WAR 09/01 - 09/07 ***The***Perfect***Storm****

=






Officials: Netanyahu determined not to apologize to Turkey

Published: 09.01.11, 17:45 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4116824,00.html

State officials involved in the relations between Israel and Turkey said that the Jewish State is not planning to apologize for the Gaza-bound flotilla incident, in which nine Turkish activists were killed.



"The prime minister is determined not to issue an apology," the officials said, adding that "Jerusalem has transmitted Washington messages according to which it does not intend to apologize for the incident." Another official added that while Israel is well aware of the possible consequences, "no normal state can operate under an ultimatum." (Atilla Somfalvi)





=
 
=









Turkey says UN flotilla report release date last chance for Israeli apology

Submitted 1 hr 24 mins ago
http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-...-release-date-last-chance-for-Israeli-apology

Turkey has dismissed claims that it will agree to extending the release date of an already much-delayed United Nations' Mavi Marmara report to give Israeli-Turkish reconciliation a chance and said the deadline for an Israeli apology is the release date of the flotilla report.


The Israeli media reported earlier this week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the UN to extend the flotilla report for six months again in order to gain political strength in Israel's coalition government to apologize to Turkey. The UN has already repeatedly postponed the completed report several times to give Turkey and Israel time to bury disagreements stemming from last year's flotilla incident.

Turkish-Israeli relations were badly damaged after Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara ship carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza to breach an Israeli naval blockade, killing nine Turkish civilians, including an American citizen. Turkey demands an official apology and compensation for the families of victims. Israel says its soldiers acted in self-defense.

“We cannot accept a six-month extension. The release date of the UN report is the last date for us. We will put Plan B into play if no [Israeli] apology,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu told the Today's Zaman and Hürriyet dailies in a joint interview, without further elaborating.

Sources said Davutoðlu might return to Ankara from Paris on Thursday evening or Friday morning after attending the Libya meeting instead of proceeding to Poland to participate in an EU gathering if the UN releases the flotilla report. He is expected to announce Turkey's reaction and position on the report and fly to Poland to participate in the EU meeting.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan stated on July 23 that Turkey now intends to move on to “Plan B” with respect to the Israeli apology conundrum, which will include a campaign against Israel to be carried out in UN institutions, legal action against senior Israeli figures in European courts and a hold on military cooperation between Turkey and Israel. Davutoðlu also warned Israel on Aug. 20 while on a trip to South Africa that relations between Turkey and Israel would only worsen if an apology was not forthcoming following the release of the Palmer report. He said relations will not remain as they are now, adding, “They will deteriorate even more, as the current situation cannot be sustained.”

The UN report is expected to be released in early September by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Davutoðlu, who is currently in Paris to attend a Libya meeting and will then proceed to Poland to participate in an EU gathering, said he is closely following developments surrounding the UN report. The last time the release of the UN report was postponed was two weeks ago, but there were mixed claims about which side had requested the delay.

The UN panel investigating the May 31, 2010 raid was expected to present its findings to UN's Ban on Aug. 22, but the release of the report was delayed.

The release of the report was postponed and the request for the delay came from Israel, as in past postponements, Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selçuk Ünal then said. The Israeli side, on the other hand, had presented a different account, saying Turkey requested the postponement.

On Aug. 21, Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted an Israeli diplomatic source as saying Turkey asked for the postponement. The US government has expressed its support for the Turkish request to delay the report, and Israel has not opposed the move and the decision lies with the UN chief, Haaretz had said.

Davutoðlu stressed that all requests to postpone the UN panel report came from Israel and the delay was agreed to because Israel always said it is ready to negotiate to meet Turkey's demands. “We patiently waited for Israel to decide. It seems Israel has some difficulty in making a decision. Turkey has already determined its position on this issue. We have already expressed that we cannot accept that,” Davutoðlu said, referring to the delay of the report.

Both Israel and Turkey received the draft of the report before. The UN committee reportedly decided in the report that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is in line with international law, and therefore Israeli actions to stop the flotilla were also legal. The report also criticizes the Turkish government and highlights the relationship between the government and the Turkish charity group ÝHH, the group that owned the raided ship, the Mavi Marmara.

The report also states that while Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers acted in self-defense, they used disproportionate force that led to the death of nine Turkish citizens. The report recommends that Israel pay compensation to the families of the dead and injured Turkish citizens, which Israel has already said it is willing to do.

Davutoðlu underlined that the delay of the report depends on the UN and that Turkey, he said, is not going to “order the UN to announce the report or not,” adding that Turkey will fulfill whatever is required when the UN announces the report. According to Davutoðlu, the report will not be a “jointly approved report” and that there might also be some elements that Turkey won't agree to. “We will unveil our position regarding those [elements],” Davutoðlu added.

Davutoðlu downplayed the importance of the report unless Israel extends an official apology and said Israel already is aware of Turkey's position on the apology, compensation and Turkey's demand to lift the blockade on Gaza.

Davutoðlu underlined Turkey's determination to putting Plan B into play and said that in fact Turkey and Israel agree on many differences, including the apology, but added that Israel stepped back at the last minute due to intra-coalition squabbles while making a political decision. He explained that Turkey has determined a very clear and principled position and that it will also do what is necessary. “[Turkey] will impose sanctions which both Israel and other international parties are aware of,” Davutoðlu vowed.

The Israeli media extensively reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are at odds over whether Israel should offer an official apology to Turkey. Barak, who is touted as the most pro-Turkish minister in the Israeli coalition government, is considering renewing defense exports to Turkey.

The total estimated value of the current military contracts that Turkey has awarded to Israeli companies amounts to $1.8 billion. This figure comprises a significant amount of the two nations' total annual trade volume of $2.6 billion. Turkey had cancelled dozens of military agreements, war games and military projects with Israel following the lethal Israeli raid of the Mavi Marmara in May of last year.

Barak thinks that an official apology to Turkey will halt Turkey's decision to further file lawsuits against Israeli soldiers. Lieberman disagrees, claiming that Turkey will file lawsuits against Israeli soldiers participating in the Mavi Marmara raid if Israel accepts its wrongdoing by extending an apology.

Turkey will support Palestine's UN upgrade even if Israel apologizes

The Turkish foreign minister also said Palestinians' statehood bid in the UN is an issue separate from the Mavi Marmara report and that the flotilla incident is about killing Turkish nationals in international waters, adding that it is the natural right of Turkey to hold Israel accountable. Davutoðlu said Turkey will further look into this no matter what fate Palestinians faces during their statehood bid in the UN.“But our position on the Palestinian issue is also clear. We support Palestine on this issue and we are making every effort for a UN decision in recognition of Palestine,” Davutoðlu stressed. (The Zaman)






=
 
=






Israel installs third Iron Dome battery

by Staff Writers
Jerusalem (AFP) Aug 31, 2011
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_installs_third_Iron_Dome_battery_999.html

Israel on Wednesday installed a third battery of its Iron Dome rocket interceptors, placing it in the southern city of Ashdod, a target of rockets fired from Gaza, the defence minister said.


"Installation of the third battery is part of the national emergency plan which I announced several weeks ago and is a real expression of the protection of Israeli residents from rockets and missiles," Ehud Barak said.

Israel deployed the first battery of the unique multi-million-dollar system on March 27 outside the southern desert city of Beersheva, after it was hit by Grad rockets fired by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

On April 4, the system was also deployed around the southern port city of Ashkelon.

The first of its kind in the world and still at the experimental stage, it is not yet able to provide complete protection, but it has successfully brought down several rockets fired from Gaza.

Designed to intercept rockets and artillery shells fired from a range of between four and 70 kilometres (three and 45 miles), Iron Dome is part of an ambitious multi-layered defence programme to protect Israeli towns and cities.

Two other systems make up the programme -- the Arrow long-range ballistic missile defence system and the so-called David's Sling, or Magic Wand, system, intended to counter medium-range missiles.







=
 
=





:srdot:
:srdot::srdot:
Israel, Iran deploy warships in Red Sea

by Staff Writers
Tel Aviv, Israel (UPI) Aug 31, 2011
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_Iran_deploy_warships_in_Red_Sea_999.html

Israel's dispatch of two corvettes to bolster its naval forces in the Red Sea and Iran's deployment of a submarine and a warship in the same waters have heightened the tensions pervading the Middle East amid political upheaval and rivalries.


The Israelis said their warships were ordered south to patrol off Egypt in response to intelligence reports that more terrorist attacks from Egyptian territory were imminent.

Tehran said the deployment by its 15th Fleet was intended as a mission of "peace and friendship" to "display the capabilities of the Islamic republic of Iran." It would also focus on "fighting piracy."

All these things may be true. But having Israeli and Iranian warships cruising in the same waters, which just happen to be a conduit for Iranian arms smuggled to Egypt destined for the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, raises the prospect, remote though it might be, of a confrontation at sea between these bitter rivals.

In 2010, the Israeli air force and navy intercepted several Iranian arms shipments destined for Iranian-backed Palestinian fighters in Gaza.

And right now, Gaza and the vast desert expanse of the Sinai Peninsula on its western flank is opening up as a new front for Islamist militants, imported al-Qaida veterans and indigenous Bedouin, to attack Israel.

Earlier this month, eight Israelis, five Egyptian army officers and at least 15 infiltrators, including Egyptians, were killed in fighting along the southern end of Israel's border with Sinai.

That bloodletting threatens to remilitarize Israel's southern front, which has been dormant, and unfortified, since the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979.

That was the first such pact between the Jewish state and an Arab adversary and it's been the bedrock of Israel's strategic policy ever since. It gained Egypt large-scale U.S. aid, but most Egyptians never embraced the treaty.

The Feb. 11 downfall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a staunch supporter of the pact, brought with it demands the treaty be scrapped.

Suddenly Sinai, the battleground of four wars between Israel and Egypt between 1948 and 1973, was a hot zone again.

It was made more so because the caretaker Egyptian government lost control over the peninsula.

Under the treaty, Israel returned Sinai, captured in 1967, to Egypt, which agreed to demilitarize the territory. It is allowed to base only a few hundred troops there.

Following the recent clashes, Israel wants the Egyptians to retake control but is loath to allow them to deploy large numbers of troops and armor anywhere near its southern border.

The Israeli military is moving in forces there, security sources say, and tension is high.

In February, after Mubarak was ousted, Cairo allowed two Iranian naval vessels, a frigate and a supply ship, to pass through the Suez Canal into the eastern Mediterranean, where most of Israel's navy is based.

Apart from fueling fears Egypt would end a 32-year rift with the fundamentalist Islamic Republic, that deployment put Iranian ships in the Med for the first time since the shah, an Israeli ally, was overthrown.

The Iranian ships went to the port of Tartus in Syria, Tehran's key Arab ally. There were reports in July that Iran plans to establish a naval base there.

These have not been confirmed, but they have fueled concerns in Israel, which views Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

In the meantime, Iran has accelerated its ballistic missile program. It is believed to have some 200 Shehab-3b missiles operational. These can reach Israel.

On July 18, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards' aerospace division, claimed Iran had test-fired two missiles, with a range of 1,180 miles, into the Indian Ocean earlier this year.

In May, Iran is believed to have deployed one of its three Russian-supplied Type-877 Kilo-class diesel submarines in the Red Sea south of Israel.

The Israelis reportedly keep one of their three German-built Dolphin-class submarines, supposedly capable of firing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, off Iran in the Arabian Sea at all times.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab Spring, the Israeli-Iranian confrontation and the battle against al-Qaida are starting to intersect. That's a potentially explosive combination.






=
 
=



:srdot:
:srdot::srdot:
Thursday, September 01, 2011

Israel: 'UN Go Home': Israel planning for worst, calling for war?

In September, Palestine will be expecting a UN vote to recognize it as a fully-fledged state. But Israel fears the decision may result in uprisings, and has reportedly started arming settlers and training them to face angry Palestinians. But as Paula Slier reports, by preparing for bloodshed, Israelis might actually be calling for it.

Israel: 'UN Go Home': Israel planning for worst, calling for war?



In September, Palestine will be expecting a UN vote to recognize it as a fully-fledged state. But Israel fears the decision may result in uprisings, and has reportedly started arming settlers and training them to face angry Palestinians. But as Paula Slier reports, by preparing for bloodshed, Israelis might actually be calling for it.
 
=








Syria's chemical weapons may land in the lap of Hizbollah

By Anshel Pfeffer, September 1, 2011
http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/53939/syrias-chemical-weapons-may-land-lap-hizbollah

Control of large stockpiles of chemical weapons manufactured and held by the Syrian army is a major concern for Israel following a possible breakdown of control by the Assad regime.


