into claims that British officials had colluded in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo detainee and a UK resident.

    Mohamed claimed that he was tortured by US forces in Pakistan and Morocco, and that MI5 fed the CIA questions that were used by US forces.

    Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, said tonight: “To restore trust in government, both here and abroad, and to get to the truth, the inquiry needs to be deep and broad and as open as possible. It should address, in particular, who authorised what and when and why, what the relevant legal advice said, and how it related to any change in US practice in 2002 and 2003.”

    Tayab Ali, a London solicitor who represents a number of men alleging torture, said the inquiry presented “a significant and precious opportunity” for the British public to understand their country’s role in torture.

    He Ali added: “It is essential that the inquiry is credible. It should be as open as possible, led by a judge and those affected should be properly represented. Anything less is likely to mean that the inquiry will fail in providing proper answers and holding those responsible to account for their actions.”

    Hague’s statement redeems a pledge that both he and his then Liberal Democrat opposite number, Ed Davey, made in opposition. Hague told the BBC: “We have said again in the coalition agreement that we want a judge-led inquiry. So will there be an inquiry of some form? Yes, both parties in the coalition said they wanted that. Now what we’re working on is what form that should take.”

    The coalition agreement published today by the government does not explicitly call for a judicial inquiry; it simply states: “We will never condone the use of torture.”

    Hague criticised the Labour government last year for failing to provide straightforward answers after the high court upheld one of Mohamed’s claims. This was that the security services had put questions to him, through the US, even during a two-year period when they did not know where Mohamed was being held, according to Hague.

    “So far ministers have stuck to the mantra that ‘we never condone, authorise or co-operate in torture’,” Hague wrote. “But this does not dispel any of the accusations. If anything, there is now a direct and irreconcilable conflict between such ministerial assurances and the account given by Mr Mohamed. That must be resolved.”

    He added: “We cannot sweep these allegations under the carpet. Until the full facts are known, Britain’s name and reputation will be dragged through the mud – not least by the terrorists and extremists who will exploit these allegations for their own propaganda.’

    “It is vital to remember that torture does not help us defeat terrorists; it helps them to try to justify their hostility to us.”

    The inquiry to which Hague has now committed himself will need to find a way of offering immunity to anyone who comes forward to give evidence. Although immunity deals are rarely granted to those who are complicit in torture, lawyers who advised Tory shadow ministers in the run-up to the election concluded that it is possible. Such a deal would be of clear benefit to the two MI5 and MI6 officers who are currently at the centre of a Scotland Yard investigation into their alleged criminal wrongdoing.

    An inquiry may also help to resolve the many civil cases being brought by victims of torture and rendition. Government lawyers are expected to offer out-of-court settlements worth millions of pounds after the court of appeal this month dismissed an attempt by MI5 and MI6 to suppress evidence of alleged complicity.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/may/20/torture-william-hague-terrorism, 20 May 2010