links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic
SustainabiliTank

 
 
Follow us on Twitter


 
Iran:

 

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 19th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Click here to view “The Politics of UN Human Rights Council and Iran’s Candidacyn” (Opinion) – Middle East Online, April 19, 2010

First Published 2010-04-19

The Politics of UN Human Rights Council and Iran’s Candidacy.
The candidacy of Iran, with its ever-increasing human rights abuses record, for the UN Human Rights Council is comparable to electing apartheid South Africa to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, says Elahe Amani.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, in a provocative act, has announced its candidacy for the United Nation Human Rights Council, a UN organization based in Geneva. The candidacy of Iran comes at a time that during the last 10 months, Iranians are experiencing one of the darkest periods of human rights violations since 1979 revolution. The candidacy of Iran for the UN Human Rights Council is comparable to electing apartheid South Africa to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or to awarding the US for humane treatment of detainee’s right after the world was shocked with pictures revealing sexual torture and humiliation of naked prisoners.

The UN Human Rights Council seats are allocated by the regional groups, not by the level of their adherence to human rights standards. The regional groups and the number of their seats are African Group, 13 seats; Asian Group, 13 seats; Eastern European Group, 6 seats; Latin American and Caribbean Group, 8 seats; and Western European and Others Group, 7 seats. To be elected to a seat on the UNHRC for a three-year term, a state must achieve the support of the majority of the members of the General Assembly, i.e. at least 97 votes and council members may seek only one time immediate re-election. While the US voted against the establishment of the UNHRC and boycotted the Council during the Bush Administration, during his first year of presidency, President Obama reversed the previous policy, joined the UNHRC, and proposed to reform it from within by being “engaged” in the UN Human Rights Council.

The current vacancy for the Asia Group is only four, with Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar and Thailand having announced their candidacies. The winners will be chosen by secret ballot within a UN body on May 13th.

While the four other contenders from Asia group are not necessarily better qualified candidates and do not have a significantly better human rights records, Iran’s human rights violations remains more dire in the three areas of death penalty and torture, freedom of expression, & freedom of religion.

Iran’s election to the United Nation Human Rights Council in 2010, the year during which Iranians have endured heightened human rights violations by Iran’s state and non-state actors, will not only shatter the hopes of the Iranian people for recognition and support from the global community in the struggle for civility, rights, and dignity, but also compromises the credibility of UNHRC.

The United Nation Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a relatively new inter-governmental entity within the UN System and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. It was established on March 15th, 2006 with an overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly to replace the dysfunctional, heavily criticized Human Rights Commission. The hope was to build a more credible UN Human Rights entity after the UN Human Rights Commission lost the respect of the global community. The 47-nation United Nation Human Rights Council replaced the 53-country UN Human Rights Commission. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan welcomed what he called an “historic resolution… that gives the United Nations a much-needed chance to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world.”

At Iran’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva on February 15, 2010, the head of Iran’s delegation, Mohammad Javad Larijani, remorselessly disregarded all the atrocities documented by human rights defenders, journalists, NGOs, and credible human rights global organizations. He blatantly rejected almost all the recommendations by other states for the remediation of human rights violations in Iran. The Iranian proverb saying “daste peesh migireh ke pas nayofteh” ( Instead of admitting one’s fault blame it on someone else or deceitfully dock the responsibility) precisely sum up the strategy of Islamic Republic of Iran in global and regional organizations.

In a world that aspires to uphold civility and respect for human rights, one would expect that the election of new members to the UN Human Rights Commission would involve the trust of member states to a given country for carrying on the mission of Human Rights Commission. The key question is: would Iran be able to carry the mission of UN Human Rights Council? Would the consistent lack of respect for international bodies and mechanisms deter other states from trusting Iran to further the goals of the UNHRC or the regional politics of countries will open the door to membership of Iran in UNHEC?

Since 2005, the human rights situation in Iran has dramatically worsened. In the aftermath of theIranian elections on June 12, 2009, the human rights situation has deteriorated even further. Torture, rape, systematic arrests, and imprisonment are usual occurrences. According to Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, Iran currently has the distinction of having the world’s highest per capita record of public hangings and executions, with the number almost quadrupling since 2005. A report published by Amnesty International on March 30th, 2010, states that Iran accounts for 388 of at least 714 executions worldwide. Amnesty International highlights in its 2009 Report that the Islamic Republic is “one of a tiny minority of states where juvenile offenders continue to be executed.”

In February 2010, the United Nation Human Rights Council condemned the “unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens” following last year’s presidential elections. The execution of child offenders, the use of death penalty against political opponents, the violence against women, the discrimination and the lack of freedom of expression, as well as the prosecution of religious and ethnic minorities, are among some of the gross violations of human rights in Iran.

It should be noted that no United Nation Human Rights Council official has visited Iran since 2005, with numerous requests from special investigators remaining unanswered. In its annual review of human rights practices around the world, Human Rights Watch (HRW) cited Iran as a country that “openly harasses and arbitrarily detains human rights workers and other critics.” HRW documented violence against peaceful protesters, detention of human rights defenders, as well as abuse and torture in Iran’s illegal detention centers.

For the Iranian people, it is disheartening to see civility, rights, and dignity being used as a tool in the hands of states and global forces to further their agendas; it is disheartening to see the disconnect between the words and deeds, to see the states who claim the tall order of taking stand against globalizations and militarization rendering support to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country with gross violations of human rights. These states should vote objectively, hear the suppressed voice of Iranian people, and not play deaf and blind to the grave violations of human rights in Iran.

The history of UN human rights organizations demonstrates that their ability to carry out the mandates and to promote and protect all human rights depend overwhelmingly on the commitment of its members to mission and goals of the organization. The election of 14 new members on May 13th 2010 provides an opportunity to ensure (within the existing limitations i.e. lack of full adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by any state) that only states that have demonstrated relatively more commitment and effective action to protect human rights will be elected to the vacant seats of the UNHRC.

Member states of UN General Assembly should set aside the politics, particularly regional politics, from qualifying candidates for membership in UNHRC and vote objectively based on the human rights record of the candidates.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 8th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Erdogan Calls Israel ‘Threat’ to Peace: Turkish premier’s remarks further strain countries’ alliance as analysts ponder nation’s foreign-policy leanings.
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…

Marc Champion (Wall Street Journal) April 8, 2010
Relations between Turkey and Israel took a further battering Wednesday when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Israel as “the principal threat to peace” in the Middle East.
In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are interested in good relations with Turkey and regret that Mr. Erdogan chooses time after time to attack Israel.”

At a recent meeting of foreign-policy analysts in Istanbul held by the Turkish Policy Quarterly, Israeli and Turkish analysts agreed that the alliance those two countries built on shared security concerns in the 1990s is probably unsalvageable. But a report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group released Wednesday said the belief Turkey is turning away from the West is “incorrect.” It noted that Turkey’s trade with Europe continues to outweigh its trade with the Middle East by a wide margin, and EU membership remains its core goal.

Erdogan shows no sign of backing down from his opposition to imposing harsher sanctions on Iran, which together with his tough rhetoric on Israel and support for Hamas in Gaza have brought him popularity in many parts of the Middle East.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 5th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


Israel, Gaza tensions: Why Egypt helps maintain the blockade.

Simmering tensions – due in part to a long-standing blockade of the territory – are escalating toward another Israel Gaza standoff. Often overlooked is Egypt’s role in the blockade.

By Kristen Chick, Correspondent , The Christian Science Monitor/ April 2, 2010 from CAIRO
 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-Ea…

Israel today threatened a second Gaza war if Palestinian militants do not cease the rocket attacks that have increased as discontent simmers over a long-standing blockade. But while Gazans, supported by international human rights activists, have lambasted Israel for the blockade, often overlooked is the accessory role of neighboring Egypt.


Egypt has also kept its border with Gaza largely closed, despite the intense public anger it arouses here and throughout the Muslim world.

The move is motivated by regional rivalries and international alliances, say analysts. Egypt doesn’t want to take the pressure off Israel, which it holds responsible for running Gaza. At the same time, Egypt has an interest in weakening militant Islamist group Hamas, which rules the territory. And many suspect that US pressure plays into Egypt’s participation in the blockade, though Egypt denies this.

Emad Gad, an analyst at the government-funded Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, boils the issue down to Egypt’s opposition to Hamas.

“Hamas is part of another coalition in the region – the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah coalition,” he says. “Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. And Hamas is trying to minimize the Egyptian role in the Palestinian cause.”

Under these circumstances, he says, Egypt has little reason to end the blockade.

When and why the blockade started

Israel began restricting the flow of goods into Gaza when Hamas captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006. After Hamas wrested control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah in 2007, Israel tightened the blockade, allowing only a trickle of basic goods into the coastal enclave through the five entry points it controls.

Egypt followed suit, keeping the Rafah crossing mostly closed. It opens the border only to allow special shipments of medical supplies into Gaza and to allow some Palestinians to leave, most for medical treatment.

Egypt last year allowed more than 7,000 tons of medical equipment into Gaza and about 75,000 Palestinians to leave the territory, says Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki, who disputes labeling the border as “closed.”

But under the blockade, Gaza has experienced shortages of basic goods, and building supplies needed for reconstruction after Israel’s offensive there last year are almost impossible to come by. Most of the goods used in Gaza are now smuggled in through tunnels on the Egyptian border.

In December, Egypt began building a new subterranean wall along the border, designed to extend about 60 feet below the surface and block the smuggling tunnels that bring weapons but also basic trade goods into Gaza that for the past four years have been a crucial safety valve to reduce pressure on commodity prices in Gaza.

Playing the blame game

Egypt’s main line of defense for closing the border is to pass responsibility to Israel. Egypt considers Gaza under Israeli occupation, and therefore under international law it is Israel’s duty to provide Gazans with their basic needs – not Egypt’s. Allowing goods through Rafah would take the pressure off Israel to end the blockade.

————————————————————————————–

Foundation for Middle East Peace, Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation & Middle East Institute.
1761 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20036

invite you to a presentation and discussion with
Yezid Sayigh
Professor of Middle East Studies
King’s College, University of London
Geoffrey Aronson
Director of Research and Publications
Foundation for Middle East Peace

Hamas Today
Thursday April 15, 12-2:00pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC
Professor Sayigh and Mr. Aronson will discuss where Hamas stands after three years of governing Gaza and the tensions between their role as a resistance movement and a governing body.  The speakers will also discuss the feasibility of reintegrating the two systems of government in Gaza and the West Bank and where the greatest challenges will be in that process.
Yezid Sayigh is Professor of Middle East Studies at King’s College, London.  Currently he is on leave, and senior fellow with the Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University, and visiting scholar with the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard Universty.  He was Assistant Director of Studies at the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge (1994-2003), and headed the Middle East program of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  He was an adviser and negotiator in Israeli-Palestinian talks in 1990-1994 and since 1999 has provided assistance to the Palestinian Authority with reforms and permanent status negotiations.  He is the author of the essential Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement 1949-1993 (Oxford Univ. Press).

Geoffrey Aronson is the Director of Research and Publications at the Foundation for Middle East Peace and the editor of the Foundation’s bimonthly publication, The Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories.   He is a journalist and historian who has published widely on international affairs and a former fellow at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University. He is the author of Israel, Palestinians and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank” and From Sideshow to Centerstage: U.S. Policy Towards Egypt.
To RSVP please email:  info at fmep.org or call 202-835-3650
The obvious here is – can one talk Peace without talking also to Hamas, this while clearly understanding that it might be impossible to talk Peace in the Middle East with Hamas.

As such we feel it is important to talk with anyone who claims he understands Hamas so it becomes evident if there is indeed an argument that without Hamas there is no Peace in the Middle East.

We have taken the position that Hamas embodies the mirror image of the extreme right in Israel – so there is communication between the two opposing extremes to peace – this even without verbal exchanges but only the meeting of the minds as shown by proof of action.

The fact that Hamas rules in Gaza and  Fatah rules in Ramallah  has created a de-facto two unit Palestine – the first is Rejectionist, and does not want to talk Peace, and the other-part of Arab settled territory was doing the heavy lifting in Peace negotiations but was held back by the Rejectionists.

The two professors that will discuss the situation under the aegis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace are thus obligated to say why a provisional three State solution is not the best step in the right direction if they are unable to vouch in the foreseeable short term that it is possible to end at least the rejectionist attitude on the Arab side before tackling the same on the Israeli side. After all – the Israelis are those that hold the material  advantage by holding onto the land – so they have to see at least the  willingness  to sit at a common table first cleared with the Arab side.