While they have never used them on the battlefield, the Syrians are known to have manufactured, with North Korean and Iranian assistance, large quantities of chemical agents, mainly nerve gas such as Sarin and VX. These are held in a number of locations around the country. The chemicals are placed in artillery shells and stored in heavily guarded storage bases, to be distributed to artillery regiments during wartime.

Syria is the principle supplier and conduit of arms to Hizbollah in Lebanon, and while it is believed that it is yet to supply them with chemical weapons, this could happen if the Assad regime is about to fall or if chaos reigns in Syria following his ousting from power.

Similar developments occurred in Libya in recent months when arms plundered from abandoned army depots found their way to terror groups in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. Hizbollah is already reported to have moved some of the long-range missiles it stores in Syria closer to the Lebanese border.

Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, said last week in an interview with the Wall Street Journal: "We are very concerned about the status of Syria's WMD, including chemical weapons. Together with the US administration, we are watching this situation very carefully."






=
 
=






Hama's judge defects into the ranks of the Syrian opposition

Sep 1, 2011, 6:43 GMT
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...fects-into-the-ranks-of-the-Syrian-opposition

Damascus/Beirut - The attorney general of the central city of Hama has defected to the ranks of the Syrian opposition after reporting killings of protesters inside one of the jails in the city by the Syrian security forces, activists based in Lebanon told the German Press Agency dpa Thursday.


Adnan al-Bakour, who appeared in a video on one of the Syrian opposition websites, said he had resigned because security forces 'killed 72 jailed protesters and activists at Hama's central jail on the eve of the military assault on the city on July 31.'

He said at least 'another 420 people were killed in the operation and were buried in mass graves in public parks.'

In his video remarks, he said 'I, Judge Adnan Mohammad al-Bakkour, declare that I have resigned in protest of the savage regime's practices against peaceful demonstrators.'

Bakour denied Syrian state media reports that he had been kidnapped by armed groups last week.

The official state news agency SANA accused Arab and foreign televisions of reporting false information and ignoring that the Syrian media had been reporting that Bakour was kidnapped by 'armed gangs.'

'The kidnappers forced the attorney general to present false information. The channels have become a partner in the terrorist crimes against innocent Syrian citizens,' the agency quoted Hama governor Anas Naem as saying.

If confirmed, Bakour's resignation would be the first high profile defection since the Syrian uprising started in mid-March.

The United Nations says more than 2,000 civilians have been killed since protests began in mid-March.

Assad has repeatedly blamed the unrest in his country on 'armed terrorist groups.'

Bakour's statement came a day after the London-based Amnesty International reported that 88 protesters were killed in custody in Syria.

'These deaths behind bars are reaching massive proportions, and appear to be an extension of the same brutal disdain for life that we are seeing daily on the streets of Syria,' said Neil Sammonds, Amnesty International's researcher on Syria.






=
 
=






Iran warns against US taking lead in Arab protests

By Agence France-Presse
September 1, 2011, 4:53 pm
http://thedailynewsegypt.com/region/iran-warns-against-us-taking-lead-in-arab-protests.html

TEHRAN: Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday warned against the United States taking "control" of the uprisings that have swept the Arab world, state television reported.


"The events currently taking place in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain and elsewhere are key (events) for Muslim people," the television's website quoted Khamenei as saying.

"If the Muslim nations stand against those who interfere in their internal affairs, these nations will experience progress," he told a group of officials and people.

"But if the world of oppression and world Zionism — including the oppressive regime of the United States — take control (of the movements), the Muslim world will experience major problems for decades," Khamenei said.

Tehran has supported the protests in all Arab countries except Syria, its main Arab ally. It has repeatedly criticized interference by the United States and the West, particularly in Libya but also in Bahrain.






=
 
=







UN expected to release 'tough report' on Iran nuke program

By REUTERS
09/01/2011 16:17
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=236342

VIENNA - The UN's nuclear watchdog will once again highlight concern about possible military aspects to Iran's nuclear activities in its latest quarterly report, due to be submitted to member states in the next few days, diplomats said they believed .


"I expect it will be a bit tougher than the last one. Still a number of outstanding matters related to PMD (possible military dimensions) that Iran refuses to answer," a Western envoy told Reuters on Thursday.

An Iranian effort to show rare openness about its disputed nuclear program is doing little to dispel Western suspicions about Tehran's atomic ambitions, with one Vienna-based envoy dismissing it as just a "charm offensive".

Another diplomat painted a similar picture, saying Tehran had failed to address the IAEA's core concerns.






=
 
=






Iranian nuclear bid could provoke attack: Sarkozy

by Staff Writers
Paris (AFP) Aug 31, 2011
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iranian_nuclear_bid_could_provoke_attack_Sarkozy_999.html

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy warned on Wednesday that Iran's alleged attempts to build long-range missiles and nuclear weapons could lead unnamed countries to launch a pre-emptive attack.

"Its military nuclear and ballistic ambitions constitute a growing threat that may lead to a preventive attack against Iranian sites that would provoke a major crisis that France wants to avoid at all costs," he said.


Sarkozy did not say which country might launch such a strike, but it has been reported that Israel -- perhaps with US support -- has considered bombing Iranian nuclear sites if it believes Tehran is close to building a weapon.

The French leader placed the blame for the crisis on Iran, which insists it has no intention of building a nuclear weapon, and is merely enriching nuclear fuel for medicial research and a domestic atomic energy programme.

"Iran refuses to negotiate seriously," he told an annual meeting of French diplomats. "Iran is carrying out new provocations in response to the challenge from the international community for it to provide a credible response."

Sarkozy said France would work with its allies to build support for tougher international sanctions against Tehran's Islamist regime, in a bid to force it to back down over its enrichment programme.

Tehran currently does its uranium enrichment, the most sensitive part of its programme, at the Natanz facility in central Iran, with plans to divert the 20-percent purification process to a new site near the holy city of Qom.

The UN Security Council has repeatedly ordered Tehran to halt all uranium enrichment until its agency the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is satisfied by of the peaceful nature of its nuclear activities.

But, despite being targeted by four sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to suspend enrichment, Iran remains adamant that it will push ahead and denies Western claims that it seeks to build a nuclear bomb.

This week Iran upped the ante once again, announcing that it had abandoned talks with the international community to negotiate a nuclear fuel swap that would see it forego its own enrichment in return for civilian-level fuel.

Western powers fear that if Iran perfects enrichment technology it could rapidly convert uranium into weapons grade material and thus be considered a "threshold" nuclear power capable of rapidly constructing a bomb.






=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/us-libya-russia-idUSTRE7800WS20110901

Russia recognises Libya's Transitional Council

By Steve Gutterman

MOSCOW | Thu Sep 1, 2011 5:45am EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia recognized Libya's ruling interim council as the country's legitimate authority on Thursday, moving to increase its influence on postwar reconstruction and protect its economic interests in the oil-producing North African nation.

"The Russian Federation recognises the National Transitional Council (NTC) as the current authorities," the Russian Foreign Ministry said on its website www.mid.ru.

Russia, which was critical of NATO's operation in Libya, announced its decision as leaders and envoys from world powers and international bodies gathered in Paris to coordinate Libya's political and economic reconstruction.

Moscow had billions of dollars worth of arms, energy and infrastructure deals with Libya under its deposed leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Russian officials have expressed concern they could be lost in the transition.

"We proceed from the position that all previously agreed treaties and other mutual obligations ... will be implemented in good faith," the Foreign Ministry said.

Russia allowed Western military intervention in Libya to go ahead by abstaining from a U.N. Security Council resolution vote in March, but then repeatedly accused NATO forces carrying out air strikes of overstepping their mandate to protect civilians and of siding with anti-Gaddafi forces in the civil war.

President Dmitry Medvedev, however, joined Western nations in urging Gaddafi to give up power and made clear he could not seek refuge in Russia.

Nonetheless, some in Libya have signaled that the new authorities could slight nations like Russia and China in favor of those that gave more support to Gaddafi's foes.

Russia's representative at the Paris talks, Medvedev's special Africa envoy Mikhail Margelov, said he was confident that would not happen.

"I don't think the new government of Libya will start off by evaluating contracts with Russia on political rather than technical and economic criteria," the Interfax news agency quoted Margelov as saying.

Last week, Medvedev called for talks between Gaddafi's backers and opponents, and suggested that Russia would recognize the NTC if it was able to "unite the country for a new democratic start."

The Foreign Ministry statement urged the council to carry out its "declared reform program, which calls for the development of a new constitution, the holding of general elections and the formation of a government."

Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, warned on Wednesday that unity among anti-Gaddafi forces would not last and said further Western military intervention was likely.

"As soon as the common enemy is defeated, the opposition will unavoidably meet with internal disagreements," Rogozin told Russia Today television.

"And I am certain that at that moment certain Western countries will try to provide themselves with a military presence in order to get control over Libya's oil reserves."

Russian companies Gazprom, Gazprom Neft and Tatneft have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and gas exploration in Libya.

State-run Russian Railways was building a high-speed railway from Sirte to Benghazi on Libya's Mediterranean coast under a 2.2 billion euro ($3 billion) contract awarded during Gaddafi's rule.

(Writing by Steve Gutterman; editing by Thomas Grove and Tim Pearce)

# Gaddafi vows fight as world backs new leaders
Sep 1, 2011

# China top paper warns West to let U.N. lead in Libya
Sep 1, 2011

# Gaddafi called Algerian president: report
Sep 1, 2011

# France unblocks Libya cash, "unaware" of oil
Sep 1, 2011

# World powers, new Libya leaders map out rebuilding
Sep 1, 2011

# Gaddafi said to be in desert town: Libyan military
# World powers, Libya leaders to map rebuilding
# Dinars from heaven as RAF flies in to Libya
# European Union diplomatic team arrives in Libya
# Africa News blog: Has the AU got Libya wrong?
# Video: Africans at risk in Libya
# Slideshow: How the Gaddafis lived

* Factbox: Countries that recognize Libyan rebel council
Tue, Aug 30 2011

Related News

* Gaddafi sons broadcast confusion as battle looms
Wed, Aug 31 2011
* Paris meeting to focus on Libyan politics, economy
Wed, Aug 31 2011
* Police say three bombers behind Chechnya attack
Wed, Aug 31 2011
* Gaddafi family members flee to Algeria without him
Mon, Aug 29 2011

Analysis & Opinion

* Banks face myriad difficulties in trying to return corrupt Gaddafi money
* Where does Libya go from here?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...C7Fa3A?docId=de0b13a371844d46a1473263639c20fb

Yemen: 30 al-Qaida suspects die in US airstrikes


By AHMED AL HAJ, Associated Press – 9 hours ago

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemeni military and medical officials say 30 al-Qaida suspects have been killed in U.S. airstrikes and clashes with Yemeni soldiers in al-Qaida-held cities in the south.

A military official said that the United States bombed al-Qaida positions Wednesday and Thursday, which militants had seized taking advantage of the political turmoil in the country. Yemen has seen mass protests against longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The airstrikes freed a Yemeni military unit besieged in southeast Abyan for several weeks by al-Qaida militants.

A medical official says four Yemeni military officers were also killed in the clashes Wednesday and Thursday. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to the press.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles

* Fighting in Southern Yemen Kills 15 Militants, 3 Soldiers
Voice of America - 2 hours ago
* 30 al-Qaeda militants reported killed in US strikes in Yemen
Monsters and Critics.com - 6 hours ago
* Yemeni Jihadist Reports Attack on Yemeni Defense Minister
SITE Intelligence Group (subscription) - 1 day ago

-----------

Posted for fair use.......
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...-Kills-15-Militants-3-Soldiers-128897743.html

September 01, 2011
Fighting in Southern Yemen Kills 15 Militants, 3 Soldiers

VOA News

Yemeni authorities say fighting between Yemeni troops and al-Qaida-linked militants in the country's south killed at least 18 people Wednesday and Thursday.

Western news agencies quote Yemeni security officials, medics and a source close to the insurgents as saying the dead include at least 15 militants and three government soldiers. They say the battles happened around the city of Zinjibar, which the militants seized in May, taking advantage of political chaos in the country.

Yemeni officials repeatedly have said government troops are closing in on militant strongholds in Abyan province, whose capital is Zinjibar. But, the Yemeni military has faced strong resistance from the militants in months of fighting. The officials said Thursday Yemeni forces have broken a militant siege around a military unit on the outskirts of Zinjibar. There was no independent confirmation of the claim.

Yemen has been plagued by political unrest since February, when opposition activists began staging frequent mass protests to demand an immediate end to the autocratic rule of longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The president has been in Saudi Arabia since being severely wounded in a June 3 bomb attack on his Sana'a compound. He has vowed to lead a process of political reform and hold a new presidential election.

It is not clear when or if he will return to Yemen.

Some information for this report was provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well here's another tangle to the web.....

For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/0...unds-chemicals-en-route-to-mexico-1036266652/

U.S. Border Protection Intercepts 520 Pounds of Chemicals En Route to Mexico

By Edmund DeMarche

Published September 01, 2011 | FoxNews.com

A recent U.S. drug bust shows that trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border is a two-way street.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in Los Angeles said Thursday they intercepted 520 pounds of a chemical used in illegal drugs like methamphetamine and ecstasy -- contraband caught not while it was coming into the United States from Mexico but while it was traveling south out of the U.S.

The meth component was being sent from China to drug traffickers in Mexico.

The chemical, methylamine hydrochloride, was discovered in August at an air cargo facility at Los Angeles International Airport, the agency said. Judging by the shipment's size, it could have produced 330 pounds of the drug methamphetamine.
Related Video

DEA Busts Mexican Drug Ring in Utah

Meth operation halted by federal agents

It is hard to quantify how much money that methamphetamine could have fetched in the U.S., but a Drug Enforcement Agency representative estimated the street value between $6.6 million and $16 million.

A spokesman from border protection said Mexican drug cartels have been growing desperate in recent months due to the increased enforcement on the U.S. southern border.

"This is a significant reflection of drug cartels getting frustrated because the traditional way of getting drugs in and out of the U.S. are not working," Jaime Ruiz, the spokesman, told FoxNews.com.

To be sure, border protection used the recent interception as an example of its widening reach at airports and seaports nationwide.

Todd C. Owen, a border protection field director in Los Angeles, called the interception a "fine example of the behind-the-scenes hard work" of the agency's officers to keep these chemicals from reaching drug trafficking organizations.

The eight drums of the chemical were discovered on Aug. 12. The agency sent the powder to a laboratory that identified the chemical.

The chemical has legitimate industrial applications in pharmaceutical products, but suppliers are subject to regulations and control measures, the statement said.

In August, authorities seized gamma-Butyrolactone at the airport. The chemical is used when manufacturing gamma-Hydroxybutrate, or better known as the date-rape drug, The Los Angeles Times reported.

That shipment, too, was traced back to China, according to the report.

Mexico is the main source of methamphetamine in the United States. The drug has also become a scourge in Mexico's northern border cities like Tijuana, across from San Diego, and Ciudad Juarez, across from El Paso, Texas, The Associated Press reported.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I figured I should add this to the thread for archival purposes.......
________

stuff going on in Panama

I just had a conversation with my daughter who lives in Panama. She was surprised to hear that I hadn't heard anything on the news here about what has been going on there. She says the country is in an uproar over the things President Martinelli is doing there..including firing politicians he...
Started by lisa‎, Yesterday 11:12 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?389629-stuff-going-on-in-Panama
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
If this is correct the PLAN not only breached international norms, but IMHO also set the groundwork for more "problems" for itself in the future.....
____________
For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/chinese-warship-confronts-indian-navy-vessel/20110901.htm

Rediff.com » News » 'Chinese warship confronts Indian navy vessel'
'Chinese warship confronts Indian navy vessel'
September 01, 2011 12:21 IST

A Chinese warship confronted an Indian naval vessel shortly after it left Vietnamese waters in late July in the first such reported encounter between the navy's of the two countries in the disputed South China Sea.

The unidentified Chinese warship demanded that India's [ Images ] INS Airawat, an amphibious assault vessel, identify itself and explain its presence in the South China Sea, Financial Times reported.

The London-based paper said that the Indian warship was in international water after completing a scheduled port call in Vietnam. It termed the actions of the Chinese warship as the latest example of Beijing's [ Images ] assertiveness which had irked India and Vietnam.

China claimed that South China Sea in its entirety, rejecting claims by other nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan over the resource rich region.

The paper said that Vietnamese foreign ministry has acknowledged that the Indian warship had visited the country from July 19-22, but said it had no information about the incident.

Financial Times said that Chinese defence and foreign ministries declined comment as did the Indian government.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] recently condemned acts of intimidation in the international waters in an apparent reference to mounting tensions in the South China Sea.

A Pentagon [ Images ] report last week had said China was rapidly building up its surface and underwater naval capabilities as it places growing priority on securing shipping lanes and mineral rich areas in South China Sea.

© Copyright 2011 PTI. All rights reserved.

_______________

For links in text please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/nukes-against-india-china-rubbishes-us-charge/20110831.htm

Rediff.com » News » 'Nukes against India': China rubbishes US charge
'Nukes against India': China rubbishes US charge
August 31, 2011 21:10 IST

Dismissing the recent Pentagon [ Images ] report that the People's Liberation Army has deployed nuclear capable missiles against India [ Images ] as "unfounded" and "contrary to facts", China on Wednesday said the claims were made with "ulterior motives".
Click here!

"Such comments are unfounded. Both China and India have always been committed to developing strategic cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity", a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said in a statement to PTI in Beijing [ Images ].

"For many years, through the joint efforts made by two sides, China and India border areas have maintained peace and tranquility on the whole," the spokesperson said when asked to comment on the Pentagon's report.

The Pentagon report, titled 'Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China' had said China has deployed more advanced and survivable solid-fuel nuclear capable CSS-5 MRBM missiles against India as a 'deterrent posture'.

"Such comments are contrary to the fact and have been made with ulterior motives", the brief communication said without elaborating.

This is the first time that China has reacted to the specific charge made by Pentagon on August 25 though Beijing has already protested to US voicing "strong dissatisfaction" and "firm opposition" to the report as a whole.

Earlier on August 26, Chinese defence ministry, without making any reference to missiles along with Indian border, had said the Pentagon report does not hold water as it severely distorted the facts, without making any reference to missiles.

The report had said that PLA has replaced liquid-fuelled, nuclear-capable CSS-2 IRBMs with more advanced and survivable solid-fuelled CSS-5 MRBM systems to strengthen its deterrent posture relative to India.

It also said Beijing is pumping in huge investments on border infrastructure developments laying more roads and rail network along the Sino-India border.

© Copyright 2011 PTI. All rights reserved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source......
Posted for fair use......
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MI01Ak01.html

Middle East
Sep 1, 2011
Iran makes a u-turn on Syria
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

After months of tacitly echoing Damascus' dismissal of the growing political opposition as armed gangs and foreign agents, Tehran has adjusted its policy by referring to the "legitimate demands" of protesters and the need for the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad to respect "people's right to elect and achieve freedom", to quote Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in a recent interview with an Arab network.

Simultaneously, in the wake of last week's European Union sanctions on the elite al-Qods branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, accusing it of providing material support to Damascus to suppress the ongoing revolt, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Ramin Mehmanparast, has categorically denied the EU's accusation, branding it "unfounded and aiming at blaming other countries".

At least 88 people, including 10 children, have died in detention in Syria since unrest broke out in March, according to Amnesty International. Majority of the victims were tortured or ill-treated, Amnesty said this week. At least 2,200 people have been killed since the start of the uprising, according to the United Nations.

"Iran's reading of the crisis situation in Syria has turned a leaf toward political realism, that is, the knowledge and realization that Assad's regime may crumble in the not too distant future and Iran should not be hooked to a sinking ship," said a Tehran University political science professor who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity.

He added, however, that Iran's ruling elite was still optimistic that with "due changes and reforms", the embattled Syrian government could survive and "in essence Iran has not advocated anything that President Assad himself has not already accepted in principle".

The million dollar question, though, is whether or not Assad's reform initiatives, such as adopting a more liberal press law, reflect a remedy too late, in light of the climbing death toll in the streets of various cities and the likely prospect of the capital city's imminent infection by the virus of popular protests.

Behind Tehran's decision to alter its approach to the Syrian political crisis are a number of important regional as well as internal considerations. As masters of survival who have successfully weathered the torrents of war, armed opposition and mass protests over the past 32 years, the leaders of the Islamic Republic are political pragmatists who rarely allow the rather thick lens of ideology or dogma to obliterate their grasp of political dynamics. They prefer to be ahead rather than behind political curves.

In essence, that means a dualistic approach toward Syria from now on, one track being in league with Turkey and other regional powers pushing for democratic reform, the other still in sync with alliance politics dictating discrete support for Assad's regime and opposing any Libyan-style foreign intervention.

According to various media reports in Iran, last week's Tehran visit by the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, was an important catalyst in shifting Iran's policy away from a blind support for Assad and in favor of a more nuanced approach that emphasizes genuine political reforms.

There are those in Tehran who think that Iran has decided to move closer to its Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf by distancing itself from the moribund Assad regime, which may experience serious cracks in its political, administrative and military institutions in the immediate future as a result of the growing mass discontent.

In turn, this raises a fundamental question: how valuable is Syria's alliance to Iran today, and is it worth risking a major cognitive dissonance, in light of Iran's overt support for the Arab Spring?

Indeed, the instant result of Iran's new approach toward Syria is that it closes the previous gap, between Iran's support for political transformations in other parts of the Arab world and Iran's non-support for the similar process underway in Syria, thus allowing Tehran to declare that it pursues a consistent and logical policy with respect to the current Middle East upheavals.

Perhaps equally important, the new Tehran policy toward Syria is bound to reward the regime by also bringing Iran and Turkey closer together, in light of Ankara's recent announcement that it has "lost confidence" in the Assad regime. (See Iran draws the line with Turkey on Syria Asia Times Online, July 26, 2011.)

Iran's primary concern is the vital Persian Gulf, and despite all the talk of "strategic depth" as a result of the alliance with Syria, the principal concern of Iran is to improve its standing in the immediate region that has vast geo-economic value.

No longer menaced by Iraq, as it was during the bloody eight-year war during the 1980s, Iran is fundamentally less beholden to Syria acting as a "vital bridge to the Arab world", particularly since the gates of diplomacy with the Arab world's biggest power, Egypt, have begun to slowly open, given the prospect of normalization between Tehran and Cairo.

In addition, Tehran's leaders have not forgotten recent statements from Damascus of support for Saudi intervention in Bahrain, in the name of Arab nationalism, which truly surprised and even dismayed Tehran.

"There has always been a nagging concern that Assad's regime would sell out Iran in no time if the price was right, but that never happened and Assad we may recall solidly supported Iran during the upheaval of 2009 following the presidential elections," says the Tehran professor.

As a result, Tehran has nuanced itself rather than come out too strongly against Damascus, thus protecting itself from the charge of hypocrisy and double standards, this while harvesting the gained ability to push for reform in neighboring Bahrain, where the simmering protests have met the iron fist of Saudi-backed official repression. Said otherwise, Iran can now have a greater say in Bahraini affairs, by opting to recognize the legitimacy of the Syrian opposition.

But, as with any major policy shift, there are also unintended consequences, such as a cooling in relations with Damascus in the event that Assad survives. Damascus would then look at Iran as a half-loyal friend that cannot be fully trusted.

There is, in other words, an inevitable element of risk in Iran's new policy that could adversely affect its regional fortunes, depending on the dynamic of political change in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. He is author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) and his latest book, Looking for rights at Harvard, is now available.

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MI02Df02.html

South Asia
Sep 2, 2011
More power to Pakistan's jihadis
By Amir Mir

ISLAMABAD - While India and Pakistan have resumed their stalled dialogue process to improve ties, the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM - Army of the Prophet Mohammad), one of the deadliest anti-India militant groups operating from Pakistani soil and fighting against the Indian security forces in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has restarted its propaganda, recruitment and fund-raising activities in Pakistan.

This places at considerable risk the peace process between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors.

On August 20, the Pakistani English daily The Express Tribune quoted senior intelligence officials and JeM activists saying that the group was in the process of regaining its traditional physical and financial strength that had dissipated during the 10-year ban imposed by the Pervez Musharraf regime.

According to them, the Jaish, as it is also known, is working on a plan to reach out to activists who abandoned the organization after it came on the security agencies' radar in the wake of a 2001 fidayeen (suicide) attack on the Indian parliament.

JeM is trying to consolidate avenues for fundraising, individual charity from within Pakistan as well as donations from Gulf states that were partially blocked during the ban by the Pakistani authorities.

As the first step, the charity wing of the Jaish, the al-Rehmat Trust, which was run by Allah Baksh until his death last year, has been revived. The trust is trying to capitalize on the goodwill it once enjoyed when it fought in Afghanistan along with the Taliban before the regime was driven out of power by United States-led forces.

According to Maulana Ashfaq Ahmed, the coordinator of the al-Rehmat Trust, fundraising activities are in full swing in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, especially in the holy month of Ramadan that has just ended. He said offices of the trust were being re-established all over the provinces, adding that government agencies had never obstructed the trust's fundraising in the two provinces.

The Al-Rehmat Trust is being made functional despite the fact that the US Treasury Department sanctioned it on November 4, 2010, as the "operational front" for the JeM.