If the two Professors cannot provide ideas on this, the meeting can still be seen as a success because it showed that talk alone does not produce ideas.    If there are forthcoming ideas then we will be ready to say – go for the Two State solution directly.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 5th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Uri Avnery

3.4.10


“Hold Me Back!”

“HOLD ME back!” is a part of Israeli folklore. It reminds us of our childhood.

When a boy has a scuffle with a bigger and stronger boy, he pretends that he is going to attack him any moment and shouts to the spectators: “Hold me back, or I am going to kill him!”

Israel is now in such a situation. We pretend that we are going to attack Iran at any moment and shout to the entire world: “Hold us back or…”

And the world does indeed hold us back.

IT IS dangerous to prophesy in such matters, especially when we are dealing with people not all of whom are wise and not all of whom are sane. Yet I am ready to maintain: there is no possibility whatsoever that the government of Israel will send the air force to attack Iran.

I am not going to enter into military matters. Is our air force really capable of executing such an operation? Are circumstances similar to those that prevailed 28 years ago, when the Iraqi reactor was successfully destroyed? Is it at all possible for us to eliminate the Iranian nuclear effort, whose installations are dispersed throughout the large country and buried far below the surface?

I want to focus on another aspect: is it politically feasible? What would be the consequences?

FIRST OF ALL, a basic rule of Israeli reality: the State of Israel cannot start any large-scale military operation without American consent.

Israel depends on the US in almost every respect, but in no sphere is it more dependent than in the military one.

The aircraft that must execute the mission were supplied to us by the US. Their efficacy depends on a steady flow of American spare parts. At that range, refueling from US-built tanker aircraft would be necessary.

The same is true for almost all other war material of our army, as well as for the money needed for their acquisition. Everything comes from America.

In 1956, Israel went to war without American consent. Ben-Gurion thought that his collusion with the UK and France was enough. He was vastly mistaken. One hundred hours after telling us that the “Third Kingdom of Israel” had come into being, he announced with a broken voice that he was going to evacuate all the territories just conquered. President Dwight Eisenhower, together with his Soviet colleague, had submitted an ultimatum, and that was the end of the adventure.

Since then, Israel has not started a single war without securing the agreement of Washington. On the eve of the Six-day War, a special emissary was sent to the US to make sure that there was indeed American agreement. When he returned with an affirmative answer, the order for the attack was issued.

On the eve of Lebanon War I, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon rushed to Washington to obtain American consent. He met with Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who agreed – but only on condition that there would be a clear provocation. A few days later there just happened to be an attempt on the life of the Israeli ambassador in London, and the war was on.

The Israeli army’s offensives against Hezbollah (“Lebanon War II”) and Hamas (“Cast Lead”) were possible because they were cast as part of the American campaign against “Radical Islam”.

Ostensibly, that is also true for an attack on Iran. But no.

BECAUSE AN Israeli attack on Iran would cause a military, political and economic disaster for the United States of America.

Since the Iranians, too, realize that Israel could not attack without American consent, they would react accordingly.

As I have written here before, a cursory glance at the map suffices to indicate what would be the immediate reaction. The narrow Hormuz Strait at the entrance of the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf, through which a huge part of the world’s oil flows, would be sealed at once. The results would shake the international economy, from the US and Europe to China and Japan. Prices would soar to the skies. The countries that had just begun to recover from the world economic crisis would sink to the depths of misery and unemployment, riots and bankruptcies.

The Strait could be opened only by a military operation on the ground. The US simply has no troops to spare for this – even if the American public were ready for another war, one much more difficult than even those of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even doubtful whether the US could help Israel to defend itself against the inevitable counter-stroke by Iranian missiles.

The Israeli attack on a central Islamic country would unite the entire Islamic world, including the entire Arab world. The US, which has spent the last few years laboring mightily to form a coalition of “moderate” Arab states (meaning: countries governed by dictators kept by the US) against the “radical” states. This pack would immediately become unstuck. No Arab leader would be able to stand aside while the masses of his people were gathering in tumultuous demonstrations in the squares.

All this is clear to any knowledgeable person, and even more so to the American military and civilian leaders. Secretaries, generals and admirals have been sent to Israel to make this clear to our leaders in a language that even kindergarten kids can understand: No! Lo! La! Nyet!

IF SO, why has the military option not been removed from the table?

Because the US and Israel like it lying there.

The US likes to pose as if it can hardly hold back the ferocious Israeli Rottweiler on its leash. This puts pressure on the other powers to agree to the imposition of sanctions on Iran. If you don’t agree, the murderous dog could leap out of control. Think about the consequences!

What sanctions? For some time now, this terrifying word – “sanctions” – has been bedeviling everybody on the international stage. They are going to be imposed “within weeks”. But when one inquires what it is all about, one realizes that there is a lot of smoke and very little fire. Some commanders of the Revolutionary Guards may be hurt, some marginal damage inflicted on the Iranian economy. The “paralyzing sanctions” have disappeared, because there was no chance that Russia and China would agree. Both do very good business with Iran.

Also, there is very little chance that these sanctions would stop the production of the bomb, or even slow it down. From the point of view of the Ayatollahs, this effort is the prime imperative of national defense – only a country with nuclear arms is immune from American attack. Faced with the repeated threats by American spokesmen to overthrow their regime, no Iranian government could act differently. The more so since during the last century, the Americans and the British have repeatedly done exactly that. Iranian denials are perfunctory. According to all reports, even the most extreme Iranian opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad support the acquisition of the bomb and would rally behind him if attacked.

In this respect, the Israeli leadership is right: nothing will stop Iran’s endeavor to obtain a nuclear bomb except the massive employment of military power. The “sanctions” are childish games. The American administration is talking about them in glowing terms in order to cover up the fact that even mighty America is unable to stop the Iranian bomb.

WHEN NETANYAHU & Co. criticize the inability of the American leaders to act against Iran, they answer in the same coin: you, too, are not serious.

And indeed, how serious are our leaders about this? They have convinced the Israeli public that it is a matter of life and death. Iran is led by a madman, a new Hitler, a sick anti-Semite, an obsessive Holocaust-denier. If he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, he would not hesitate for a moment to drop it on Tel Aviv and Dimona. With this sword hanging over our heads, this is no time for trivial matters, such as the Palestinian problem and the occupation. Everyone who raises the Palestinian question in a meeting with our leaders is immediately interrupted: Forget this nonsense, let’s talk about the Iranian bomb!!

But Obama and his people turn the argument around: if this is an existential danger, they say, please draw the conclusions. If this matter endangers the very existence of Israel, sacrifice the West Bank settlements on this altar. Accept the Arab League peace offer, make peace with the Palestinians as quickly as possible. That will ease our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and free our forces. Also, Iran would have no more pretext for war with Israel. The masses of the Arab world would not support it anymore.

And the conclusion: If a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem is more important to you than the Iranian bomb, the matter is clearly not really so critical for you. And that, with all due modesty, is my opinion, too.

THE DAY before yesterday a correspondent of Israel’s popular Channel 2 called me and asked, in a shocked voice: “Is it true that you have given an interview to the Iranian news agency?

“That’s true,” I told her. The agency mailed me some questions about the political situation, and I answered.

“Why did you do this?” she asked/accused.

“Why not?” I replied. That was the end of the conversation.

And indeed, why not? True, Ahmadinejad is a repulsive leader. I hope that the Iranians will get rid of him, and assume that this will happen sooner or later. But our relations with Iran do not depend on one single person, whoever he may be. They go back to ancient times and were always friendly – from the time of Cyrus until the time of Khomeini (whom we provided with arms to fight the Iraqis.)

In Israel, the portrayal of Iran nowadays is a caricature: a primitive, crazy country, with nothing on its mind but the destruction of the Zionist state. But it suffices to read a few good books about Iran (I would recommend William Polk’s “Understanding Iran”) which describe one of the oldest civilized countries in the world, which has given birth to several great empires and made a remarkable contribution to human culture. It has an old and proud tradition. Some scholars believe that the Jewish religion was profoundly influenced by the ethical teachings of Zoroaster (Zarathustra).

Whatever the rantings of Ahmadinejad, the real rulers of the country, the clerics, conduct a cautious and sober policy, and have never attacked another country. They have many important interests, and Israel is not among them. The idea that they would sacrifice their own glorious homeland in order to destroy Israel is ludicrous.

The simple truth is that there is no way to prevent the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Better to think seriously about the situation that would be created: a balance of terror like the one between India and Pakistan, the elevation of Iran to the rank of a regional power, the need to start a sober dialogue with it.

But the main conclusion is: to make peace with the Palestinian people and the entire Arab world, in order to draw the rug from under any Iranian posture of defending them from us.

————–

We wonder if another conclusion would not also be – push on North Korea so the world realizes that even several nuclear bombs do not bring safety to a rogue regime. It was the failure on North Korea that gave us Ahmedi-Nejad. Even China and Russia understand that.

————-

And the push that is authored by the Turkish head of OIC – as per the following we see that it is the building of Synagogues on what the Muslims think of as Islamic territory -  not just Palestinian. It is Judaization they stand up against – the Palestinians are  incidental sufferers. That is what caused the 1948 war and all that followed. What about Christian Palestinians? Those are clearly further complications that call for Arab States guarantees for end of hostilities in name of religion.

from the Organization of the Islamic Conference Newsletter 13 (April 3, 2010):

Ihsanoglu cautions on the dangerous situation in Al-Quds
The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has stressed that the City of Al Quds is going through difficult times, threatened by an imminent danger, the first of its kind since the 11th century war of the crusades.

Speaking at the twenty-second session of the Arab Summit, held in Sirte, Libya on 27 March 2010, the Secretary General added that a full-blown Judaization process is on in Al Quds. This takes the form of synagogue construction, expulsion of Arab and Muslim populations from the City, and the destruction of its historical and cultural identity. What Israel is doing is flagrant violation of international law and international humanitarian law, said the Secretary General.

Ihsanoglu warned that this violation could trigger strong waves of disturbances and violence across the world. In the face of this situation, the Secretary General announced that he had addressed communication to international officials concerning Al Quds, drawing their attention to the implications of Israeli practices.

Ihsanoglu underscored the importance of huge financial support for the vital sectors of the City and the need to counter the inflow into Israel of Jewish funds used for the construction of settlements and confiscation of unoccupied lands with a view to Judaizing them.

The Secretary General also announced that the OIC has taken initiatives to mitigate the suffering of the Gaza people following the heinous Israeli aggression of the City. In this regard, he reviewed the efforts made by the OIC in coordination with the OIC Ambassadorial Group in Geneva to dispatch a fact-finding mission to Gaza and the subsequent release of the Goldstone report.

The Secretary General concluded his statement with a reference to the efforts the OIC is making to address the situations in Iraq, Somalia and Sudan. In this regard he recalled the international donors’ conference on the development and reconstruction of Darfur recently convened by the OIC in Cairo.

OIC Secretary General welcomes HRC Resolution on Palestine, urges full and immediate implementation

The OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu commended the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for adopting on 26 March 2010 during its 13th Session in Geneva, a new resolution on Palestine, under the sponsorship of the OIC and the League of Arab States, which requested Israel to pay reparations to the Palestinians for the losses and damages that they suffered during the Israeli military offensive into the Gaza strip in January 2009.

Significantly, this Resolution calls for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to explore and determine the appropriate modalities for the establishment of an escrow fund for the provision of reparations to the Palestinians who suffered loss and damage as a result of unlawful acts of Israel during the military operations conducted from December 2008 to January 2009.

The OIC Secretary General has also welcomed the adoption of another resolution by the UN Human Rights Council condemning Israel’s continued construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. The resolution which was sponsored by the OIC and the League of Arab States, reaffirmed that the expansion of the Israeli settlements was not only in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant United Nations resolutions, but also undermined the efforts of the international community to advance the Middle East peace process.

The Secretary General called for full and immediate implementation of the resolutions, affirming that it will bring hope to the Palestinian people and push forward the efforts of the international community to advance the Middle East peace process.

East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian Territory Occupied in 1967

OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu rejected Netanyahu’s recent statement on Al Quds Al Shareef (Jerusalem). The Secretary General reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, that the settlements built on Palestinian lands are illegal and constitute a flagrant violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Ihsanoglu also strongly condemned the decision of the Israeli government to build new settlement units in the centre of Sheikh Jarah District in East Jerusalem. The Secretary General called on the Quartet and the international community to compel Israel to stop all forms of settlement activities and violations aimed at isolating the City and changing the Arab and Islamic character of Al Quds Al Shareef.