Almost a month later, on December 2, the Treasury tagged the JeM as a "Pakistan-based terrorist organization". However, as things stand, all banned publications of the group such as al-Qalam, Muslim Ummah, Zarb-e-Momin and Islam are still being printed by the state. Even a cursory glance at JeM-run newspapers indicates that the "war" in J&K is still going on and the martyrs of the Jaish are routinely being received back from the Indian-administered part of J&K.

By allowing the JeM to stage a comeback, the establishment seems to have forgotten that British-Pakistani terror suspect Rashid Rauf, who escaped from the custody of the police in Rawalpindi in 2007 while undergoing a court trial, was a close relative of Maulana Masood Azhar - leader and the founder of the Jaish - and had planned to blow up trans-Atlantic planes at Heathrow Airport in London.

Rauf was reportedly killed in a US Predator drone strike in the North Waziristan tribal area on November 22, 2008, along with a senior al-Qaeda leader. Even today, senior security officials concede that JeM activists are working in tandem with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the Haqqani militant network in North Waziristan in their ongoing battle against "forces of the infidel" on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The Jaish was launched by jihadi cleric Azhar in February 2000 shortly after his release from an Indian jail in exchange for hostages on board an Indian plane that was hijacked by Kashmiri militants in December 1999.

Although Azhar was arrested in India in February 1994, his name first hit the headlines following the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC 814. After being hijacked, allegedly at the behest of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the plane was taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan, which was under the control of the Taliban at that time. The hijackers were led by Azhar's younger brother.

Once the Indian authorities handed over Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed Omar Saeed and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar to the hijackers, they fled to Pakistani territory. Shortly after his release, Azhar appeared in the southern port city of Karachi to address an estimated 10,000 people.

He announced the launching of the JeM with the prime objective of fighting Indian security forces in J&K and proclaimed, "I have come here because this is my duty to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until they destroy India and the United States."

The Deobandi school of thought formed the key religious and ideological base for the JeM, just like the Taliban. Before being arrested in India, Azhar was the ideologue of another militant organization, the Harkat ul-Ansar (HuA) that was banned in 1997 by the US State Department due to its alleged association with al-Qaeda.

Therefore, the Jaish is ideologically and in terms of organizational links an extension of HuA, which renamed itself as the Harkat ul-Mujahideen in 1998, a year after being banned.

The formation of the Jaish was widely supported by Pakistan's top Islamic Deobandi scholars, especially Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of the Jamia Binori in Karachi, who was known for his pro-Taliban leanings and Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi, who was the chief commander of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan at that time. While Shamzai became the chief ideologue of the Jaish, Ludhianvi was made its supreme leader and Azhar the chief commander.

The Taliban movement in Afghanistan was launched by students of the Jamia Binori network of 9,000 religious madrassas (seminaries) across Pakistan. Azhar knit the ties stronger when he toured Kandahar after his release to secure the blessings of Taliban amir Mullah Omar for launching the Jaish.

It is said that by launching the JeM, Azhar actually wanted to become the ultimate leader of Deobandi pan-Islamist militants in the Indian-administered part of J&K.

While delivering speeches at various cities and towns in Pakistan after the launch of the group, Azhar said the JeM would eliminate then-Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In its fight against India, he said, his organization would not only liberate Jammu and Kashmir, but also take control of the Babri Masjid, a disputed mosque in the state of Uttar Pradesh in the Indian heartland.

The JeM carried out its first terrorist activity in J&K on April 19, 2000, hardly two months after its formation, when one of its members drove a hijacked car loaded with explosives into the main gate of the Badami Bagh cantonment. The deadly strike marked the first suicide bomb attack in the 13-year-old history of the Kashmir militancy.

Since then, the Jaish has largely confined its operations within Kashmir and the only recorded instance of its operations outside J&K had been the December 13, 2001, attack on the parliament building in New Delhi. Earlier, on October 10, 2001, hardly a month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Azhar renamed the Jaish as Tehrik-ul-Furqa.

The move was motivated by reports that the US State Department was contemplating to declare it a foreign terrorist outfit because of its involvement in the October 1, 2001, explosion outside the J&K legislative assembly building in Srinagar. Despite being renamed, the State Department designated the Tehrik-ul-Furqa as a foreign terrorist organization in December 2001.

However, within no time, Azhar got his outfit registered under the new name of Khudam-ul-Islam, (Servants of Islam) although it is still operationally known as the Jaish-e-Mohammad.

Azhar was arrested by Pakistani authorities on December 29, 2001, after pressure from India and the United States following the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament that literally brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war. But the Lahore High Court ordered his release on December 14, 2002.

Azhar then fell out of favor with his powerful spy masters after the December 2003 twin suicide attacks targeting General Pervez Musharraf's presidential cavalcades in Rawalpindi, in which one of the bombers (Jameel) was later identified as a JeM activist. Azhar tried to clear his position by maintaining that the suicide bomber had already defected to the Jaish's dissident group, the Jamaatul Furqaan, led by Maulana Abdul Jabbar.

But the Jaish was banned by the Musharraf regime and Azhar was made to go underground in the wake of Washington's allegations about his alleged al-Qaeda links and because of the American belief that he, along with some other jihadi leaders, had been providing logistical support to fugitive al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

Prior to that, Azhar had been among the establishment's most trusted jihadi leaders, one of those who walked the credibility tightrope gingerly. One season he would be mouthing emotional anti-India rhetoric, sending his militants across the Line of Control to wage "jihad" in J&K; the next would see him lying low and smoldering.

In return, the Jaish chief used to receive the patronage of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus, both financially and morally. But all this changed towards the end of 2003 when Azhar was asked to stop his activities.

In July 2005, British intelligence agencies investigating the suicide bombings in London informed their Pakistan counterparts that two of the four suicide bombers - Shehzad Tanweer and Siddique Khan - had met Osama Nazir, a JeM suicide trainer, in Faisalabad, Pakistan, a few months before the attacks.

Information provided by Nazir after his arrest revealed that Tanweer had stayed at another extremist Sunni religious school, Jamia Manzurul Islami, situated in cantonment area of Lahore, and being run by its principal, Pir Saifullah Khalid, who is considered close to Azhar.

In 2007, the slowing down of the India-Pakistan peace process by Delhi made the Musharraf regime reactivate the Jaish to relaunch cross-border offensives in J&K.

The group was reorganized under the command of Mufti Abdul Rauf, the younger brother of Azhar who had proved his mettle by carrying out successful militant operations inside J&K. Rauf was allowed to establish a transit camp in Rawalpindi for recruits traveling from southern Punjab to the training camp at Kohat, a medium-sized town in central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

It was decided that Rauf would supervise the JeM training camps as the acting chief of the group while Azhar would continue to manage organizational affairs while remaining underground.

In December 2008, almost a week after the Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistani authorities placed restrictions on Azhar's movement by confining him to his multi-storeyed concrete compound in the Model Town area of Bahawalpur, housing 700 armed men.

The action was taken in the wake of the Indian government's demand to hand over three persons to Delhi - Azhar, Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. The Indian demand said that Azhar was wanted for his alleged involvement in the 2001 attacks on the Indian parliament.

The Indian demand was followed by Pakistani media reports that Azhar had abandoned his Jaish headquarters in the Model Town and temporarily shifted his base to South Waziristan in the wake of the mounting Indian pressure for his extradition.

In the second week of April 2009, Azhar was declared officially missing from Pakistan after Interior Minister Rehman Malik claimed that he was not in Pakistan and that Islamabad would not provide protection and refuge to any criminal.

However, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee ridiculed Pakistan for denying the "obvious presence" of the Jaish chief, saying: "India had several times got different information from Pakistan on Masood Azhar and it was not unusual to hear such denials from Pakistani officials."

However, well-informed militant circles say Azhar has already returned to Bahawalpur and resumed his activities by reactivating the Jaish headquarters in the Model Town area.

The JeM nerve center openly runs a grand religious seminary - Usman-o-Ali - where extremist interpretation of Islam is taught to hundreds of children every year.

International media recently expressed fears that the headquarters of the jihadi group could contain underground bunkers and tunnels, as had been the case with the Lal Masjid-run Jamia Fareedia and Jamia Hafsa schools in Islamabad, which were eventually destroyed in a massive military operation carried out by the Pakistan army in July 2007.

It was further reported that on the inside walls of the JeM headquarters jihadi inscriptions are painted, including a warning to Hindus and Jews, with a picture of Delhi's historic Red Fort, suggesting they will conquer the city.

The resurgence of the Jaish-e-Mohammad shows that the Pakistani establishment remains deeply embroiled with its jihadi proxies and continues to treat them as the civilian face of the Pakistan army.

Under these circumstances, neither Islamabad nor the wider region can hope for any possibilities of peace unless the Pakistani establishment decides to abandon employing terrorism as an instrument of state policy in India to advance its so-called geostrategic agenda in the region.

Amir Mir is a senior Pakistani journalist and the author of several books on the subject of militant Islam and terrorism, the latest being The Bhutto murder trail: From Waziristan to GHQ.

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
When this all boils over it will definitely get very ugly..........
_____________

For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2394/salt-spain-radical-islamism

Spanish Town Becoming "New Mecca of the Most Radical Islamism"

by Soeren Kern
September 1, 2011 at 5:00 am


The municipality of Salt, a town near Barcelona where Muslim immigrants now make up 40% of the population, has approved a one-year ban on the construction of new mosques. It is the first ban of its kind in Spain.

The moratorium follows public outrage over plans to build a massive Salafi mosque that is being financed by Saudi Arabia. Salafism is a branch of revivalist Islam that calls for restoring past Muslim glory by forcibly re-establishing an Islamic empire (Caliphate) across the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe such as Spain, which Salafists view as a Muslim state that must be reconquered for Islam.

Much of Spain was ruled by Muslim conquerors from 711 and 1492; Salafists believe that the territories the Muslims lost during the Spanish Reconquista still belong to them, and that they have a right to return and establish their rule there – a belief based on the Islamic precept that territories once occupied by Muslims must forever remain under Muslim domination.

Sacrificing common sense on the altar of multiculturalism, the previous Socialist government in Salt secretly gave permission to the Salafi Muslims to build the mega-mosque, which, with four stories comprising 1,000 square meters (11,000 square feet) accompanied by towering minarets, would be the largest Salafi mosque in Europe.

The secret deal was only discovered after the Socialists were ejected from power in May 2011. Angry natives began pressuring the new town council – now ruled by the center-right Convergència i Unió (CiU) party – to prevent the mosque from being built. On August 24, the council approved the one-year ban on the building of new mosques in order to provide "some time for reflection."

The Salafi mega-mosque may still be built, however, because the construction permit was issued before the non-retroactive moratorium took effect. The building permit, which is valid for a period of six months, expires at the end of September 2011.

Muslim radicals associated with two Spain-based Salafi groups, Al Hilal Islamic Cultural Association and Magrebins per la Pau Association, are now asking groups in Saudi Arabia to advance the funds needed to begin construction of the mosque within the next few weeks, before the building permit expires.

The Catalan nationalist party Plataforma per Catalunya (PxC) – which opposes not only the mosques but also Muslim immigration – attempted to hold an anti-mosque protest in Salt on August 27. PxC spokeswoman María Osuna said the party, which has some 70,000 active members, did not want Salt to become "the new Mecca of the most radical Islamism."

But provincial law enforcement authorities banned the PxC demonstration after learning that Muslims from across Spain were organizing a counter-demonstration in the town on the same day. Fearing the risk of violence, the provincial interior ministry issued a statement saying that the anti-mosque demonstration would be banned because it could "hurt the religious feelings of the majority of Muslims in Salt." Around 12,000 of Salt's 30,000 inhabitants are Muslim immigrants.

Salt and other towns in the north-eastern region of Catalonia have become ground zero for Salafi Islam in Spain. The movement is based in the Catalonian city of Tarragona, but Salafi Islam also has a major presence in the municipalities of Badalona, Calafell, Cunit, El Vendrel, Lleida, Mataró, Reus, Roda de Bara, Rubí, Salt, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Sant Boi, Torredembarra, Valls, and Vilanova, not to mention Barcelona, which hosts five Salafi mosques.

Salafi preachers in Catalonia teach that Islamic Sharia law is above Spanish civil law. They also promote the establishment of a parallel Muslim society in Spain. Salafi imams have set up Sharia tribunals to judge the conduct of both practicing and non-practicing Muslims in Spain and to punish those who fail to comply.

The leaders of Salafi Islam in Salt are the "Caliph" Mohammed Attaouil and his right hand man, the cleric Rachid Menda. They are two of the most effective anti-Western propagandists in Spain, and have been able to create a Salafi stronghold in Catalonia by employing the twin strategies of spreading fear and proselytizing.

In December 2009, for example, nine Salafists kidnapped a woman, tried her for adultery based on Sharia law, and condemned her to death. The woman just barely escaped execution by fleeing to a local police station.

In January 2010, a Salafi imam in Tarragona was arrested for forcing a 31-year-old Moroccan woman to wear a hijab head covering. The imam had threatened to burn down the woman's house for being and "infidel" because she works outside of the home, drives an automobile and has non-Muslim friends. Bowing to political pressure to prevent "a social conflict," a court in Tarragona on August 2 absolved the imam of all wrongdoing.

Much of the Salafi proselytizing occurs by means of conferences which are attended by thousands of followers, many of whom also provide the movement with an important source of financial support. Speakers at the conferences often include Salafi luminaries from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. As many of the latter have European passports, they do not require visas to enter Spain and are free to move about the country as they please.

Salafi conferences in Spain are almost always scheduled during Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter with the objective of directly challenging the majority culture. Conference attendees are warned that Muslims should not integrate into the "corrupt" Western society.

The Madrid-based ABC newspaper estimates that there are more than 100 Salafi mosques in Spain where radical imams preach to the faithful each Friday. The newspaper says some imams have established religious police that harass and attack those who do not comply with Islamic law. ABC also reports that during 2010, more than 10 Salafi conferences were held in Spain, compared to only one in 2008.

From Catalonia, Salafists are planting roots in other parts of Spain, including the Basque Country, Madrid, and Valladolid as well as all along the Mediterranean coast. In Guadalajara in central Spain, hooded Salafists have assaulted at least six native Spaniards with rocks since July. Local citizens' groups are protesting the opening of a Salafi mosque in the city.

The mayor of Salt, Jaume Torramadé, says Muslim immigrants in his town have become noticeably more radicalized in recent years. In an interview with RAC1 radio, Torramadé told listeners: "A few years ago, the Maghreb women were more westernized, but nowadays one sees much less of that. The large numbers of Muslim immigrants in Salt have attracted imams who are enforcing conduct and dress codes. Muslim women used to wear blue jeans, but now they cover their hair. These imams are not promoting coexistence."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Is it just me or does this article look like a sounding board..........
_____________

For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Amer...public-warming-to-US-military-aid-in-drug-war

Mexican public warming to US military aid in drug war?


Although a broad majority of Mexicans still oppose US troop support to maintain law and order in Mexico, a new survey indicates a growing percentage of the Mexican public support US assistance.

By Sara Miller Llana, Staff writer / September 1, 2011
Mexico City

Since the days of the Mexican-American War, US intentions south of the border are regarded with the highest degrees of suspicion. Today, as Mexico struggles under a barrage of violence related to drug trafficking, the idea of American military assistance is anathema to the public.

But that might be starting to change. A majority still opposes such a scenario. But according to a Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project survey released Wednesday, that opposition is shrinking. Of Mexicans surveyed, 38 percent favor US troop help today, up from 26 percent in 2010.

Seventy-four percent say they welcome US help to train police and the military, and 64 percent support more money and weapons for Mexican authorities.

IN PICTURES: Mexico's drug war

Those changing views have not registered among politicians in Mexico, where the US stepping too hard is always an opportunity to appeal to the electorate.

Case and point is the brouhaha unleashed after the New York Times published an article in early August about US intelligence officers operating south of the border to help combat traffickers with the cooperation of the government.

Mexican opposition Senator Ricardo Monreal Avila put it bluntly to the local press: "Since the days of Santa Anna we have not had such a sell-out and unpatriotic government,” he said. Illegal, unacceptable, a violation of the constitution – the accusations went on.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon faced tough questions from his opponents after the piece was published, but one theme always binds the ruling party to the rest of Mexico: pointing a finger at the US for its role in Mexican violence, because of its guns industry and insatiable appetite for illegal drugs.

Most recently that sentiment was expressed by President Calderon in the wake of the casino fire that tragically killed 52 people in the industrial city of Monterrey.

Sitting next to the world's biggest drug consumer and biggest global arms vendor, he said, is part of the tragedy that Mexico is living. "You, too, are responsible," Calderon said of the US, upon calling for three days of national mourning in Mexico.

They are words he uses often, but even they might be less appealing these days, according to the new Pew research, based on 800 face-to-face interviews between March 22 and April 7. Today Mexicans are placing equal blame on both countries for violence here (61 percent of Mexicans blame both nations, up from 51 percent in 2009 and 2010). Eighteen percent of those surveyed said the US is mostly to blame, compared to 16 percent faulting Mexico. Last year that gap was much bigger (27 percent versus 14 percent).

Mexicans have grown weary of the mounting death toll in their nation. Less than half say the government is making progress, but calls to take the military off the streets are unlikely to go very far. An overwhelming majority continues to support the use of the army (83 percent).

And while reports of Mexicans fleeing to the US to escape violence are increasingly circulated, those surveyed do not think life is better in the US – only 44 percent hold that view, down from 57 percent in 2009. Sixty-one percent say they would not move to the US if they had the means. The margin of sampling error is 4.5 percentage points.

IN PICTURES: Mexico's drug war

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.
Related stories

* Mexico replaces attorney general in drug-war shift
* Can Mexico's Calderón stop the killings?
* Mexico's Calderón popular, despite massive protests about his drug strategy
 

Marthanoir

TB Fanatic
A Breaking News banner just came up on Sky News,

"Turkish Foreign Minister says Military agreements with Israel suspended"
"Turkey has expelled Israeli Ambassador over Gaza blockade dispute"
 

PresterJohn

Membership Revoked
So, Shakey,

When are any of your perfect storms going to hit land?

And, as for you, when are you going to finish this game?
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
A Breaking News banner just came up on Sky News,

"Turkish Foreign Minister says Military agreements with Israel suspended"
"Turkey has expelled Israeli Ambassador over Gaza blockade dispute"

For links see article source......
Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html

Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and ETHAN BRONNER
Published: September 1, 2011

* comments (189)

UNITED NATIONS — A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.

The report, expected to be released Friday, also found that when Israeli commandos boarded the main ship, they faced “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection. But the report called the force “excessive and unreasonable,” saying that the loss of life was unacceptable and that the Israeli military’s later treatment of passengers was abusive.

The 105-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, was completed months ago. But its publication was delayed several times as Turkey and Israel sought to reconcile their deteriorating relationship and perhaps avoid making the report public. In reactions from both governments included in the report, as well as in interviews, each objected to its conclusions. Both said they believed that the report, which was intended to help mend relations, would instead make reconciliation harder.

Turkey is particularly upset by the conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade is in keeping with international law and that its forces have the right to stop Gaza-bound ships in international waters, which is what happened in the 2010 episode. That conclusion oversteps the mandate of the four-member panel appointed by the United Nations secretary general and is at odds with other United Nations decisions, Turkey argued.

The report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law.

The Foreign Ministries in Turkey and Israel declined to comment publicly on the report, saying they preferred to wait for its official release. No one was available to comment in the office of the United Nations spokesman.

Israel considers the report to be a rare vindication for it in the United Nations. A United Nations Security Council statement at the time assailed the loss of life, and Israel faced widespread international condemnation. It thought that by offering to negotiate an agreement with Turkey that would stop the report’s publication, Turkish officials might soften their position.

But the two countries’ negotiations, which focused on some kind of apology from Israel and compensation for the victims — eight Turks and an American of Turkish descent — ended in failure. Israel says it is willing to express regret and pay compensation. But the Turks want a full apology. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said he believed that apologizing would demoralize Israeli citizens and broadcast a message of weakness. Aides said he might reconsider at a later date if the Turks eased their demands.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said an apology and compensation would not be sufficient to return Turkey’s ambassador to Tel Aviv. Israel also has to end its naval blockade of Gaza, he insisted.

The report does recommend that Israel make “an appropriate statement of regret” and pay compensation, but the Turks say that formula does not express sufficient remorse.

The United Nations investigation into the events on the ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was sailing under a Turkish flag and was the largest of six vessels that were commandeered by Israeli commandos on May 31, 2010, was led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand. He was aided by Álvaro Uribe, a former president of Colombia, along with one representative from Israel and another from Turkey.

The report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza.

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

The report is hard on the flotilla, asserting that it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” It said that while a majority of the hundreds of people aboard the six vessels had no violent intention, that could not be said of the I.H.H. Humanitarian Relief Foundation, the Turkish aid group that primarily organized the flotilla. It said, “There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly I.H.H.”

It also said that the Turkish government tried to persuade the organizers to avoid an encounter with Israeli forces, but that “more could have been done.”

Regarding the boarding of the ship, the Palmer committee said Israel should have issued warnings closer to the moment of action and should have first turned to nonviolent options.

The report assailed Israel for the way in which the nine passengers were killed and others were injured. “Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel,” it says. The report does, however, acknowledge that once on board the commandos had to defend themselves against violent attack. The report also criticizes Israel’s subsequent treatment of the passengers, saying it “included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.”

Like so many elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the events on the Mavi Marmara produced two competing narratives, each full of self-justification and contempt for the other.

An official Israeli investigation found not only that Israel’s naval blockade was legal but that everything done by Israel, from the actions of its commandos to the treatment of the passengers afterward, was honorable and appropriate. The flotilla organizers, it said, included 40 members of a “hard-core group” who were not properly checked before boarding in Turkey.

A Turkish investigation came to precisely the opposite conclusion. It asserted that the blockade was illegal in all aspects, amounting to collective punishment of the Palestinians of Gaza. It said all of the people on board were civilians, all had been checked out and were unarmed and therefore subject to protection from any invasion under international humanitarian law.

The Turks also concluded that Israeli commandos used live fire before landing, leading to death and injury; the Israelis said they had not. The Palmer committee said it was unable to determine who was right.

Those critical of Israeli actions toward Gaza have viewed the blockade that began officially in January 2009 as part of a siege imposed by Israel on Gaza after Hamas took full control there in 2007. That siege, which has eased considerably in the past year, prevented the movement of most goods and people.

But the Palmer committee said that while it had concerns about that policy and urged that it be loosened further, it saw the naval blockade as a purely security-oriented tool that had been imposed to stop weapons from arriving in Gaza by sea. It also expressed strong concern about the thousands of rockets and mortar shells fired into Israel from Gaza in recent years. It said that because Gaza’s port could not handle large ships, a naval blockade had little impact on the supply of civilian goods.

Neil MacFarquhar reported from the United Nations, and Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...bassador-Over-Leaked-UN-Report-129046108.html

September 02, 2011
Turkey Expels Israel's Ambassador, Cuts Military Ties Over UN Report

Dorian Jones | Istanbul

Turkey has expelled Israel's ambassador to Ankara. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced Ankara's expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, along with a suspension of all military agreements with Israel, in a short statement to the media.

He said Turkey is reducing its relations with Israel to the level of second secretary, and expects the ambassador to leave by Wednesday.

The expulsion comes after details were leaked of a U.N. report into the killing last year by Israeli forces of nine Turks who were taking part in a flotilla of ships seeking to break Israel's economic blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Ankara gave Friday, the day the U.N. report is to be officially released, as the deadline for an apology from Jerusalem and for the payment of compensation to the families of those killed. Davutoglu blamed divisions in the Israeli government for its failure to meet Turkey's demands.

Turkey met four times with the Israelis, he said, and on two occasions reached an agreement to which the Israeli prime minister agreed, but not the Israeli Cabinet.

The Turkish foreign minister said his government will now provide full support to the families of those killed to pursue prosecution of any Israeli military or government members responsible for the deaths.

The U.N. report said excessive force was used by Israel. It also said some of those killed were shot in the back and at close quarters. But the report also defended Israel's right to enforce its economic embargo on Gaza. That finding is strongly condemned by the Turkish government. President Abdullah Gul strongly condemned the report.

Such a report does not exist for Turkey,he said. He went on to issue a warning, saying Turkey, as the most powerful country in the region, will not only protect its own rights but also those of all the people in need. He said the international community should be aware of this.

Mr. Gul's warning came after Foreign Minister Davutoglu said Turkey would take measures to ensure free maritime movement in the eastern Mediterranean. Davutoglu refused to explain how exactly Turkey will do this.

Diplomatic columnist Semih Idiz says such ambiguity will cause concern.

"It does suggest that the Turkish navy will be patrolling the area and obviously against Israeli ships," says Idiz. "Some groups may decide to force the blockade, relying on Turkish intervention."

The Turkish Islamic charity, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, could be key to determining what direction Turkish-Israeli relations take.

Last year's killings took place during the seizure by Israeli forces of the group's ship, the Mavi Marmara. Huseyin Oruc, deputy head of the foundation, welcomed Ankara's tough stance. He said the group has no current plans to send ships to Gaza, but did not rule it out in the future.

"What Israel says in [the] eastern Mediterranean, 'I can stop anyone. I can kill whoever out of my beliefs. I can do whatever I like.' But now another country says that is not acceptable. 'If you do something, I will prevent them.' It's very, very important. If we feel that the Gazan people are in need, we can go of course. Still we have a boat," says Oruc.