—————————————–

MONDAY, APRIL 05, 2010
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at   http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Obama Sanctions Strategy on Iran Complicated by Congress.
Analysis by Jim Lobe, on Terra Viva of IPS

WASHINGTON, Apr 4 (IPS) – President Barack Obama is hoping that
relatively quick approval by the U.N. Security Council of a new round
of sanctions against Iran will relieve growing pressure on Capitol
Hill to take stronger measures against Tehran. But those hopes are
likely to be disappointed after lawmakers return from their Easter
recess in two weeks when the powerful “Israel Lobby” is expected to
make a major push for the imposition of tough unilateral sanctions
which both houses of Congress approved earlier this year.

The lobby’s efforts to build momentum behind the sanctions push at
last week’s annual conference of its most influential organisation,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), were largely
derailed as a result of the still-unresolved contretemps over U.S.
demands that visiting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu freeze
new settlement construction in Arab East Jerusalem.

Instead of focusing public and Congressional attention on the
“existential” dangers posed by a nuclear Iran as had been planned, the
conference was consumed instead by what many analysts called the worst
crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations in at least two decades. But even
before the conference closed, the lobby’s more-hawkish constituents -
particularly pro-Likud neo-conservatives – raised the volume on their
demands that Washington take much stronger unilateral action against
Tehran, of which the adoption of the toughest possible sanctions was
to be the bare minimum.

“To begin, senior administration officials should stop downplaying the
viability of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear
facilities,” wrote Michael Makovsky, foreign policy director of the
Bipartisan Policy Centre (BPC) who worked for Pentagon chief Donald
Rumsfeld during George W. Bush’s first term, in the San Francisco
Chronicle.

Washington should also “beef up (the) U.S. naval presence” in the Gulf
and, “(i)f necessary, the U.S. Navy could then blockade Iran to
enforce sanctions on gasoline imports passed by both houses of
Congress,” he urged.

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, citing Obama’s repeated
declarations that a nuclear Iran was “unacceptable” to the U.S.,
compared the president’s current alleged passivity to the failure of
France and Britain to stop the Nazis from occupying the Rhineland in
1936.

In fact, the administration appears to have made progress in rallying
international support behind a new round of sanctions against Iran
since the first of the year, the time set by Obama last May for moving
towards sanctions if Iran failed to respond positively to U.S.
conditions, especially those related to Tehran’s nuclear programme,
for improved relations.

In a press briefing with visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy
Tuesday, Obama expressed hope that a new Security Council sanctions
regime “would (be) in place in weeks,” rather than months, although he
admitted Washington did not yet have “unanimity” among key members.

In what they depicted as a breakthrough, however, U.S. officials
disclosed that China, considered the main obstacle to new U.N.
sanctions, had agreed for the first time to consider specific measures
during a conference call with senior foreign ministry officials from
the so-called P5+1 countries – the five permanent Council members,
including the U.S. and China, plus Germany – Wednesday morning.

U.S. and other western diplomats are also pressing hard on two
non-veto-wielding Council members, Turkey and Brazil, both of which
have publicly questioned the usefulness of sanctions, to at least
abstain on any final vote.

The administration believes that such a demonstration of unity in the
Security Council could well succeed in persuading Tehran to reconsider
its refusal until now to accept previous P5+1′s proposals for curbing
its nuclear programme. If not, it would set the stage for even tougher
multilateral action later this year.

Key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, however, are not as
optimistic. Some believe that whatever measures are eventually
approved by the Security Council, they will fall far short of the
“crippling sanctions” that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised
last year and that, in their view, would be essential to force a
reassessment in Tehran.

Indeed, in its efforts to rally support for a new sanctions regime,
Washington reportedly dropped several key provisions from a draft
resolution circulated in March, including sanctions that would deny
Iran access to international banking services, capital markets and to
international airspace and waters for its commercial trade.

In order to gain the widest possible consensus, the resolution is
expected to be watered down further before it comes to a vote, which
the administration hopes could come as early as this month but could
well be delayed until June.

And while the administration has argued for patience in carrying out
its strategy of increased multilateral pressure on Iran over the
course of the year, many lawmakers want to be seen as doing something,
particularly with the approach of the mid-term elections in November
when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of
the Senate will be up for grabs.

Republicans, whose views on the Middle East are largely shaped by
their pro-Likud neo-conservatives and Christian Zionist
constituencies, are pressing for the strongest possible sanctions.

Democrats are torn between their loyalty to Obama on the one hand and
their political need for support of Jewish voters and donors – who are
widely, if increasingly mistakenly, perceived as backing Netanyahu -
on the other.

Jewish donors, some of whom are reportedly deeply concerned by the
recent contretemps between Obama and the Israeli leader, are believed
to make up between 25 and 50 percent of the Democratic Party’s major
contributors, according to the “Hill” newspaper.

Both houses have passed legislation that would sanction companies of
third countries that do business with Iran, particularly in the energy
and telecommunications sectors. The two bills must now be reconciled
by a “conference committee”, which is likely to meet very soon after
the recess ends, before they can be sent to Obama for signature into
law.

The administration is arguing that imposing unilateral sanctions
before the Council acts would threaten the multilateral consensus it
is building with its European partners to get a strong U.N.
resolution.

“We want to make sure we don’t send wrong messages before we get
everyone signed up on what we can achieve internationally,” Clinton
warned lawmakers recently.

The administration has also argued that Obama should be given the
authority to exempt from punishment any companies from other nations,
such as China, that he deems are cooperating with Washington’s Iran
policy – a position that has been harshly criticised by Republicans
and some Democrats close to AIPAC.

Moreover, according to the administration, sweeping sanctions of the
kind included in the two house bills – as opposed to more-targeted
measures aimed at key figures and institutions in the regime, notably
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – could weaken the
still-feisty opposition Green Movement.

If the Council approves new sanctions this month, according to some
Congressional staff, Democrats will be more inclined to rally behind
the administration’s appeal for patience. But if U.N. action appears
unlikely before June, Congress is much more likely to force the issue.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 20th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Press Conference at the UN

World Water Day

Monday, 22 March, 2010
12:30 p.m.
Dag Hammarskjöld Library Auditorium

H.E. President of the UN General Assembly , H.E. Prime Minister of Tajikistan

H.E. Jan Eliasson
Chair of WaterAid Sweden, Former President of the UN General Assembly,
Former Foreign Minister of Sweden

With almost 884 million people lacking access to safe drinking water, and over 2.6 billion people, or almost 39 per cent of the world’s population, living without improved sanitation facilities, the issue of water is critical for tackling today’s challenges related to health, food security, and sustainable development.

To promote the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life 2005 – 2015”, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special high-level interactive dialogue on water and its implications for the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, disasters, peace and security.

This high-level dialogue provides an important input to the preparatory process for the Summit on the Millennium Development Goals to be held on 20-22 September 2010, and feeds into the High-Level International Conference on water to be hosted by Tajikistan in June 2010.

General Assembly President Ali Treki, General Assembly President Ali Treki, Prime Minister Oqilov, and WaterAid Sweden Chair Jan Eliasson will brief the press on the significance of water-related issues and highlight the urgent need for action to fulfill international commitments on water by 2015.

————————-

The problem with the above press conference, which is part of the daily UN Spokesperson’s Briefing to the Press, is that the UN General Assembly President is Ali Treki, the Foreign Minister of Libya who was declared practically non-person by the Schengen countries, so he is unwelcome to Europe {a President of the UNGA – mind you – no less}, and Oqil Ghaybulloyevich Oqilov, Prime Minister of Tajikistan, just recently host to Ahmedi-Nejad of Iran,  and whose country is turning  into a pro-Iranian satellite. The fact that the UN water conference will be held in Tajikistan must have to do something with the push for legitimization by some of the world’s less palatable regimes.

That leaves the Honorable Jan Eliason, a friend from the days he served at the UN, and a friend of humanity, the only person worthwhile on that UN panel. We say this with full knowledge that water and climate change are indeed main problems for Libya and Tajikistan, but we just do not believe that the other two speakers on that dais have shown politically real interest in this topic.

We are curious what journalists will show up and how far can questioning be allowed by the UN,  and by the UN General Assembly,  Spokesmen.

————————-

Monday 04 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad lays wreath at Ismail Samani’s statue

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid wreath at the statue of Ismail Samani a former king here on Monday.
President Ahmadinejad arrived in Dushanbe Monday morning for a two-day stay in Tajikistan.

After welcome ceremony held by Tajikistan’s Prime Minister Oqil Oqilov, Ahmadinejad started talks with his Tajik counterpart Imomali Rakhmon.

During the talks, the two presidents signed three memoranda of understanding, two documents on cooperation and a statement on expansion of bilateral relations.

Later in the day, Ahmadinejad is planned to deliver speech to a group of resident Iranians at Ibn Sina Hospital, built by Iran’s private sector in the country. He is also due to inaugurate an Iranology center in the Tajikistan’s medical university.

——

Saturday 09 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad ends Central Asian tour


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left Turkmenistan for Iran Wednesday afternoon at the end of his two-nation tour to the Central Asia region.

The Iranian president was officially seen off by his Turkmen counterpart Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov.

He was in Turkmenistan to attend the inaugural ceremony of the first phase of Iran-Turkmenistan’s second gas pipeline project.

The 182-km pipeline was inaugurated by the Iranian and Turkmen presidents earlier on Wednesday.

President Ahmadinejad was in the region on a three-day visit which had brought him earlier to Tajikistan.

He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials.

A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capitals.

—–

Saturday 09 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad returns home

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concluded his two-nation tour to the Central Asian region and arrived in Tehran on Wednesday afternoon.

Upon his arrival, the Iranian president was welcomed by Supreme Leader’s Advisor for International Affairs Ali Akbar Velayati, 1st Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as well as a number of high ranking officials and ministers.

Speaking to reporters at the airport, President Ahmadinejad described his visits to Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as very fruitful and promising.

He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials.

A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capital cities.

—–

Saturday 09 January 2010
President:
World’s fate to be decided in Middle East.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that world’s destiny will be decided in the Middle East.

“Iran and Syria should in a joint mission establish new world order based on monotheism, justice and humanity,” President Ahmadinejad told Syrian parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash.

He said the world is on verge of big developments and the tyrannical systems are fading.

“Iran and Syria shoulder a crucial role in present juncture and their cooperation should further expand,” he added.

The 30-year resistance of Iran and Syria is almost close to the victory stage, said the President, adding, “Resistance of nations, including Iran and Syria, has thwarted all the conspiracies of the imperialistic system in the political, economic, military and ideological domains.”

The President went on to say that construction of the wall of separation in the occupied lands and of the steel war in Gaza all show the Zionist regime’s vulnerability. “The US government too will have to end up its interventions in the region and get its forces out of there.”

Al-Abrash said in return that expansion of relations and cooperation among Muslim states, including Iran and Syria, has nullified enemy conspiracies.
He said that Iran and Syria will as before move in the front of perseverance and campaign against global arrogance.


————————————

For more information and the full programme of the day, please see: www.un.org

Jonathan Rich, WaterAid, Tel.: +1 347 262 9115, Email:  jonathan at jcrcommunications.com

————————————-

Let the clean water flow

By CAROLINE BOIN, The Japan Times online, Saturday, March 20, 2010

LONDON — The 18th annual World Water Day (March 22) offers the same old problems and rejects the practical solutions. On Monday, 1 billion people will, as usual, spend the day without clean water and a third of humanity without adequate sanitation. As usual, some 3.5 million men, women and children will die from related diseases this year. Yet many nongovernment organizations and politicians still prefer ideology to ideas, spurning what the private sector delivers to the world’s poor.

Activists often claim to be defending the poor from profit-maximizing corporations. But this has more to do with dogma than reality. Given that less than 10 percent of world water management is private, it is hard to see how they can blame corporations for poor supply.

In fact, it is governments that mismanage water and misallocate it to political cronies and powerful lobbies such as farmers. The poor, in rural areas or slums, are left unconnected and unable to do much about it. Anti-privatization groups keep repeating that water should be provided by government but ignore that government has been the worst enemy of the poor.

On another tack, the World Development Movement and similar groups claim that the private sector has done little for the poor, having connected only three million people in developing countries over the past 15 years. But this figure excludes Latin America and Southeast Asia where private water management — and the number of people getting water — has boomed since the 1990s. In Argentina, for example, privately managed areas got lower water prices, more connections and a drop in infectious diseases and child deaths.

Activists have further misrepresented private supply by focusing on multinationals while ignoring the small-scale water vendors who get water to people whom governments have abandoned. In many African cities, they sell plastic water sachets to passersby, while in Paraguay 500 aguateros supply nearly half a million people using tankers and piped water.

A World Bank researcher found in 1998 that “in most cities in developing countries, more than half the population gets basic water service from suppliers other than the incumbent official utility.” Country surveys suggest that the situation has changed little since then.