The foundation withdrew the Mavi Marmara at the last minute from this year's attempt to break Israel's Gaza blockade.

That withdrawal is widely believed to have come about because of pressure from the Turkish government. There had been hopes and rumors that Jerusalem would meet Turkey's demands, under reported intense pressure from the United States. Now there seems little hope of that, according to diplomatic columnist Idiz.

"Well, the implications are that they are more or less finished. I mean, the sides have just drawn their red lines and they [are] not prepared to concede in any way. This could have been resolved a long time ago, but clearly there is no will on either [side] to do so."

Observers say with the crisis in Syria continuing to deepen, another crisis could now be looming between two of Syria's neighbors, Israel and Turkey, the region's most powerful countries.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source......
Posted for fair use....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/turkey-talking-tough-israel

Is Turkey talking tough over Israel or throwing a tantrum?


Ankara's new measures seem to be reacting to events in the Arab world rather than pursuing a regional policy agenda

Andrew Finkel
# guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011 18.17 BST

With the dry tones of a man reciting his own obituary, Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, declared diplomatic war on Israel, tacitly admitting that his decade-old "zero problems with neighbours" policy had run out of fuel. Measures he announced in Ankara on Friday, including the downgrading of diplomatic representation, were in part an attempt to stave off domestic criticism that his government underreacted to the deaths of nine Turkish citizens during the 2010 Israeli commando raid on the Mavi Marmara.

At the same time, Turkey calculates that further isolating Israel at a time of upheaval in north Africa and the Middle East will force Binyamin Netanyahu's coalition government to repent. Precedent is not on its side. For much of the 1980s Turkey and Israel were represented at a relatively junior diplomatic level. Then it was Ankara – which was living under martial law – that felt isolated and tried to cultivate approval in the Arab world.

In recent years, a more confident Ankara has tried to cultivate the role of a regional force. It argues that, as the big economy in the region and a working democracy, it could act as peacemaker in the Middle East. Some of its anger comes from a sense of frustration that 's hardline government Israel has not allowed it to perform this role.

After Davutoglu's tough stand, some observers will say Ankara is indulging in a private feud, complicating its relations with a pro-Israel Washington at the very moment when it should be helping to co-ordinate a response to the events of the Arab spring. On the flip side Ankara may be able to cultivate greater sympathy with the Islamist factions now vying for power in north Africa.

Until now Turkish foreign policy under Davutoglu's tutelage (his previous job was foreign policy adviser to the prime minister) has been pragmatic, overlooking ideology for trade.

And while Ankara's efforts to thaw relations with Syria or bring Tehran in from the cold have not always been greeted with enthusiasm by its Nato allies, Turkey could argue that it had a clear policy agenda.

Now it has created the impression that it is simply reacting to events.

Andrew Finkel is a journalist and author based in Turkey
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....
http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article496660.ece

PA rejects Sarkozy’s offer of Vatican style state


By MOHAMMED MAR’I

Published: Sep 2, 2011 21:44 Updated: Sep 2, 2011 21:44

RAMALLAH: The Palestinian Authority on Friday rejected a French offer to have a Vatican state style instead of seeking recognition of an independent Palestinian state at the United Nations.

Riad Al-Maliki, the Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs, told the Voice of Palestine Radio that the French President Nicholas Sarkozy offered President Mahmoud Abbas to have an observer status at the UN like the Vatican style instead of the Palestinian plan.

The offer allows the PA to approach the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to sue Israel. It also includes the recognition of 1967 borders with land swap but without considering the settlements blocs in Palestinian territories.

Al-Malki said that Sarkozy’s offer is to prevent split among members of the European Union on the Palestinian move. Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, have indicated they will vote against the proposal. A number of other countries, such as Spain, Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg, are expected to vote for the resolution.

The EU’s 27 foreign minister’s are scheduled to meet in Poland on Friday, in a session expected to go a long way toward determining how the bloc will vote on the Palestinian Authority (PA’s) UN statehood recognition bid later this month.

Al-Malki said that the French offer “is not acceptable for us since we can obtain the Vatican status at any time.” He added that the Palestinian leadership is determined to go ahead with it plan and to have a full membership despite the US rejection, adding that the PA “has a majority to support our move.”

The development comes two days after French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a conference of French ambassadors that it was very important for the EU to speak together on this matter.

“I hope that the 27 countries of the European Union will speak with one voice and that together we will assume our responsibilities,” he said, urging a greater role for Europe in the Middle East diplomatic process.

Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told Israeli officials during her visit to Israel last week that she was trying to convince the PA to not take the measure to the UN.

The position of both France and Britain, meanwhile, has been noncommittal, with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé having said earlier in the summer that his country’s vote would depend on the resolution’s language.

After peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians reached a deadlock last year, the Palestinians decided to go to the UN to seek recognition of their state on the lands occupied by Israel in 1967.

Israel and the United States oppose the Palestinian bid to obtain an international recognition from the UN and say that the recognition should be made through a negotiated agreement.

On Wednesday, Abbas said that the Palestinians decided to approach the United Nations for recognition after Israel refused to abide by the international agreements and laws.

“Approaching the UN is not an alternative to the peace talks,” Abbas was quoted by the Palestinian official news agency Wafa as saying, “it is an opportunity to get out of the current impasse that the peace process is facing due to the Israeli policy of settlement.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-q...for-statehood-a-wise-move-20110902-1jq0s.html

Is Palestine's bid for statehood a wise move?
The Question
September 3, 2011

Opinion

Four people address the contentious issue on the eve of the United Nations vote on September 20.
THE HISTORIAN MARTIN BRAACH-MAKSVYTIS

Were it not so bloody and insidious, the longstanding and seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be compared to a chess game. The latest move by the Palestinian Authority is to ask the UN to recognise Palestinian statehood in September. The unilateral bid, which already has the support of more than 130 member states of the UN, would increase the international diplomatic and legal status of the Palestinians. It would also put the spotlight back on the Palestinian predicament and Israel's continued occupation and settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The recognition of an independent state of Palestine by the UN would also place international pressure on Israel in the wider context of the rapidly changing political configurations in the Middle East.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The move for UN recognition of Palestine is vigorously opposed by the Israeli government which deems it a ''catastrophe''. Indeed, if Israel's pugilistic foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is to be believed the real intention of the Palestinians is "the establishment of a state free of Jews in [the West Bank] and the hostile takeover of Israel from within". Gripped by a siege mentality recently reinforced by terror attacks in the south of Israel and continuing missile strikes from Gaza, the Israeli government sees little reason to make substantial concessions. Instead, it insists, with the backing of the Obama government, that the Palestinians must return to the negotiation table if any progress for a viable peace can be made.

After almost 18 years of stuttering negotiations, this is deemed meaningless rhetoric by the Palestinians, who have seen their prospective state shrink in size ever since the Oslo Peace Accords were signed in 1993. The UN bid by the Palestinians is a desperate roll of the dice to arrest the evaporation of their dream for a viable independent and contiguous state. The next move by the Netanyahu government may spell further pain and hardship for the Palestinians. Expecting that the UN declaration will be accompanied by Palestinian unrest, the Israeli government has supplied Israeli settlers with extra ammunition such as tear gas and stun grenades.

It has also drawn up plans for the IDF ''to shoot at the feet of demonstrators'' should Palestinians cross a ''red line'' drawn around each settlement. How costly these moves will be to both sides and future prospects of peace I will not hazard to predict.

Martin Braach-Maksvytis was co-ordinator of the Approaches to the Arab-Israeli Conflict course at the University of Sydney and is completing his doctorate in the field.
THE LAWYER BEN SAUL

The political heat has overshadowed the legal issues. Can the General Assembly create a Palestinian state? Or is the idea a political gimmick, born of frustration at the slow pace of peace? All agree that Palestinians are entitled to become a state in exercising self-determination. The controversy is over how to do it.

Two ideas have been floated - admitting Palestine to the UN as a member state, or recognising statehood but without conferring UN membership. Both rest upon a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians.

The General Assembly by itself cannot admit Palestine to the UN. Under the UN charter, membership is decided by the assembly on a recommendation of the Security Council. That will not happen because the US opposes it.

In any case, only states can be admitted as UN members, so membership itself does not create a state but only recognises it.

Palestine satisfies some of the legal criteria for a state but not others. It has a permanent Palestinian population and a well enough defined territory, even if its borders are disputed. Yet Israel still occupies the West Bank and governs much of life there. It also exercises significant control over Gaza through its blockade. The Palestinian leadership remains divided. There might not yet be a sufficiently stable, effective and independent Palestinian government.

If Palestine is not legally a state, and the UN cannot create one, why go to the UN? A UN resolution recognising statehood might imply that many countries believe Palestine is, in fact, a state. This would be a powerful indication of global legal opinion. It could help nudge statehood across the line where criteria such as independent government are otherwise uncertain.

Israel claims that a unilateral declaration of statehood would be illegal, because the Oslo Accords of 1993 require negotiation of ''permanent status''. The Palestinians might argue that Oslo is void because of Israel's long delay (18 years) and bad faith (continuing to build illegal settlements). The recent Kosovo precedent also helps Palestine. It might be remembered that Israel itself unilaterally declared independence, secured by violence.

If Palestine became a state, the game would change. It would instantly delegitimise the Israeli occupation, and have practical effects. Palestine would be entitled to exercise self-defence against the occupation, including by calling on other states such as Australia to forcibly expel Israel from Palestine.

Ben Saul is professor of international law at the University of Sydney.
THE LOBBYIST COLIN RUBENSTEIN

All people of goodwill look forward to a time when Israelis and Palestinians can go about their daily lives in peace and security.

In democratic Israel, the government is accountable to its people who, as is well-documented, want peace and a fair two-state settlement with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership, divided between the terrorists of Hamas and the decidedly undemocratic Fatah, seem to have opted to maintain a state of conflict.

The plan to abandon years of negotiations, transfers of money and authority and legally binding treaties, and to try to unilaterally declare a state of Palestine is guaranteed to bring about more hardship to Palestinians and risks an escalation of violence.

This attempt endangers the economic and security co-operation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on which impressive recent Palestinian economic growth depends, and thus is likely to be economically disastrous for the already fiscally precarious authority. It may raise, and then disappoint, Palestinian expectations, undermining moderates and strengthening radical groups such as Hamas. It might also precipitate a violent ''third intifada'', especially if reported plans for mass marches on Israel's borders after the UN vote materialise.

As the Palestinians do not satisfy the established legal requirements for statehood, the move will not pass the UN Security Council, and any General Assembly resolution will be largely symbolic. Symbolic yet dangerous, discouraging compromise and materially violating the Oslo Accords, which ban either side from unilaterally changing the status of the Palestinian territories. Legally, the Palestinian Authority only exists because of the Oslo Accords.

It would also violate the key UN Security Council resolution for peacemaking, which calls for a negotiated outcome with mutually determined boundaries.

Yet, there is a clear alternative - negotiations with Israel. Three times since 2000, Israeli governments have offered the Palestinians packages that included almost everything they could reasonably expect in any genuine two-state resolution. The current Israeli government has been offering unconditional talks - explicitly on two-state peace - since 2009. It has even tried to meet new preconditions for negotiation imposed by the Palestinian Authority - enforcing an unprecedented 10-month moratorium on new homebuilding within settlements, and recently agreeing to talks explicitly based on the 1967 lines with land swaps.

Thus, any responsible leader in favour of peace and justice will oppose the unilateralism and brinkmanship the UN effort represents.

Dr Colin Rubenstein is executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.
THE CAMPAIGNER SONJA KARKAR

The Palestinian statehood bid was never going to be easy, despite having the backing of 124 nations.

Israel opposes it, but now there is also a sense of foreboding in Palestinian ranks at conflicting legal opinions over their status.

The major concern is that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, which is the sole representative of all the Palestinian people, could be replaced by a state of Palestine represented by the Palestinian Authority.

This, it is believed, will compromise the political equality between Palestinians inside Palestine and Palestinian refugees outside.

The competing view is that the PLO will be submitting the resolution to the United Nations and therefore, its status will be preserved; the PLO will not be compromised because the Palestinian Declaration of Independence ensures its position.

The PA is the interim administrative body created by the PLO as a result of the Oslo Accords, with very limited authority over parts of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, since these territories are all under Israeli occupation.

Yet, it is the PA with the Palestinian Legislative Council that has been mooted as forming the basis of a state. What that means is that two separate entities could end up representing the Palestinian people - the state, for Palestinians living within the 1967 borders in as-yet-undetermined territory, and the PLO, for all Palestinians outside that state.

The question is, which entity would actually take the seat at the UN?

Until now, the PLO has a seat at the UN with non-member observer status and could itself negotiate an upgrade to non-state observer, a course that is likely to be pursued in this new request if the US indeed exercises its veto.

What are the advantages of the bid? After the Palestine Papers revealed that the PA was prepared to make major concessions on the refugees right of return and would not have voting rights, the Palestinians need to make sure that the statehood bid will not jeopardise their inalienable rights.

A Palestinian Bantustan state would be the perfect excuse to transfer Palestinian citizens out of Israel. So sovereignty should not be an end in itself. Questions must be asked before it is too late.

Sonja Karkar is a co-founder of Australians for Palestine and the editor of the organisation's website, australiansforpalestine.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...its-un-gambit/2011/03/29/gIQAd2xhiJ_blog.html

Posted at 09:00 AM ET, 08/28/2011
Did the Palestinian Authority think through its U.N. gambit?
By Jennifer Rubin

The conventional wisdom is that the Palestinian Authority has outwitted Israel, the United States and the “international community” and stands poised to get a a declaration of statehood from the United Nations. Yes, the United States will be obligated to veto any measure in the U.N.Security Council, but the PA can go to the General Assembly, get an impressive vote and then have a club to use against Israel in its lawfare operation to discredit and delegitimize the Jewish state.

Well, the evidence is now mounting that this may have been a good career move for Mahmoud Abbas, who can retire with a feather in his cap, but a disastrous move for the Palestinians.

This week former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams wrote:

For years the Palestinian leadership has taken legal advice from a law professor at Oxford University, Guy Goodwin-Gill. But now it seems that they forgot to consult him before demanding a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood. In a recent legal brief for the leadership, the good professor demolishes the arguments for U.N. recognition.

As reported in the Palestinian media, the brief argues that a U.N. decision to recognize Palestinian statehood replaces the . . . [Palestine Liberation Organization] with the Palestinian Authority, and this would have what the article calls “dramatic legal implications” . . . .

These include the legal and practical limitations on the PA (Its lawyer says that the PA “is a subsidiary body, competent only to exercise those powers conferred on it by the Palestinian National Council. By definition, it does not have the capacity to assume greater powers.”) And there are three more knotty problems for the Palestinians.

The first, of course, concerns U.S. aid. A report in Ha’aretz claimed that the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubinstein, told chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that “in case the Palestinian Authority seeks to upgrade its position at the U.N. through the General Assembly, the U.S. Congress will take punitive measures against it, including a cut in U.S. aid.” Alas, this refreshing clarity was swiftly disclaimed by the State Department. A State Department official authorized only to speak on background told me Friday afternoon, “While we cannot get into private diplomatic discussions, this report is not an accurate portrayal of the U.S. position, nor did CG Rubenstein make the comments purported in the media.” So much for that. (The official added the usual boilerplate that the only way forward is for the two sides is to engage in “serious and substantive negotiations between the parties, and that remains our focus.”)

But Congress is another matter. There is broad, bipartisan support in Congress to cut off the PA should it take the step of seeking a U.N. declaration. Moreover, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is preparing to introduce a bill to cut off funds to the United Nations as well. In an op-ed in the Miami Herald she explains:

In 1989, Yasser Arafat’s PLO also pushed for membership for a “Palestinian state” in UN entities. The PLO’s strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO’s unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks.

This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding works.

With Arafat’s successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. . . .

I will soon introduce the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which will reflect the executive branch’s previous successful policies by cutting off U.S. contributions to any UN entity that grants membership or any other upgraded status to the Palestinian observer mission. This legislation will also leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure they do not fund biased or wasteful UN activities, and to achieve other much-needed reforms that will make the UN more transparent, accountable, objective, and effective.

In addition to cutting off funding, the PA’s U.N. tactic may result in expulsion of the PLO and the closing of its offices in the United States. The reasoning is simple. As a Middle East hand explained to me, “There was until Oslo no Palestinian representation in the U.S.” Once we bought into the notion that Yasser Arafat had agreed to participate in the peace process, “we allowed them to open an office, so State could talk to them all the time.” However, Congress was not enamored of a terrorist organization being allowed to do business in the U.S. Congress and passed a law requiring the president every six months to waive the prohibition on terrorists groups and allow the PLO to operate here. This has gone on for two decades.

But there are good arguments why that should come to an end if the PA gets its upgraded status from the U.N. Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies lays out several grounds for kicking the PLO out of the United States.

First, “In declaring independence, the Oslo Process will be null and void. This, in turn, will nullify the Palestinian Authority, which drew its legitimacy from Oslo. As such, the new Palestinian government would become the new representative of the Palestinians moving forward. Thus, the PLO — formerly the only entity that could negotiate on behalf of the rights of Palestinians — would have no role to play. Why would the U.S. want both PLO offices and a PA mission?”

Second, Schanzer argues, “The PLO has openly challenged the administration and the U.S. Congress” in going to the United Nations. Congress could well decide (along with a cutoff in funding) to change the law and make it illegal for the PLO to operate in the U.S. Indeed, Ros-Lehtinen argued well before the U.N. gambit that the PLO should not be allowed to operate here. In July 2010, she put out a statement: “Abu Mazen refuses to negotiate directly with Israel, instead praising the recently deceased mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and sending condolences to his relatives. But the U.S. rewards his corrupt, autocratic PLO with more symbols of legitimacy, treating it like a sovereign state. On the other hand, Israel continues to be an indispensable democratic ally — but the U.S. still refuses to move our embassy to Israel’s chosen capital. Instead of giving more undeserved gifts to the PLO, it’s time for us to kick the PLO out of the U.S. once and for all, and move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, where it belongs.” There is all the more reason to carry through on that threat if the Palestinians snub the United States and the entire peace process.

And finally, Schanzer points out that the “sputtering” reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas is still going on. Should that proceed, there would be a basis to argue that Hamas taints all the Palestinian entities including the PLO, which then must be tossed out of the country.

In addition to the loss of funding and the expulsion of the PLO, the PA risks a violent reaction in Israel that it will not be able to contain. Israeli police and military are preparing for the worse in the wake of a U.N. declaration, namely a third intifada. When Palestinians look around the day after the U.N. “victory” and see that absolutely nothing has changed, will there be uncontrolled violence, in part directed at the PA that over-promised and under-delivered? Abbas may think he can control or limit demonstrations, but, if the Arab Spring has taught us anything, it is that demonstrations take on a life of their own.

Given all the serious blows to the Palestinians (economically, diplomatically and politically) that could well flow from a U.N. action one has to wonder: Did they think this through? Until recently it does not appear there was any realistic planning or assessment of the adverse consequences of a U.N. vote that, after all, would at most get the PA the status of the Vatican at the U.N. A very small gain in exchange for many real problems.

A final note: Have any of the European cheerleaders for the U.N. action thought this through either? Which Palestinian state are they supporting — a Hamas failed state or a Fatah state? And given the inevitable departure of the only marginally credible financial figure in the PA (Salam Fayyad), how do the Europeans expect the new state to operate? It is hard to imagine they would continue to pour their money into a chaotic and corrupt regime that would follow Fayyad’s departure.

Maybe there are good answers to all these dilemmas. But oddly, I haven’t heard a single world leader explain how this would all work out.

By Jennifer Rubin | 09:00 AM ET, 08/28/2011
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links please see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/deadly+mistake/5337165/story.html

Op-Ed: A deadly mistake


By Barry Rubin, Ottawa Citizen September 1, 2011


Marwan Barghouti, under a life sentence in an Israel prison, has said that if the United States vetoes a unilateral Palestinian statehood proposal at the UN this month, there will be massive riots. To underline the point, he called such a decision a "historic, deadly mistake."

When he says, "deadly," he means it. Indeed, Barghouti is in prison precisely because he organized massive deadly riots after the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejected a compromise peace with Israel that would have given them a state in 2000. In other words, they're intransigent and then start a war when they don't get everything they want.

It's the basic tactic in the terrorist playbook: Give me what I want so I can better destroy you in the long run, or I will kill you in the short-run.

And it is encouraged by the basic tactic often used by western governments: We feel your pain, understand that you are a victim, and will give you as much as possible. Those concessions are rejected and then more are demanded.

This doesn't make sense to most western observers: Aren't the Palestinians desperate for a state and to end a terrible "occupation"? In fact, though, Israel pulled completely out of the Gaza Strip six years ago this month and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has now governed almost all West Bank Palestinians for the last 17 years.

In fact, the PA is not in a hurry to negotiate a deal for several reasons.

First, the moderates in the PA are very weak compared to the radicals who still run Fatah, its ruling party. Second, the PA is still competing with revolutionary Islamist Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip in a race to prove its militancy. Third, almost nothing has been done to prepare the Palestinians for a compromise peace and two-state solution alongside Israel. Finally, most Palestinian leaders still think that total victory and Israel's extinction is possible, desirable, and just. Many in the West - whether intentionally or not - encourage that last belief with hostile policies regarding Israel.

That doesn't mean Israel is willing to give everything or that its policies are perfect. But the mood in Israel today, and for the last dozen years or more, is ready - even eager - for a lasting, stable twostate solution. The differences over borders and other issues can be argued at the negotiating table and are possible to resolve in a genuine exchange of compromises and concessions on both sides.

But since 1993, the Palestinian Authority has made several agreements with Israel. In exchange for being handed control over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank; billions of dollars in aid; the supply of weapons; the return of tens of thousands of Palestinians to these territories; and many other benefits, the PA promised to do various things in return. These include an end to incitement to kill Israelis; stopping terrorism; and negotiating in good faith for a comprehensive agreement.

Since Hamas attacked Israel with rockets and mortars setting off a war in December 2008, the PA has refused to negotiate with Israel. When President Barack Obama, in September 2009, announced he wanted to hold direct talks in Washington, the PA refused. In 2010, when Israel, at Obama's request, froze all construction on settlements for nine months, the PA again wouldn't talk.

Instead, the PA came up with a new strategy: Why negotiate a compromise agreement with Israel when it could go to the UN and be handed an independent state without having to make any concessions? No need to reach a deal with Israel over borders, refugees, East Jerusalem, security guarantees, agreeing that the conflict is completely finished, or recognizing Israel as a "Jewish state" (the Palestinian constitution says that Palestine will be an Arab and Muslim state), just get a vote in the General Assembly!

This, of course, is not a solution to the conflict but a way of avoiding a negotiated solution to the issue. It is not a way to end the conflict but to ensure that the conflict continues and more lives are lost on both sides.

The underlying problem is that the PA and its allies among Arab and Muslim-majority states want to wipe Israel off the map. If they want a Palestinian state on the basis of an agreement with Israel, that goal could be accomplished within months. But because such a peace arrangement would block the advance toward the ultimate goal it is undesirable.

But suppose that the UN did agree to recognize Palestine as a state, meaning that the Security Council approved and the General Assembly voted to do that? Immediately, the state of Palestine would have no incentive to reach a deal with Israel. Instead, it could do things like trying to import weapons from abroad; allow Arab armies to send forces onto its soil, and even allow crossborder terrorist attacks on Israel. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a terrorist group that calls for genocide against Israel and all Jews, would be in effect part of an internationally recognized government.

If Israel then responded to any attack, the state of Palestine would go to the UN, declare Israel to be the unprovoked aggressor, and the automatic majority in the General Assembly would back it up no matter what the facts. The possibility of real negotiations, much less a peace treaty, would be set back for years. And in a region increasingly heading toward revolutionary Islamism in many places, a deteriorating security situation overall plus this new development would bring war.

Far from helping the situation, then, the UN gambit is likely to lead to less peace, no hope of a negotiated settlement, and more bloodshed.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
 

rodeorector

Global Moderator
Thank you, Dutch and Housecarl. I am intrigued by the legal interpretation of the PLO request for "statehood." The world knows they have shunned opportunities for a Palestinian state in the past, so what is the real reason behind this showboating?
 

ejagno

Veteran Member
Thanks newshounds. I often wonder why they all don't just finish one another off and be done with it instead of all of this grandstanding.

Housecarl; My neighbor is from Panama and her family is still there. I'll see if I can catch her today and find out more of what's going on there.
 

SarahLynn

Veteran Member
I don't think the Palestinians are going to get the state they envision.
Isaiah 34:12

They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there; and all its princes shall be nothing.
 
When are any of your perfect storms going to hit land?

A lot sooner then you might think

And, as for you, when are you going to finish this game?

Say the word Prester; and I am gone from here....

It's been interesting, to say the least; but there is a time for all things. Perhaps the news hunting's time is over, soon! Then it will be time for "the living" of a nightmare...
 
=









Frictions rise as Turkey expels Israeli ambassador over flotilla

News Services
September 3, 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Turkey+expels+Israeli+ambassador/5350279/story.html

Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador Friday and downgraded ties to the lowest possible level over Israel's refusal to apologize for a raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla that killed nine people last year.