The World Health Organization, like activists, disregards these “informal” water vendors, bottled water and tankers. It refuses to consider them as “improved water sources” as they are unregulated, unpredictable and allegedly incapable of serving a mass market.

But to the hundreds of millions of people who rely on them, there is nothing incapable about private water providers. For many, they are the difference between life and death.

Informal water vendors come in all types, but they all provide water for profit. Their clients are among the most poorly prepared to pay to protect their families from disease and to put their time to better use than searching for clean water.

The success of these private water services throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia disproves the claim that the poor are too poor to pay for water and that the private sector has no incentive to serve them. In fact, the poor often pay more for water than those in prosperous areas with “formal” supplies. A World Bank survey of South American cities found that, on average, trucked water costs four to 10 times more than the public network’s price. In Kibera, the Nairobi slum of about 1 million people, jerry-can water sells at four times the average price in Kenya.

Activists who accuse the private sector of putting profits before people should realize three things. First, water vendors would stop providing water and sanitation if they did not make a profit. Second, governments are largely to blame for the higher prices because they constrain or outlaw private supply. Finally, people buy from vendors willingly, often with a choice of suppliers.

Water is severely under-priced in China, at around a third of the world average. As a consequence 300 million rural people have no safe drinking water. Where vendors do operate, people are prepared to pay up to 10 times the connected cost.

The theme of this year’s World Water Day is quality, so legalizing the work of water vendors should be a priority. They could then own sources, land and infrastructure, get credit and expand operations, serving more people at cheaper rates with cleaner water. It is these small-scale ventures — not empty government promises — that can quickly improve water supplies for the poor.

Caroline Boin is a project director at International Policy Network, London, which focuses on economic development.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 18th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Ouch! It’s my Jewish Identity! By Moshe Feiglin
{Moshe Feiglin, a member of the Knesset, is an extreme right winger struggling to take over the Likud Party.}


28 Adar, 5770
March 14, ’10   {see – significantly – it does not say 2010}

Translated from the NRG website {we do not know what NRG stands for}

“Israel’s problem is its public relations,” people reason as they attempt to explain how it is that Israel is always at the receiving end of the world’s criticism and hatred. “Israel simply doesn’t know how to highlight all of its positive points.”

But the problem is not simply lack of budget for public relations, as the Foreign Ministry would like us to believe. There is also no dearth of eloquent Israelis and fluent English speakers who could take Israel’s case to the world. The problem is that instead of explaining its own position, Israel explains the position of its enemies.

When is the last time that you heard an official Israeli representative simply state that this is our Land – without ifs, ands and buts? Simply, “The Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish Nation, period.” Has the prime minister made such a statement? Any minister? Perhaps an ambassador?

All the torrents of claims against Israel can be distilled to this one simple question: Whose land is this, anyway? But here’s the caveat: It is impossible to say that this is our Land without falling back on our Jewish foundations. To avoid that unthinkable eventuality, Israel trades it ultimate playing card for paltry claims that its soldiers are the most humane in the world – and endangers their lives to prove it – and that it is the most democratic regime in the region.

The world, though, doesn’t really care if Israel’s armed forces are humane. What determines if you are right or wrong is if the ground under their feet belongs to you or not. The most courteous intruder is still an intruder who belongs in jail.

The refusal to admit that this is our Land – or in broader terms, to re-connect as a state to our Jewish identity – has brought Israel to its diplomatic knees. Netanyahu’s senior ministers have arrest warrants waiting for them in Israel’s capitals and the assassins of arch-terrorist Mabhouh are wanted all over the world while mass-murderer Ahmadinijad is invited to lecture at Columbia University. The modern-day Amalek does not tell the world that he is humane. He explains that he is right. The world accepts this as fact because Israel’s leadership plays straight into his hands.

Just like the first Amalek, who attacked Israel when the entire world was afraid to initiate a fight with the nation that had just defeated the Egyptian empire, so Ahmadinijad publicly declares his intention to destroy Israel and proceeds with his technical preparations basically unhindered.

It may be difficult to understand why, instead of losing his legitimacy, Ahmadinijad has managed to place a flashing and threatening question mark over Israel’s head. The reason is that the “State of all its citizens” (as per former Chief Justice Aharon Barak) or the “Singapore of the Middle East” (as per President Shimon Peres) or the “place under the sun” (as per PM Netanyahu) is incapable of standing proud and firm behind its identity and justifying its existence. It really is not right to establish another Singapore at the expense of the “Palestinians.” And there is plenty of place under the sun on the Canary Islands. It comes at a more reasonable price and will not drag the entire world into endless wars.

For those readers who do not understand the critical implications of our Jewish identity for our very survival, I would like to quote the following story:

In the first Lebanon War in 1982, the IDF essentially forced the PLO terror organization out of Lebanon and into exile in Tunisia. The PLO was in complete disarray. One of the prisoners in the Israeli detention camp, Ansar, was a senior terrorist, admired by his henchmen. His name was Salah Taamari and he was a broken man.

In the book about Taamari, Mine Enemy, penned by Israeli journalists Amalia and Aharon Barnea, Taamari told Barnea of the transformation he underwent in Ansar. While in prison, he had completely despaired of any hope that the Palestinians would one day realize any of their territorial dreams. He was ready to renounce the struggle and was well on the way to convincing his prison-mates that they would never defeat Israel.
Then, one Passover, he witnessed a Jewish prison guard eating a pita. Taamari was shocked, and asked his jailer how he could so unashamedly eat bread on Passover.
The Jew replied: “I feel no obligation to events that occurred to my nation over 2,000 years ago. I have no connection to that.”
That entire night Taamari could not sleep. He thought to himself: “A nation whose members have no connection to their past, and are capable of so openly transgressing their most important laws, has cut off all its roots to the Land.”
He concluded that the Palestinians could, in fact, achieve all their goals. From that moment, he determined “to fight for everything – not a percentage, not some crumbs that the Israelis might throw us – but for everything. Because opposing us is a nation that has no connection to its roots, which are no longer of interest to it.”
Taamari goes on to relate how he shared this insight with “tens of thousands of his colleagues, and all were convinced.”

Taamari did indeed convince his co-terrorists and breathed new life into the war against Israel. It is hard to exaggerate the damage done by the pita in the mouth of just one Israeli prison guard on the holiday of Passover.

What does this have to do with the current Jerusalem imbroglio? Here is another story – short and current. This story is not about an anonymous soldier who is disconnected from his Jewish roots, but about the prime minister of Israel, who is estranged from his. On his recent trip to Russia, Binyamin Netanyahu chose the non-kosher restaurant, Pushkin, as the venue for his meeting with Greek PM Papandreou. The whole world was able to watch as the leader of the Jewish nation dined heartily on the finest that non-kosher cuisine has to offer.

One pita in the mouth of an anonymous soldier was enough to sow the seeds of defeat in Israel’s triumph in Lebanon. What damage will we suffer from the unkosher food in the mouth of the prime minister of Israel?

—————————–
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010

‘Day of Rage’ Engulfs Palestine
Mel Frykberg

QALANDIA, West Bank, Mar 17 (IPS) – On Tuesday tens of hundreds of Palestinians of all political persuasions took to the streets, alleys and sidewalks as widespread rioting and protests spread across East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and into Israel proper. The worst violence in several years, something of a mini Intifadah or uprising, followed the Islamist movement Hamas calling for a ‘Day of Rage’ to protest Israel’s continued Judaisation of East Jerusalem and what Palestinians see as an attempt to take over Islamic holy sites.

The numbers rioting were kept relatively low by Israeli military roadblocks and a closure imposed on the West Bank to prevent Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem. More than 100 Palestinians were wounded, 16 of them suffering broken bones and stomach and eye injuries, and about 80 arrested as the clashes and confrontations with Israeli security forces spread. A number of Israeli soldiers and police were also injured.

On Wednesday thousands of Israeli security forces remained on high alert as further riots were predicted. Palestinian security forces were also placed on high alert amidst fears that protests could spread to Israeli checkpoints and settlements in the West Bank and further inflame an already volatile situation.

“We will be back tomorrow after school. This is not the end. We are going to come here every day and continue the protests for weeks and months,” one of the protestors told IPS.

“This is just the beginning. This is going to be an ongoing campaign against the Israeli occupation and the desecration of our holy sites,” Nasser Edwan (name changed), a local youth leader, told IPS.

At Qalandia refugee camp and checkpoint, situated between Jerusalem and Ramallah, hundreds of school boys and young men, continually approached the Israeli checkpoint in waves, hurling stones and bottles.

Elsewhere Molotov cocktails were thrown, garbage containers set alight and one Israeli policeman shot by a Palestinian assailant.

The Israel Defence Forces tried to disperse the rioters with rubber-coated metal bullets and teargas. But just as soon as the protestors were driven back they would advance again on the checkpoint. Scores were injured and a number arrested.

Generally protests here have a set formula with both sides following unspoken rules. Hitherto clashes in various West Bank villages and in East Jerusalem normally last a few hours after which both sides – the Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian protestors – tire and return to “base”.

Previous protests at Qalandia witnessed by IPS generally dissipated after several hours.

However, Tuesday’s violence raged from early in the morning to well into the night. Similar scenarios unfolded in various locations of occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank while thousands of Gazans took to the streets.

There has been a palpable atmosphere of suppressed anger amongst Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank for the last few weeks due to Israel’s accelerated Judaisation of East Jerusalem.

Tensions were exacerbated on Monday with the inauguration of a Jewish synagogue on a site where a mosque used to be in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s old city.

Attempts by Jewish extremists to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest shrine have also fuelled Palestinian anger. These extremists have stated that they would like to build the third Jewish Temple on Al Aqsa’s remains.

The importance and significance of Al Aqsa even to moderate and secular Muslims is unappreciated in many Western quarters

“I have only two sons and I love them dearly but I’m prepared to sacrifice both of them for Al Aqsa,” one IPS source, a secular and previously senior activist of the secular Fatah movement in Jerusalem’s Old City, said.

“When there were riots several weeks ago, I phoned my sons and told them to close our tourist shop and go to the mosque to defend it from the settlers. Do you think it is easy to lose my sons? Al Aqsa is a red line which nobody must cross,” he told IPS.

This is the reasoning behind the common ground found by the leadership of both Palestinian political factions, Hamas and Fatah, as they called for their respective followers to take to the streets.

Senior members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, affiliated with Fatah, met in the Ambassador Hotel in East Jerusalem a couple of days ago before appealing to Palestinians to take action.

The leadership also met in the same hotel and called for defensive measures prior to the outbreak of the Second Intifadah in 2000 when then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon made his provocative visit to the mosque despite being warned against doing so by Israeli security.

Furthermore, the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades have called for the Palestinian Authority to allow them to rearm and defend Al Aqsa from the Israelis.

Israel recently pardoned over 70 former Al Aqsa members on the condition they give up their weapons and cease resistance. Hundreds of others have been pardoned by Israel over the last few years.

Hamas leader Ahmed Bahar called for a renewal of armed attacks against Israel and urged Arab states to support the resistance.

Meanwhile, Israeli settlers have warned that they will retaliate against any Palestinian rioting by mounting counter-riots.

They have also warned that they will attack “Arabs and their property” if they are prevented in the future from entering the Al Aqsa compound.

While a full-scale Intifadah does not appear imminent, further large-scale unrest appears highly possible with some Israeli analysts calling Tuesday’s events an “Intifadah-Light”.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 15th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Futures of the Obama Administration:

Dan Rather says the President must show resolve and steel. This was echoed by Helene Cooper (He must start showing his accomplishments) and Joe Klein (people want to see him crack the whip). Despite this 11 said he must play to the center and only one said he must play to the left.

There is no contradiction here – all agreed that the Democratic base is a varied coalition while the Republican base is the Republican idiosyncratic right (a much less flattering word was used).

So what do the Democrats need now? The answer in the TV and Internet age is that you must be authentic and have a conversation with the broad constituency that is the country.

——–

Helene Cooper reminded us that in Foreign countries Obama did very well – now he will have a huge welcome in Indonesia and the Tea Party folks will say that this proves he is not from here. But they may overplay because again the President will show he can raise in the world the essence of an ideal. Indonesia is a poor country in recession and a probable breeding ground for Al Qaeda with a war going on in nearby Philippines.

Joe Klein kept repeating that even in the US people rank Obama’s foreign policy much more then his economic policy – so some will say that when he goes overseas to take of the news the needed US internal economic policy – he does not face the economy.

But above is not correct – he actually goes to the energy markets – Indonesia, then India, and probably after that South Africa. This follows the trip he made to China. So there is a pattern here.

Also – we were reminded that Iran has an operation to extract Uranium in a remote location in Venezuela – and yes – there is now a daily flight from Tehran to Caracas while there is only a weekly flight from Caracas to Bogota. AHA – is this not what we say all the time since Copenhagen? Obama needs to have in the White House a clear Western Hemisphere desk in order to be able to do all these other needed activities that are mainly Asia oriented.

We learned that Rahm Emanuel – the White House pragmatist – said all the time – the futures are ENERGY and JOBS. That should have been the laser guided policy from day one.

On the Israeli Palestinian issue, with the latest misery for all to see and a consensus building that the killing in Dubai and the slap to Vice President Biden, were “botched-on-purpose” events. Simply – they are so botched that they must have been on purpose and the purpose was that Israel wanted the world to know that they are ready to take responsibility for their future because they do not want to have to pay for complicated world policies that may treat them as collateral.

The two issues with most impact on the Middle East are clearly the global look into the maze of State-to State energy policies and what seems to emerge – a border set between Israel and the West Bank run by the Palestinian Authority. This as a “what-can-be-done” approach to get us out of this impasse. With the AIPAC meeting coming up in Washington – March 21-23, 2010, President Obama out of town, and Vice President Biden having been pushed aside by the Israelis, it remains now for Secretary Hillary Clinton to try to build such an approach for the only two direct factors in the dispute, and the Arab States the US has friendly relationship with. If this is not accepted by the two sides, the best the US can do is to drop this topic from its agenda all together, and wait the sides come back begging for new mediation.

Karl Rove is making the rounds of the TV stations in order to sell his book “Courage and Consequences.” It is him, former VP Cheney, the daughter Liz Cheney (Chris Matthews Calls Liz Cheney ‘Daughter of Dracula’), and pundist Bill Krystal that try to reinvent history. Of interest to US foreign policy is the mention now that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq under the Bush-Cheney Administration was the fault of Turkey – because of their reluctance to allow NATO overflights. Quite true – but did not one look into such things when planning a war?

Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, declared that  US President Obama is liked in the world but not feared. Russia and China are not going to allow greater restrictions on Iran. She also said that Israel is probably not as fearful of Iran as it is assumed because had they had Iran in mind they would not have turned against the US and the UK the way they did. She thinks the events in Dubai were a clear provocation to the UK. France and the UK will go along with the US grudgingly on Iran but others at the UN Security Council, like Lebanon and Brazil will not.

Candy Crowley’s program was underlined with the idea that the gridlock in Washington on health-care has signaled to the world that it also carries no power overseasand that Obama will now stress in his relations to Congress what he already said: “Ignore the Washington Eco Chamber!”

————-

Pakistan turns into a US Administration’s Show-case: At least something that showed some changes for the better.

On Farred Zakaria with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke – “Pakistan is looking up – A victory for Obama. It helped by dangling of showers of aid – so the Hakami faction of the Taliban that was previously tolerated by the military is now being attacked.

Holbrooke finds that the Afghans in Khandahar and Marja in general, want a conservative society but no corruption. They want education including for girls and are mad at the Taliban. The district leader in Marja is an Afghan who returned from Germany. There are returnees and the US encourages also afghans in the US to return and participate in the rebuilding.

———–

With Fareed – The Jeffrey Sachs, Amity Schlaes (conservative formerly with The Wall Street Journal and presently Council of Foreign Relations specialist), and Christa Freeland (global editor-at-large, The Financial Times – middle of the road, right leaning):

The underlying Jeff Sachs dictum: “EVERY DECENT SOCIETY ENSURES CITIZENS HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH-CARE.” Without reforms of the health-care delivery system we will get nowhere – this was really not discussed yet he said.

The problem is that we have no cost controls so we use four times more Cat-Scans then Switzerland or France.

Freeland concurred  and said THE SYSTEM ENCOURAGES DOCTORS TO DO TOO MUCH! She had found that in the American system you have to fight excessive treatment more then anywhere else. She herself gave birth in Toronto, Paris, New York and the US was worse. She asked why all those Cesarean treatments for first birth in the US? She concluded that it was not only a problem of greed – which it is – but also a problem of the legal system, the high insurance of the profession, that makes doctors more worried and pushes them to prescribe unnecessary treatments. SO – WE ARE BACK TO THE INSURANCE AND TO THE HEALTH-CARE IMPASSE. She also pointed out that 80% of the health-care cost is in the last years of life and this should be something to be looked at also.

The two seemed to agree that with 10% unemployment it is wrong to tie-in health-care to a job – and Freeland suggested HELP RATHER PEOPLE TO BUY AN INSURANCE.

Talking about the economy at large, Jeff Sachs said we were in a panic situation last year – that was removed – but we are out of control with the budget and a burdened debt consumer is no consumer. We risk a downward spiral as for two and a half years we really did nothing on the economy. He predicts that the US is out for a double recession.

Amity Schlaes in all of this was a parody of the Wall Street Journal – “A person who gets a job – not the happy consumer that goes to the mall – is who saves the economy. Which she is obviously right but nowhere in the discussion did we see an indication of how to get there. Cut spending? From where? She brings up Indiana State tax cuts as an example, but Professor Sachs cuts her short by saying the US is already the lowest taxed country in the developed world and we are paralyzed because we cannot do what a civilized country must do. Can we have a value added tax Fareed asks Schlaes and she gives a clear NO!. We read her stuff in the WSJ many times and wonder now what she can do for the Council on Foreign Relations. We thank Fareed Zakaria for having brought her in to the panel so we understand better what US institutions of long-standing have done to split America.

With a 10% of GNP budget gap while the entitlement amount to a total of 15% for Social Security and existing Health-Care, there is just no way that the US can cut itself out of the coming recession without falling back into the ranks of a third world country – whatever the meaning of that term which we clearly do not accept as part of our own parlance. Clearly – Presidential leadership is needed here and plain conversation with the electorate is the way to honestly explain the situation to the public. Do not expect the media to be able to do this public relations job.

David Axelrod on all channels, kept saying that Illinois got 60% insurance increases this year and the President will speak in Ohio where a woman wrote to him that she had to chose between health insurance and her home – so she stopped her insurance. Then when cancer struck – now she will lose her home. This is the biggest driving force of the economy that the Federal Government must take into consideration first. We say power to him.

Further, on Fareed Zakaria’s program, we learned that March 9th was a year since the Wall Street Dow Index hit bottom from which it climbs up again. Banks have recapitalized with new $150 billion to a safe position, managers make fabulous pay again, Timothy Geithner who took the country on a middle road has shown success, refusing to nationalize the banks, but what did this do to the person on main street who will be voting in November?

———-

Intricacies of the Arab and Islamic world:

On the Amanpour program we started with Sheikh Dr. Tahir Ul-Qadri – an Islamic Theologian from London who started the JIHAD-AGAINST-JIHAD movement. He was a former special advisor on Islamic Law to the Pakistani Supreme Court.

He says – No ifs – No buts – Terrorism is Terrorism. Any good intentions cannot allow terrorism.

A terrorist does not reach Shihada (martyrdom) or in lay language – he does not go to heaven – he rather goes to hell!

He was questioned about “Khawarij” in the “Hadit” – the words of the Prophet as reported by men that wrote them down – “whoever fights against the people (that is the believers) has more rights to Allah then others.”

Sheikh Ul Qadri answered that the ideology that says those that are not Muslims – their blood is allowed – he does no accept. He fights for peace and when asked if his life is in danger he said he is not afraid “one has to live for truth and die for truth” – he is thus a jihadist-against jihad.

Elias Khouri is an Arab lawyer living on the West Bank near Jerusalem. Both – his father and his son were killed by other Palestinians as part of their war against Jews. The father back in the pre-Israel days, the son, George Khouri, who went to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in March 2004, when he was mistaken for a Jew.

Elias Khouri paid from his money for the translation into Arabic of the book “A Tale of Love and Darkness” by the famed Israeli author Amos Oz, and had it published in Beiruth so that Arab readers can learn something about the Israelis. This bereaved person wants to help remove prevailing stereotypes in the Middle East.

Amos Oz who can be defined as an Israeli who clearly wants to live in a Middle East mixed environment, depicted in this book the non-heroic ways of the first settlers who lead to the foundation of the State. Elias Khouri says that knowledge is needed to be able to understand if we want to fight them or go along. Since the offer to translate the book, the two families – the Khouri and the Oz families became close friends and visit each other. Amos Oz says that he tried always to put himself in the other’s shoes. Anyone in the Arab world who reads the book will understand the historical events better. Oz says – Imaging the other is a moral thing.



###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 13th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Sunday March 7, 2010, Fareed Zakaria took the measure of the Big Crescent that Stretches from Gaza via Jerusalm, Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, to Islamabad. He had quite o few first line guests.

Turned out that it is unrealistic to expect democracy in Iraq – what we get at best will be a cross-sectarian coalition – maybe.

There is no certainty that the Iraqis will want to end up in a relationship with the US with less then 25,000 US and other NATO forces present.

The important question came up: “Do we have any economic influence in Iraq?” and the answers included pearls like “This is capitalism at work – there will be competition.” “With the money spent on the invasion the US could have bought all the Iraqi oil production for a decade.” We hope Mr. Cheney was watching the program wherever he is. We wonder if he will evr move finally to the headquarters of Haliburton in Dubai.

———

Regarding Iran – the main observation is that the Basij have had to turn inwards because of the stirring of a political opposition.

“Do you think that Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is an Iranian agent?”

“He was behind the de-Bathification – indeed the Iraqis believe so.”

——-

With Yossi Melman, now with Tel Aviv newspaper HAARETZ, and former Mossad operative and Fawaz A. Gerges, from the London School of economics and Political Science, author of Journey of the Jihadist” present, and Osama Hamdan on video in Damascus – we heard from Mosab Hassan Jousef Jr. how he was, and in many ways still is, a double or triple agent between the Hamas, Patach and the Israelis. His contention is that he saved his father’s life, Sheick Hassan, a founder of the Hamas, by telling his location to the Israelis, so he is now well and alive in Israeli prison with a six years term, while he would have been dead otherwise. That is another tid-bit of Middle East lore. Mosab did not seem to worry having exposed himself before the cameras – seemingly he is more interested in getting royalties from a book he published.

——

In this program we also learned – at least the first time I heard so – finally a religious Islamic leader, talking of the atrocities of 9/11, say the magic words I was waiting for these last 8 years: “COMMITTINGG A TERROR ATTACK LANDS THE PERPETRATORS IN HELL.” So, there is now a “JIHAD AGAINST JIHAD” among some Muslim leaders and they regard 9/11 as the “WAKE UP CALL.”

So far so good – but the announcement by the news-caster that the Pakistanis caught in the city of Karachi, among its 30 million people, American-turncoat Adam Gadahn, the Al Qaeda Spokesman – that was a bum announcement. The beaded man was not caught.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 12th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Turkey is an important State. It was born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after having chosen the loosing side in WW I. It went after that through a distilling process with the secular-military revolution of Ataturk, and was on its way to modernization. In the process Turks killed Armenians – that is well documented, and eventually Armenians said it was genocide. Those were clearly the childhood days of a more modern Turkey.

Growing up would have meant recognizing that in its evolution, Turkey has some darker shadows in its history basin – recognize it and stretch out a hand in peace. Instead Turkey preferred to continue without any relations to Armenia, while at the same time distancing itself from its Middle Eastern and Caucasian neighbors while courting a Europe that refuses to forgive a forgetful Turkey its past behaviour in relation to its Armenians, and then later its Kurds.

Turkey, in its ridiculous courting of Europe, has missed even the boat that was anchored in its doorsteps with the creation of five newly independent Central Asian States most of which being of Turkic ethnicity anyway. Turkey is torn now between Islam and secularism with an Islamic background – whatever they chose, it is going to be neither Christian Greek, nor Christian Armenian while the West – that is Europe and the US – are basically Christian and can be  counted upon as backing Armenia’s simple request to call the killings of a century ago an example of genocide like they are ready to call what went on in Kosovo, much more recently, a genocide against Muslims.

Turkey is important to the West as a bridge to the Islamic world of Asia including the Middle East and Central Asia, but the West can not tell its parliaments that for foreign policy reasons they are not allowed to call an old case of genocide by its name, or to tell their more liberal people that a cartoon or some other free expression that might offend someone’s feelings is not plain satire that they can express if it were their own leaders – secular or religious – be it even the Pope.

Turkey has now recalled its Ambassadors to the US and Sweden as sign of displeasure with Congress and Parliamentarian declarations in States that allow free expression via voting – specially as the direct consequence of it if it was genocide or plain heinous killing is not going to bring anyone to life back anyway.