Turkey's announcement came as details were leaked over an anticipated U.N. report on the flotilla. The report concluded that Israel used "excessive and unreasonable" force on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, leading to the deaths of nine Turkish nationals.



Read more: http://www.canada.com/Frictions+ris...ver+flotilla/5350279/story.html#ixzz1WuPjWYEz




=
 
=








Turkey to challenge Gaza blockade at International Court of Justice

Turkish announcement appears to rebuff attempts by
UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon to end its row with Israel



David Batty and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 3 September 2011 17.16 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/03/turkey-challenge-israel-gaza-blockade

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Ankara would challenge the Gaza blockade at the International Court of Justice. Photograph: AP


Turkey is to challenge Israel's blockade on Gaza at the International Court of Justice, amid a worsening diplomatic crisis between the once close allies.



The announcement by Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu appears to rebuff UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon's attempt to defuse the row over Israel's armed assault on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in which nine people were killed.


Turkey dramatically downgraded its relations with Israel, cutting military ties with its former ally and expelling the country's ambassador over his government's refusal to apologise for the killings of eight Turkish citizens and a Turkish American last May.


Ban said today that the two countries should accept the recommendations of a UN report that examined the incident. The report found Israel had used "excessive and unreasonable" force to stop the flotilla approaching Gaza, but that it was justified in maintaining a naval blockade on the Palestinian enclave.


But Davutoglu later dismissed the report, stating it had not been endorsed by the UN and was therefore not binding.


"What is binding is the International Court of Justice," he told Turkey's state-run TRT television. "This is what we are saying: let the International Court of Justice decide.


"We are starting the necessary legal procedures this coming week."


Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon said his country had nothing to apologise for and accused Ankara of raising tensions for its own reasons.


"The problem here is on the Turkish side …. They were not ready for a compromise and kept raising the threshold," Ayalon said on Israeli TV. "I think we need to say to the Turks: as far as we are concerned, this saga is behind us. Now we need to cooperate. Lack of cooperation harms not only us, but Turkey as well."


The UN investigation, chaired by Geoffrey Palmer, a former New Zealand prime minister, focused on the events on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-flagged vessel which was the largest ship in a flotilla aimed at breaking the Gaza blockade, on 31 May last year. It was boarded by Israeli commandos who were met with resistance by spro-Palestinian activists on board, nine of whom died.


Davutoglu said the investigation contradicted an earlier report by the UN Human Rights Council in September, which found Israeli forces violated international law, "including international humanitarian and human rights law".


He warned Israel that it risks alienation among Arab nations by resisting an apology.


"If Israel persists with its current position, the Arab spring will give rise to a strong Israel opposition, as well as the debate on the authoritarian regimes," Davutoglu said.


The UN secretary general said earlier that strong ties between Turkey and Israel, which both share a border with Syria, were important for peace and stability in the Middle East. "I sincerely hope that Israel and Turkey will improve their relationship," he added.


"Both countries are very important countries in the region, and their improved relationship will be very important in addressing all the situations in the Middle East, including the Middle East peace process."


But Ban, speaking in Canberra on Saturday after talks with the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, would not be drawn on findings of the UN report on the flotilla incident last summer.


"I'm not in a position to say any specific comments on the substance of the findings and recommendations of the panel's report," he said.


"My only wish is that they should try to improve their relationship and do what they can to implement the recommendations and findings."


Turkey said on Friday that the Israeli ambassador, Gabby Levy, and other senior Israeli diplomats would have to leave their posts by Wednesday and that Turkey's representation in Israel would be downgraded to the junior level of second secretary.






=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use......
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/abandoning-north-korea-5837

Abandoning North Korea

Morton Abramowitz | September 2, 2011

Three years into the Obama administration, time is eroding the chances of serious denuclearization talks between the United States and North Korea. Pyongyang is unlikely to undertake such talks once the presidential campaign begins in earnest next year or decide to make a quantum leap in concessions given the expectation that a republican president would present far worse terms (or none at all). The possibility of making progress would be a serious challenge even if negotiations began tomorrow. And that is certainly not going to happen.

In July our special Korean negotiator met with his North Korean counterpart in New York for the first time in almost two years, albeit under the guise of a visit to an NGO in New York. The 2009 talks were characterized by the State Department as “a good start”; this time the talks have been (not surprisingly) described as “constructive.” Yet the fact is that the Obama administration has shown little interest in negotiating with Pyongyang, and indeed it has mostly approached North Korea much like the Bush administration did early in George W.’s first term.

That administration started out by making the usual overtures of expressing the need to communicate with North Korea and showing a renewed interest in talks. But all this ended relatively quickly, supposedly on the grounds that the North was unresponsive to American concerns about its weapons programs. In truth, the administration decided that strategically, given the difficulties of dealing with Pyongyang, it was necessary to shore up its existing alliances and support the new South Korean president in his tough-minded policy.

President Lee reversed the policy of his two predecessors who believed large amounts of aid would transform North Korea (they were obviously wrong). He apparently thought the North was deteriorating quickly enough that he could help bring it down by denying massive handouts and isolating Pyongyang as much as possible to force it to the negotiating table, hat in hand. This new policy had the quaint title ”strategic patience.” But North Korea reacted very aggressively, sinking a South Korean ship and launching an artillery attack on an ROK island that killing fifty Koreans.

Interestingly enough, perhaps worried about his party’s political future, President Lee has initiated secret talks with North Korea—long a South Korean staple—on normalization and recently sacked his very hardline minister in charge of North-South relations. That has stimulated much speculation in the South about a resumption of the six-party talks. The North, for its part, has repeatedly made noises to visiting Americans and Chinese about restarting talks both bilaterally and in the six-party forum. These have counted for little In Washington, which wants much greater assurance on North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization and on its newly revealed uranium-enrichment program. Kim Jong-il himself most recently declared the North Korean negotiating position: yes to talks, no to any preconditions.

More than strategic considerations are at work here. The top levels at the White House and State Department do not want negotiations, and they have shown themselves even tougher on this course than their predecessors in the Bush administration who were split on the utility of talks and went from hostility to hurried, often secret negotiations on an almost out-of-pocket basis, making many involved angry at not knowing what was happening.

There is no political benefit in Washington to having negotiations with such a truly bad state. The Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, has never liked negotiations with Pyongyang, and it certainly abhors giving North Korea the aid that would be required to invite progress on reducing the country’s nuclear-weapons capability. Congressional opposition contributes to the administration’s refusal to provide even the most badly needed food aid to the North. As presidential elections approach, we can expect our leaders to pay even less attention to North Korea—unless violence breaks out.

The goal of total denuclearization seems far off—if possible at all—given the legacy of the Bush administration, recent events in Libya and North Korea's declining conventional capabilities. The regime in Pyongyang appears increasingly weaker, and its people are very poor. China helps prop it up economically, but Kim is trying to reduce the North’s dependence on its Chinese ally and clearly wants to find ways of improving its relations with the United States in its search for aid.

The Obama administration may continue to be bound by the politics of this issue. Some even hope that the North Korean regime ultimately implodes, despite all the uncertainties and dangers that scenario holds for proliferation and stability on the peninsula. Or in the face of all of these difficulties, perhaps Washington is seriously prepared to negotiate again with the aim of curbing Pyongyang's nuclear development, missile programs and proliferation activities—and without taking the end goal of regime denuclearization off of the table.
 
=





:srdot:
:srdot::srdot:
11:31 03.09.11

Report: Turkey navy to escort aid ships to Palestinians in Gaza

Turkish officials tell Hurriyet Daily News that Turkish navy will strengthen presence in eastern Mediterranean Sea to stop Israeli 'bullying'.

By Barak RavidTags
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...rt-aid-ships-to-palestinians-in-gaza-1.382305


The Turkish navy will significantly strengthen its presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea as one of the steps the Turkish government has decided to take following the release of the UN Palmer report on the 2010 Gaza flotilla, Turkish officials told the Hurriyet Daily News.

"The eastern Mediterranean will no longer be a place where Israeli naval forces can freely exercise their bullying practices against civilian vessels," a Turkish official was quoted as saying.


As part of the plan, the Turkish navy will increase its patrols in the eastern Mediterranean and pursue "a more aggressive strategy".

According to the report, Turkish naval vessels will accompany civilian ships carrying aid to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Another goal of the plan is to ensure free navigation in the region between Cyprus and Israel. The region includes areas where Israel and Cyprus cooperate in drilling for oil and gas.

Additionally, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan instructed his foreign ministry to organize a trip for him to the Gaza Strip in the near future.

"We are looking for the best timing for the visit,” a Turkish official was quoted as saying. “Our primary purpose is to draw the world’s attention to what is going on in Gaza and to push the international community to end the unfair embargo imposed by Israel.”





=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Though not surprising in content, I can hear the clock ticking off of this article......

For links in text please see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/us/03nuke.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Iran Has New Equipment to Speed the Production of Nuclear Fuel, Panel Is Told
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: September 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — International nuclear inspectors reported on Friday that Iran had finally begun operating a new generation of equipment that over time should give it the capability to produce nuclear fuel much faster, after years of delays made worse by Western sanctions and sabotage.

Related

*
Iran Moves to Shelter Its Nuclear Fuel Program (September 2, 2011)
*
Times Topic: Iran's Nuclear Program

The equipment, new centrifuges that the inspectors described in a report circulated to members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is intended to replace balky, breakdown-prone machines whose design Iran first bought from Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani who illicitly sold production equipment and bomb designs. Five years ago, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that the machinery, which he claimed was made in Iran, would soon be deployed. It became clear that his boast was premature.

Iran has ignored four sets of United Nations Security Council resolutions to cease enriching uranium. But it took until this summer for the country to begin using 54 of the new centrifuges, which the Iranians call the IR-2 and claim were produced entirely in its own small factories.

Because the machines spin much faster than the models they are intended to replace, they could speed Iran’s ability to enrich large quantities of nuclear fuel. The Central Intelligence Agency, in its assessments of Iran’s capabilities, has expressed doubts that the machines shown to inspectors would be used for producing weapons-grade material, but they have warned that the installation at the uranium enrichment complex at Natanz might be intended to work out bugs and that Iran could have secret facilities.

“What worries us is not what the Iranians show the inspectors, but what it tells us about what they know how to produce,” one senior intelligence official said.

Just installing the small number of IR-2 centrifuges, and a handful of more advanced models called the IR-4, was something of a victory for Iran in its cat-and-mouse game with the West. The United States and its allies went to extraordinary lengths to prevent Iran from obtaining crucial supplies, including blocking the export of a special form of steel needed to operate the equipment at high speed. Hundreds more machines would be needed before Iran had the capability to ramp up production significantly.

The software worm known as Stuxnet, which hit Iran more than a year ago and slowed progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons training, was aimed at the first-generation centrifuges, which Iran called the IR-1 (for Iran-1). That equipment came from the Khan network of illicit suppliers. Yet the IR-1s were so notoriously unreliable that they broke down even when they were not the target of cyberattacks.

“What we’ve needed to do with Iran from the start was to buy time,” one senior Obama administration official said recently. “The fact that it has taken them this long to evade sanctions and build these new centrifuges tells you they are operating pretty slowly.”

(Both officials requested anonymity because they were speaking of sensitive intelligence matters.)

The report also warned anew of what the I.A.E.A. called “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program, including suspected work on a “nuclear payload for a missile, about which the agency continues to receive new information.” It did not specify what that information was, and the Iranians have claimed that all such information to the agency is fabricated. A diplomat in Vienna, speaking anonymously under the usual ground rules, said that the language in the report in which the agency says it is “increasingly concerned” over Iran’s refusal to answer questions about the evidence indicated an escalation in the agency’s rhetoric.

“It’s not explosive,” the diplomat said, referring to the report. “But if you’re reading the tea leaves, it stands out.”

The cranky IR-1 stands over six feet tall. Inside, a hollow rotor of aluminum spins uranium gas, slowly enriching the material in the rare isotope that can be turned into fuel for reactors and warheads. But the design is so antiquated and inefficient, that even Pakistan stopped using those centrifuges long ago. There are tales of catastrophic failures in the machines, which spin at supersonic speeds. The Stuxnet attack was designed to speed them up, and make them explode.

In an April 2006 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad boasted that the nation was embarking on a new generation of more advanced centrifuges that would quadruple Iran’s enrichment powers. Those centifuges were also based on a design obtained from Mr. Khan. Iran failed to obtain a very hard type of steel to make rotors for them. So, in secret, the Iranians developed their own, with the rotor made of carbon fibers.

The West got its best look at the technology in April 2008, when Mr. Ahmadinejad toured the Natanz plant. Photographs showed him viewing a disassembled IR-2, its guts arrayed on a table.

David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and William J. Broad from New York.
 
Top