We belabor this topic because our website has placed great hope in a reorienting Turkey on various issues – be these related to the place of Turkey on Kyoto Protocol and climate change, on oil and gas pipelines, or be it on the OIC, peace efforts in the Middle East, relations with Iran, Iraq etc. We are thus unhappy when Turkey steps back from responsibility that comes with maturity.  Why not just tell Armenia – let’s sign a peace accord based on mutual understanding that what has happened then, call it what you want, and we are sorry for it, will never happen again. The whole world would then applaud. Look at Jews and Germans – it was worse – but they talk and do not walk out on each other.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 11th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Ihsanoglu calls for direct relations between the OIC General Secretariat and OIC Funds

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his satisfaction over the OIC Funds’ oriented action, which has made a tangible impact, and hoped for direct relations between the Funds and the OIC General Secretariat at the level of the Islamic Conference Humanitarian Affairs Department (ICHAD) and other related departments.

Ihsanoglu, in his statement at the 3rd meeting of the OIC Funds in Doha, Qatar, on 9 March 2010, urged the Funds to work under the supervision of the OIC General Secretariat’s Finance and Administration Department using the new “financial system under which the Funds will operate in line with the OIC Financial rules and regulations, hence, rendering more transparency to their operations, which will also benefit the Funds.”

Taking into consideration the various constraints the Funds may have faced, he assured them of mobilizing all OIC resources to launch a “strong campaign to secure more financial resources for the Funds’ activities.”

The Secretary General concluded his statement by thanking His Highness Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Thani, Chairman of the Council of Funds, and the various donors, especially the State of Qatar for the tremendous efforts and dedication to convene the meeting.

OIC Chief commends the results of the Third Conference of Humanitarian Organizations
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the positive results of the Third Conference of Humanitarian Organizations held in Doha, Qatar, on 8 March 2010, will have a clear effect on the promotion of cooperative relations between the OIC and humanitarian organizations in the OIC Member States. This will help elaborate clear policies to address disasters and development issues in the Islamic world.

Ihsanoglu made this statement at the closing session of the two-day Conference attended by over seventy relief organizations from around the Islamic world.

The Secretary General emphasized that these results testify to the importance of the resolution adopted by the Third Extraordinary Islamic Summit Conference held in Makkah Al-Mukarramah at the initiative of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, which called for the promotion of cooperation and coordination relations between the General Secretariat and NGOs as a central development partner.

Ihsanoglu added that over forty OIC Member States suffer today from different disasters and conflicts, especially with the aggravation of climate change and its various negative implications. He maintained that these phenomena led to the defragmentation of societies and to the deterioration of relief services and development infrastructures in many parts of the Islamic world.

The Secretary General called for a new approach to address development and humanitarian assistance issues based on the coordination of efforts among governments, NGOs and the private sector. He highlighted the fact that supporting this tripartite process is a necessity at this critical stage in order to build peace and accelerate the development movement in our countries.

The Secretary General concluded his address stating that work in this field will be carried out in close coordination and cooperation with all international organizations and institutions working in the field of humanitarian development, in particular UN institutions which are doing an important work in the Islamic world.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 10th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Fiancé of Neda, Iran’s Slain ‘Angel of Freedom,’ Heading to Geneva Rights Summit.

THE UPDATE:   www.unwatch.org

02 March 2010

Fiancé of Neda, Iran’s Slain ‘Angel of Freedom,’ Heading to Geneva Rights Summit – Caspian Makan to protest Iranian government brutality.

A video of Neda's death found its way out of Iran, where it was uploaded to the websites of various media organizations, Facebook and YouTube. The dramatic 40-second tape stirred outrage and attracted tens of thousands of viewers.

GENEVA, March 2, 2010 One day after Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the UN in Geneva that President Ahmadinejad’s June election was “an exemplary exhibition of democracy and freedom,” Caspian Makan, the fiancé of slain Iranian icon Neda Agha Soltan, announced today that he will join other world-famous dissidents as a speaker at next Monday’s Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, co-organized by UN Watch, Freedom House, Ibuka and more than 20 other human rights NGOs.

Images of Neda’s bloody killing in June at the hand of the Basij paramilitary force turned an international spotlight on the brutality of the Iranian government crackdown against peaceful protesters.

The Tehran regime banned prayers for Neda in the country’s mosques, arresting anyone who held a vigil for her. Mr. Makan was then arrested and detained at Evin Prison in Tehran. He was beaten and pressured to sign a false confession.

Since his release, Mr. Makan has been an outspoken dissident for freedom in Iran, spreading Neda’s story and message around the world.

The Geneva conference is organized by a global civil society coalition of 25 human rights groups, including Burmese, Tibetan and Zimbabwean organizations (see list below), with support from the Canton of Geneva.

The two-day schedule features more than 20 action-oriented presentations and skills-building workshops, with the objective of advancing internet freedom, the struggle of dissidents against state repression, and reform of the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council.

Speakers will include former political prisoners from around the world, including Rebiya Kadeer, champion of China’s Uighur minority and Nobel Peace Prize nominee; Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, Cuban dissident; Bo Kyi, Burmese dissident, winner of the 2008 Human Rights Watch Award; Donghyuk Shin, survivor of North Korean prison camps; and Phuntsok Nyidron, the Buddhist nun from Tibet who served 15 years in jail for recording songs of freedom.

The Geneva Summit will also feature eminent governmental and intergovernmental advocates for human rights, including Massouda Jalal, the former Afghan Minister of Women Affairs and first female presidential candidate; MP Irwin Cotler, Canadian human rights hero and former counsel to Nelson Mandela; Italian MP Matteo Mecacci, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Rapporteur for democracy and human rights; and Jan Pronk, former Special Representative in Sudan of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Last year’s summit, covered by CNN, AP, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal, brought together former political prisoners Saad Eddin Ibrahim of Egypt, Ahmad Batebi of Iran, José Gabriel Ramón Castillo of Cuba and Soe Aung of Burma, along with many other well-known rights activists and scholars. (See videos at http://genevasummit.org/videos.)

Admission to the March 8-9, 2010 conference is free, and the public and media are invited to attend. For accreditation, program and schedule information, please visit http://genevasummit.org/.

Visit the site during the conference to follow the live webcast, blog and Twitter feed.


Global Civil Society Coalition

Assistance Association for Political Prisoners in Burma

Centro para la Apertura y el Desarrollo de América Latina (CADAL)

Darfur Peace and Development Center

Directorio Democratico Cubano

Fondation Genereuse Development

Freedom House

Freedom Now

Genocide Watch

Global Zimbabwe Forum

Human Rights Activists in Iran

Human Rights Without Frontiers Int’l

IBUKA

Ingénieurs du monde

Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children

International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY)

International Campaign to End Genocide

International Association of Genocide Scholars

Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme

LiNK

Respekt Institut

Stop Child Executions

Tibetan Women’s Association

UN Watch

Zimbabwe Advocacy Office

###

“Giving Iran Seat on U.N. Rights Council Would Legitimize Its Brutality,” Says Boyfriend of Killed Protest Icon

Patrick Goodenough
March 10, 2010

An Iranian whose fiancée’s death by gunfire became a symbol of opposition to the regime during post-election protests last year made an impassioned appeal Tuesday for Tehran to be denied a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council in elections this spring.

Caspian Makan addresses the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, co-organized by UN Watch and 24 other human rights NGOs, Tuesday, March 9, 2010.

Addressing a gathering of dissidents and human rights advocates in Geneva, Caspian Makan, a photojournalist who fled Iran late last year after being detained for more than 60 days, said Iranian membership in the U.N.’s top human rights body would be a “slap in the face” of other members.

It would encourage other countries that have a tendency to flout human rights and undermine the credibility of the U.N. and the council, he said, according to a translation provided by event organizers.

“I feel furthermore that if the Iranian regime became a member, that would legitimize the inhuman and cruel acts the regime has perpetuated against its population,” Makan added. “Giving it legitimacy would encourage them to go further still.”

The U.N. has confirmed that Iran has submitted in writing its candidacy to become a member of the HRC.

On May 13, the General Assembly will vote by secret ballot to fill 14 of the Geneva-based council’s 47 seats. Iran and four other countries – Thailand, Qatar, Malaysia and the Maldives – will compete to fill four available seats set aside for the Asian regional group.

Makan was speaking Tuesday at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, a two-day event that brought together some 500 people from more than 60 countries, to discuss issues organizers say are mostly neglected by the HRC.

He told the gathering about Neda Agha Soltan, the 26-year old “deep thinker” and “artist at heart” with whom he had fallen in love after meeting her on a trip.

Makan, 38, said they had tended in the past not to vote in elections because they were seen as a charade, and taking part would be seen as “participating in the regime to some extent.”

But the 2009 election had seemed to offer in the shape of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi a “lesser evil” for young Iranians who “above all else wanted to get rid of Mr. [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”

Once it became clear that the election was rigged in favor of the incumbent, he said, Soltan had joined the protests.

Makan said that while trying to do his job he was an eyewitness to the violent clampdown by “the mercenaries of the regime” and “saw firsthand that the army of the revolution was shooting and killing the demonstrators from a helicopter.”

Four days before she died, he had urged Soltan to keep away from the demonstrations. “She said, ‘You know Caspian, I love you, I love being with you, but what is most important to me is the freedom of our people.”

On June 20, Soltan was shot in the chest on a Tehran street, apparently by a Basij militia sniper. Amateur video footage capturing the moments after the shooting was posted online and seen around the world.

“We have seen many people who have been wounded and killed, but this struck the world particularly hard,” Makan said of his fiancee’s death.

“We were able to see in the footage how good and kind she was and admire her attitude when faced with death, to admire her courage as a symbol of liberty, as she died hoping for a better life for the millions of Iranians who remained behind.”

Human rights researchers say at least 40 Iranians died during June and that the number more than doubled in the months that followed. The official figure stands at 44.

Last month, Mahmoud Abbaszadeh Meshkini, director-general of Iran’s Interior Ministry – whose functions including policing and overseeing elections – told the HRC that the June 2009 presidential election had been “an exemplary exhibition of democracy and freedom.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 9th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

nbsp;http://peacenow.org supports Iran sanctions that can work.

Congress is now considering two pieces of legislation that will limit the Iranian regime’s ability to crack down on freedom of speech within Iran:

HR 4301 – the Iran Digital Enhancement Act (IDEA) – would help give the Iranian people the high-tech tools they need to communicate online. It would also make it harder for the Iranian government to monitor or block Internet communications.

HR 4303 – the Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA) – would punish corporations that help the Iranian government stifle free speech. It would also allow American non-profits to provide humanitarian aid within Iran. And it would bar Iranian officials who have abused the human rights of the Iranian public from entering the United States.

Empowering the Iranian people must be a vital part of the American strategy to deal with the threat posed by Iran to Israel and to key American national security interests.

Now is the time for action.

What happens in Iran can have broad ramifications for Israel and for the future of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 1st, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

from:    Ignacio Montero <im638@nyu.edu>

date :    Mon, Mar 1, 2010 a

Event: Middle East Lecture Series MONDAY, Mar. 8 with Daniel L. Byman

U.S. and Middle East Policy Lecture Series.

Mondays at 12:30pm at NYU Wagner

Monday, March 8 for – spring semester

Middle East and U.S. Strategy lecture series with Daniel L. Byman, Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University; and Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution.


Date: Monday, March 8 / 12:30-1:30pm
Location: NYU Wagner, Puck Building
295 Lafayette Street, Rudin Family Forum, 2nd floor

……………………………………………………….

Israeli Counterterrorism and its Implications for the United States
Daniel L. Byman, Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown
University; and Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
Brookings Institution

Dr. Byman has written widely on a range of topics related to terrorism,
international security, and the Middle East. In this talk, Dr. Byman will
examine Israel’s counterterrorism efforts against Fatah, Hamas, Hezballah,
and other groups to draw lessons about counterterrorism for Israel and other
countries.

For the last decade, the Middle East has occupied a place of primacy in
debates over U.S. global aims and strategies. NYU Wagner will sponsor a
year-long lecture series that will bring to campus original thinkers from
academics, research centers and government.

RSVP for this event and others in the series (see below) by clicking on the
following link http://wagner.nyu.edu/events/

—————–

Monday, March 22 / 12:30-1:30pm
A Strategy of Tactics: Countintsurgency and the American Army
…with Colonel Gian Gentile, Professor, Department of History, U.S.
Military Academy

Monday, March 29 / 12:30pm – 1:30pm
The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations
…with Lee Smith, Visiting Fellow, The Hudson Institute; and Middle East
correspondent, The Weekly Standard

Monday, April 5 / 12:30pm – 1:30pm
Why is Muslim Extremism Attractive? And How Do We Uproot It?
…with Ed Husain, co-director of the Quilliam Foundation, and author of The
Islamist


Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
New York University
295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10012
e:  yvette.white at nyu.edu
t: 212.992.9884
 http://wagner.nyu.edu

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 22nd, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

From Eye on the UN
February 22, 2010
Contact:
 list at eyeontheun.org

What the IAEA Knew:  The U.N. agency charged with stopping nuclear proliferation enabled it.

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.com.

The most important thing gleaned from the report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) circulated on Feb. 18, which states that Iran may indeed be bent on developing a nuclear bomb, is not new information about Iran. It is that for years the United Nations apparatus lied about what they knew and actively stood in the way of efforts to prevent the world’s most dangerous regime from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.

The “confidential” report leaked to every news agency on the planet, is quoted as stating that on the basis of “extensive” and “credible” information the IAEA now has “concerns about the possible existence in Iran of … current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” and “concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”

While Obama administration officials have attempted to spin the first report of IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, who took over last December, as a U.N. achievement, the implications of the evident U.N. deceit cannot be overstated. After all, the organization has a choke hold on global imaginations. In 2005 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IAEA and its then Director General Mohammed ElBaradei “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes.” It is now clear that this occurred at the very same time that ElBaradei was engaged in what may well prove to be the most lethal cover-up in human history.

For almost a decade, the IAEA and its director general stalled for time on behalf of Iran, with reports feigning ignorance of Iranian designs while leaving an escape hatch should the IAEA’s disguise as a non-proliferation agency be blown. In February 2006 ElBaradei reported: “Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion … is a time consuming process.”

In August 2006 ElBaradei reported: “the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.” In January 2007, in the midst of growing calls for sanctions, ElBaradei suggested a “time-out.” In July 2007 ElBaradei concocted a deliberately nebulous deal between the IAEA and Iran “on the modality for resolving the remaining outstanding issues.” In September 2007, with stiffer sanctions on the horizon, ElBaradei again called for a “time-out.” In January 2008 the IAEA reported: “ElBaradei has repeatedly noted that … the IAEA has not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”p>

And on and on the reports and the carefully timed interviews went. The organization charged with stopping nuclear proliferation enabled it. This latest “revelation” should, therefore, be a shot heard round the world. Or at the very least, in the halls of Congress, where every year at least 5 billion American taxpayer dollars are directed to the United Nations in cash or in kind.

Last week’s report did not see the light of day because the U.N. has turned over a significant new leaf. Rather, this is a desperate attempt by Amano to save the organization’s hide. It is an indication that Iran’s breakout as a nuclear power is so close at hand that the “watchdog” agency can no longer keep a lid on it.

The development does cast a new light, however, on ElBaradei’s assessment of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. Over the course of his presidency, Obama has repeatedly taken the heat off Iran: muting criticism over the stolen elections, minimizing response to human rights violations, sidelining the plight of Iran’s American hostages and treading water on sanctions for over a year. One particularly treacherous strategy has been to equate the urgency of nuclear disarmament–including by the United States–with nuclear non-proliferation. This inevitably delays progress on the latter. In the name of some perverse concept of fairness, the peril of a nuclear-armed United States and like-minded democracies is set off against the craving of non-democratic developing states to be equally armed. ElBaradei agreed with this strategy–as did the Nobel Committee.

Fellow honoree ElBaradei was therefore “absolutely delighted” at Obama’s award. Perceiving the Obama-ElBaradei approach to have been applauded once again, he told reporters: “I could not have thought of any other person today that is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama … I think the [Nobel] committee understood fully, as they have done in 2005, that we really need to address the number one security threat we face in the world–which is to get rid of these inhumane weapons. And Obama has … managed to put nuclear disarmament on the top of the international agenda … That is something I think the committee, by giving him the prize today, has applauded and said ‘you are doing the right thing; keep doing what you are doing.’ Exactly the same message that they have sent to the IAEA in 2005 … and myself.”

Two Nobel Peace Prizes later, Iran is much closer to acquiring nuclear weapons and ElBaradei’s days as U.N. proliferator-in-chief may not quite be over. On Friday, Feb. 19, he returned to his native Egypt and declared his interest in replacing President Hosni Mubarak in next year’s elections. If he were to succeed, he will undoubtedly follow an Iranian bomb with a dash to achieve an Egyptian one, with the tried-and-true U.N. formula of non-discrimination and peace.
————————
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 19th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Bloomberg and Business Week tell about Iran having demonstrated it is capable of building indigenous-made destroyers leading to a foreseeable new confrontation and military buildup with implication to world oil. They cannot build a refinery but can now disturb oil sea-lanes.
Iran Launches 1st Domestically Made Missile Destroyer.
February 19, 2010, Bloomberg.
By Ali Sheikholeslami

Iran has put into service the country’s first domestically produced guided-missile destroyer, the Jamaran.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei launched the 94-meter (308-foot), 1,400-ton vessel at a site in the Persian Gulf, state-run Press TV said today.
Iran’s success in developing the ship shows the country is technologically self-sufficient though it is under international sanctions, the state-run broadcaster said. All research, design and production of the ship took place in Iran, where the project benefited from the work of 120 universities and research institutes, according to state television.
President Barack Obama is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, the New York Times reported Jan. 31, citing administration and military officials. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, where the U.S. Navy has its regional base, agreed to host the systems, the Times said.
The new Iranian destroyer’s maximum speed is 30 knots and it can carry a crew of 140, Press TV said. It has anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, torpedoes, naval cannons and a helipad, the channel said. More ships in the Jamaran class are under construction, Press TV cited Iran’s navy as saying.
The ship was named for an area in northern Tehran where the late founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, resided.
Iran is under three sets of United Nations sanctions for refusing to scale back its nuclear program, which the U.S. and some of its allies allege is cover for the development of weapons. Iran denies the allegation, saying the program is needed to generate electricity.
The UN Security Council should back more sanctions against Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Feb. 16. Iran is turning into a “military dictatorship,” she said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ali Sheikholeslami in London at +44-20-7673-2805 or  alis2 at bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Hirschberg at +972-2-640-1104 or  phirschberg at bloomberg.net.

————

Above in addition to:

“In a sharp and potentially ominous new warning, the UN’s nuclear watchdog in Vienna is set to say for the first time there are reasons to fear that Iran may be on its way to attaching nuclear payloads to its stock of ballistic missiles.

The finding, leaked from a report to be released next month, is certain to stoke concerns that time is running out to take firmer action against Tehran, which has played a game of cat-and-mouse with the West for years, claiming its nuclear activities are civilian in nature while ignoring UN resolutions demanding that it cease its uranium enrichment activities.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

HIGH COURT IN TEL AVIV FLEXES ITS LIBERAL MUSCLES.
16 February 2010
BY CHRISTOPH SCHULT
Der Spiegel via The San Francisco Sentinel.

On many issues, from human rights to social mores, Israel’s high court is well out in front of society at large. Israeli politicians now want to clip the court’s wings.

Tel Aviv, an apartment building from the Ottoman era on the edge of the Karmel market. The Sabbath is about to end, and a casserole is baking in the oven in the apartment of the Berner-Kadisch family. The three sons are playing in their rooms, while the parents drink tea in the living room.

The parents are Nicole, 44, an attorney, and Ruti, 45, an academic with a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies. The two women alternated having children, with the help of a sperm bank and a reproduction clinic. Their first son, Matan, was born in 1995. Ruti was his biological mother and Nicole adopted him, which is permitted in some states of the United States.

Their problems began when they moved to Israel a year later. Both women had Israeli citizenship, but the consulate general in Los Angeles refused to recognize Nicole as the adoptive mother. The two women contested the decision in an Israeli court and, after 10 years, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized the adoption. The birth certificate of their youngest son, 6-year-old Segev, is lying on the coffee table in the living room. Nicole and Ruti are listed as his parents, under Israel’s national coat of arms. The Interior Ministry issued the document only recently.

Once again, the Supreme Court was more progressive than the country. The court’s ruling on the parenthood of Nicole and Ruti is only one of many sensational decisions in recent years. “If the Supreme Court didn’t exist, who would safeguard democracy in Israel?” asks Ruti Berner-Kadisch.

Insisting on Compliance

The court takes an interventionist approach. For instance, it prohibited the country’s attorney general from dropping rape charges against former President Moshe Katsav in return for a confession of other, lesser offences.

In the conflict with the Palestinians, the judges have resisted pressure from the military and the government and are insisting on compliance with human rights regulations.

Is it legal to use force on a Palestinian if he has information about an imminent terrorist attack? No, the high court ruled in 1999, when it imposed a torture ban on the military and the intelligence services. In 2006, the judges set narrow limits on the practice of preventive liquidation of presumed terrorists. Under the new rules, the targeted killings are only allowed if no civilians are harmed and there is no possibility of arrest. The Supreme Court has also issued several orders to move the security wall with which Israel protects itself against terrorists along its border with the West Bank. Arguing that there is no such thing as absolute security, the judges limited the Israeli government’s ability to seize land owned by Palestinians.

“In no other country in the world has a high court dealt with issues of international law as much as it has in our country,” says Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court. This is precisely why the judges have made so many enemies with their liberal administration of justice. For some rabbis, the court’s rulings are nothing short of blasphemy. Some generals consider the judges to be a security risk, and politicians see them as rivals.

Doris Beinisch, 67, an elegant woman wearing gold earrings and a scarf draped over her shoulders, has been the president of the Supreme Court for more than three years. From her office, she has a view of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, while the prime minister’s office is on the other side. Beinisch points out that her office sits right in the middle, both physically and symbolically, between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

No Constitution

The families of Palestinian terror attack victims recently appealed to the Supreme Court to force the government to release the names of the Palestinian prisoners it intends to set free in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006. Beinisch rejected the appeal.

It is only one of 12,000 cases the Supreme Court hears each year (by comparison, the US Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year). Every Israeli citizen can appeal to the court to raise doubts about government decisions or laws enacted by the Knesset. The “High Court of Justice” (known by the Hebrew acronym “Bagaz”) also serves as a court of appeal for the lower courts.

The central problem, says Beinisch, is that Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Although the 1948 declaration of independence expressly stipulates the creation of a written constitution, it hasn’t been formulated yet — in deference to the ultra-orthodox Jews, who refuse to recognize any constitution other than the Torah. This frequently gives the government and members of parliament an excuse to question the sovereignty of the highest court — for political expediency, of course.

In addition, because there is no constitution, there is nothing that clearly states whether each citizen has certain inalienable rights. The country only has its so-called basic laws, which, like any other laws, can be amended with a simple majority. According to the basic law on “human dignity and freedom,” Israel aims to be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time. But what does this mean for its roughly 1.3 million Arab citizens?

Not Allowed for Arabs

Adel Kaadan, 54, lives in Baka al-Gharbiya, a small Arab city of 30,000 people halfway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. He wanted to move away years ago, he says, citing problems like bad roads, a lack of waste disposal services and asbestos in schools. He saw an advertisement for a new community, Kazir, which was being planned a few kilometers north of Baka al-Gharbiya. It sounded appealing: new roads, inexpensive land, his own house. But when Kaadan went to see the town council, he was told that Arabs were not allowed to move to Kazir.

“I thought I was a citizen of Israel,” says Kaadan, who works as a nurse in a hospital. “In school, we were taught that discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion was not allowed.”

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel took on Kaadan’s case. Eleven years and two trials later, Kaadan finally won the case, when the town of Kazir was ordered to sell him a piece of land. Meanwhile, the house is almost finished, and in six months Kaadan plans to move in, together with his wife and their five children. “It’s good that the court exists,” says Kaadan, “but why do you have to go through the trouble of going to court just to assert your rights?”

Even when it comes to the major conflict in the region, between the Palestinians and Israelis, the judges insist on compliance with human rights laws. In Nilin, for example, a small town in the West Bank. The security wall separates the village from the Israeli settlement of Hashmonaim — and Palestinian farmers from their olive plantations. Every morning, the residents of Nilin protest against the wall, usually peacefully. On July 7, 2008, the military stopped the protestors and a few activists were arrested, including Ashraf Abu Rahma. The soldiers blindfolded him, tied his hands behind his back and let him sit in the sun for one-and-a-half hours.

Then He Shoots

“Suddenly something hit my right foot,” says Abu Rahma. “I had the feeling that my leg was flying away from my body.” He is sitting, smoking a cigarette, in the courtyard of the Amira family’s house, at the entrance to Nilin. Journalism student Salam Amira, 18, is sitting next to him. She filmed the events of the day from her window, using a digital camera.

On the video, the Israeli commander holds down Abu Rahma while one of his soldiers points his gun at the Palestinian’s feet. Then he shoots.

The Israel human rights organization Betselem published the video. A military judge merely reprimanded the soldiers for their “improper behavior” and suspended the commander from duty for 10 days. Betselem took the case to the Supreme Court, which ordered that both soldiers be punished more severely. The incident, the court argued, was a “serious deviation from the moral norms incumbent upon all soldiers in the Israeli army, particularly senior commanders.”

“Although it is a Jewish court, it issued a fair verdict,” says Abu Rahma. These words of praise don’t come easy for Rahma, whose brother was killed when he was shot in the chest during a demonstration a few months ago. Journalism student Amira says that she was positively surprised by the verdict. Palestinian judges, she says, rarely demonstrate such independence.

‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’

Israeli politicians, particularly the conservatives, feel that the court is too independent. To address this concern, the administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to propose a law that would limit the power of the judges on Jerusalem’s high court in an important way: The court would no longer have the power to invalidate laws enacted by the parliament. The government also wants to supervise the selection of judges more strictly in the future.

The court’s decisions often go too far for many Israelis, as well. Judge Beinisch has become a target of their indignation, so much so that she now has several bodyguards. In a hearing at the end of January, an older, balding man stood up and threw his shoe at the judge. Beinisch was hit in the head and fell, unconscious, from her chair. Although the man who had thrown the shoe was only expressing his dissatisfaction over his divorce decree, the opposition in the parliament claimed that the right wing, with its many reproaches of judges, had made the attack possible in the first place.

Ironically, this left Prime Minister Netanyahu with no choice but to express his solidarity with the judge. He called Beinisch and confirmed publicly: “It is illegal to attack the courts.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

We believe that America was not created by God and that Theocrats have no place among its bureaucrats. America was incorporated by groups of free people – not Peoples – but men and women.

We believe that the EU should take the America as intended – as its example; and we believe that the UN will eventually also be replaced by this sort of incorporation that is based on the concept that all people were created with the intention to live as equals.

——————–

The New York Society for Ethical Culture Believes in Secular Humanism as the driving Force In The American Constitution.

Sunday Meeting, February 21, 2010
Sunday Meeting – 11:15 a.m. – Auditorium

“One Nation Under the Constitution: Moral Values through Humanistic Government”
Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of Secular Coalition for America
The Secular Coalition for America is a leader of what The Nation magazine recently called the newly “visible, assertive, and respected” secular movement. Executive Director Sean Faircloth, will discuss how the values of our nation’s founders directly connect to the values of the secular movement.

Faircloth served for 10 years in the Maine legislature, and was elected to the post of Majority Whip of the Maine House of Representatives by his colleagues. An attorney whose duties include lobbying in Washington on behalf of the Secular Coalition’s 10 member organizations, he will show how injustices in American law based on religion are not a historical artifact but a stark current reality. He argues that all Americans have a moral obligation to address these injustices through rejuvenation of our government’s secular heritage and legal system. Faircloth is a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and has received many awards for his work, including the 2006 Legislator of the Year Award from the Maine People’s Alliance.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

If not for Stepping up as Guardians of Human Rights – What Else Is The UN There For?

Human Rights Watch at the UN – HRW Press

UN: Council Review Highlights Iran’s Poor Record – Members Should Recommend Reforms for Tehran.

(New York, February 16, 2010) – The Iranian government’s dismissal of international criticism of its human rights record underscores the need for the UN Human Rights Council to closely monitor Iran, Human Rights Watch said today. On February 15, 2010, council members in Geneva considered Iran’s record during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights to which all UN members are subject.

Human Rights Watch pointed to numerous recommendations made by other states during the review, many of which addressed the Iranian government’s crackdown against peaceful protesters and members of Iran’s civil society following the country’s disputed June 12 presidential elections. Human Rights Watch called on Iranian officials to immediately accept these recommendations to end the current human rights crisis.

“The Human Rights Council should insist that Tehran tells us what actually happened during and after the crackdown,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “How many people were killed or arrested, what are their names, and where are the detainees? The council should demand the government holds officials to account for their abuses instead of just denying everything.”

During the UPR, council members raised numerous concerns regarding the Iranian authorities’ violent and systematic attacks against demonstrators and opposition members during the past eight months, including the lack of accountability for abuses. In response, an Iranian government representative said that “all cases were duly addressed in competent courts openly and the defendants had access to their chosen lawyers,” and claimed that the Iranian Judiciary “meticulously examined all allegations pertaining to the breach of citizenry rights and most scrupulously heard the complaints lodged with them for even the alleged minor illegal treatments against the detainees.”

In fact, these statements are wholly inconsistent with evidence of thousands of arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions, torture of detainees, and mass show trials conducted by the Iranian Judiciary during the past eight months. These have resulted in little or no official investigations or accountability for the alleged abuses. The remarks were made days after security forces violently suppressed peaceful demonstrators on February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Despite numerous warnings by high-ranking members of Iran’s military and security forces designed to intimidate citizens and discourage them from joining street protests, thousands of Iranians participated last week in largely peaceful demonstrations in Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Ahvaz, and other urban centers. Numerous media reports indicate that demonstrators were met by anti-riot police using tear gas, clubs, and other hand-held weapons used to attack and disperse crowds. Media reports also indicate that many peaceful demonstrators have been arrested.

“Tehran’s response to the UPR session contradicts the reality facing thousands of Iranians wishing to exercise their fundamental rights,” said Whitson. “The government’s denials show that without strong international pressure on Tehran, human rights abuses will continue.”

On February 17, the Human Rights Council’s UPR Working Group will submit its report to Iran, including a list of recommendations put forth by various delegations during the February 15 plenary session. The Iranian government will have an opportunity to accept or reject some or all of the recommendations submitted by the UPR Working Group, or offer to provide an answer before the council’s general session in June.

Human Rights Watch, which submitted a report on Iran to the UPR process, urged the council to call on the government to conduct an impartial, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the killings, arrests, and detentions of thousands of demonstrators and civil society advocates affected by the post-election crisis in Iran; to investigate, prosecute, and punish government officials involved in the unlawful killing, arrest, detention, and abuse of thousands of demonstrators, opposition members, and civil society advocates; and to provide due process protections, including prompt charge under the law, access to a lawyer, and a hearing before a judge, for all detained individuals.

Human Rights Watch also called on Tehran to immediately accept these recommendations instead of waiting to respond to them before the June session.

Background
The UPR Review of Iran’s human rights record during the past four years comes only days after security forces violently suppressed peaceful demonstrators on February 11, the 31st anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. According to media reports, leading opposition figures and presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi were among those attacked by pro-government forces and prevented from joining demonstrators in Tehran. Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s wife, also sustained injuries as a result of an attack by pro-government militia, and one of Karrubi’s sons was arrested and taken to an unknown location. He was released a day later, with his body showing signs of physical abuse at the hands of pro-government forces. Former President Mohamed Khatami’s convoy was similarly attacked, and his brother, and sister-in-law were briefly detained by security forces before being released later in the day.

On February 14, Ali Karrubi’s mother, Fatemeh Karrubi, published an open letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei requesting that he order an end to physical and psychological abuses carried out against those detained by Iran’s security forces during the past eight months.

The government’s February 11 crackdown follows weeks of devastating raids, many of them conducted at night, targeting journalists, human rights defenders, students, and political dissidents. This month, the Committee to Protect Journalists announced that Iran had detained 47 journalists since June 2009, more than any other country. Security forces have supplemented their campaign of arrests with cyber attacks on news and information websites, stepped up blocking of email accounts, and slowed internet access. These measures are designed to stifle the free flow of information and block the few remaining channels of communication available to the Iranian people.

To read a June 19 press release about the government crackdown on protesters in Iran, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/19/ir…

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Iran, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-afric…

For more information, please contact:
In New York, Sarah Leah Whitson (English): +1-718-362-0172 (mobile)
In Washington D.C., Joe Stork (English): +1-202-209-2945 (mobile)
In New York, Faraz Sanei (English, Farsi): +1-212-216-1290

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Now a ‘Nuclear State’

Theunis Bates, Contributor aol.com
(Feb. 11, 2010) — As hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets of Tehran to mark the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution and riot police clashed with anti-government demonstrators, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a pro-regime rally today that their country is now a “nuclear state.”

Addressing a crowd that had gathered in the central Azadi (Freedom) Square to celebrate the overthrow of the pro-Western Shah in 1979, Ahmadinejad revealed that Iranian scientists had produced their first batch of enriched uranium. “The first package of 20 percent fuel has been produced. We are now a nuclear state,” he said. “We have the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or 80 percent but we don’t enrich (to this level) because we don’t need it.”

America and many of its allies accuse Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program — which it says is creating fuel for power plants — as a cover to build atomic weapons. They argue that Iran does not have the scientific know-how to turn enriched material into fuel rods for a reactor, and so must be planning to use the uranium — which, if enriched to 90 percent, can be made into a bomb — for something more dangerous. The Obama administration is pushing for tough U.N. sanctions to halt the country’s nuclear ambitions, and on Tuesday the Treasury Department froze the assets of affiliates of Iran’s influential Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Ahmadinejad warned the U.S. and the West to stop meddling in its affairs, claiming its nuclear program was entirely peaceful. “When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb,” he told the crowd. “If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it.” {he said}

Iran’s Islamic regime had hoped to use the Revolution Day celebrations to show the world that it still had the people’s popular support, as repeated demonstrations from the opposition “green movement” — which claim Ahmadinejad was fraudulently re-elected in June — have shaken the government’s claims of legitimacy.

In the run-up to the anniversary, the Revolutionary Guards and police attempted to scare opposition members out of staging Revolution Day protests by warning they would forcefully crack down on any demonstrations. “If anyone wants to disrupt this glorious ceremony, they will be confronted by people, and we too are fully prepared,” police chief Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam told the official Fars news agency on Wednesday, noting that some would-be protesters had already been rounded up. The same day, the judiciary also sent a strong message to the opposition by sentencing one protester to death and eight to prison for participating in demonstrations in December.

However, according to opposition Web site Rahesabz.net, many green movement members ignored these threats and overcame the security lockdown to stage a “very large” rally at Sadeghieh Square, about half a mile west of Azadi Square. Staging a protest on Revolution Day is a statement from the opposition, as one of their leaders — former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, who lost the June election — declared earlier this month that the 1979 revolution had failed as the “roots of tyranny and dictatorship” still exist in Iran.

Hossein Karroubi, the son of opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi, told the AFP that these pro-democracy demonstrators were attacked by policemen and plainclothes security officers wielding knives and shooting tear gas grenades. He added that cars containing his father and another leading opposition figure, former President Mohammad Khatami, had had their windows smashed by regime supporters, on their way to Sadeghieh Square. Hossein said his father was “not injured, but his guards who were accompanying him were.”

Rahesabz.net also reported that Khatami’s brother Mohammad Reza and his wife, Zahra Eshraghi, were briefly arrested but later released.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 11th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Iran to shut down Google email service: report.

Wed Feb 10, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The Iranian government plans to permanently suspend Google Inc’s email service in the country, the Wall Street Journal reported on its website on Wednesday.

Google said it experienced a sharp drop in email traffic in Iran, and that some users in the country were having trouble accessing Gmail, but said its networks were working properly.

The report comes as Iran braces for new opposition protests on Thursday during rallies marking the 1979 Islamic revolution. Protesters made use of modern networking tools such as Twitter and Gmail instant messaging last June after a disputed election plunged Iran into crisis.

Google is already at loggerheads with China’s government after it threatened to withdraw from the country last month over claims of online attacks and issues over censorship.

Iran’s telecommunications agency announced the suspension and said a national email service for Iranian citizens would soon be rolled out, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Google reported a drop in email traffic, but did not confirm the Journal report.

“We have heard from users in Iran that they are having trouble accessing Gmail,” a Google spokesman wrote in an e-mail to Reuters. “We can confirm a sharp drop in traffic, and we have looked at our own networks and found that they are working properly.”

He added that Google supported free online communication, but “sometimes it is not within our control.”

There was no immediate comment from Tehran, where it was after midnight when the news broke. Opposition leaders have called on supporters to take to the streets on Thursday, raising the risk of renewed violence.

The U.S. State Department could not confirm the report, but said any efforts to keep information from Iranians would fail. “While information technologies are enabling people around the world to communicate … like never before, the Iranian government seems determined to deny its citizens access to information, the ability to express themselves freely, network and share ideas,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

“Virtual walls won’t work in the 21st century any better than physical walls worked in the 20th century.”

###