Muslim Gravestones 'Built Illegally'

Donated To Gaza

A few days ago, an article was published that really contained many facts related to the oil spill that occurred 105 days ago.

President Obama had authorized the drilling of that well, trusting in the capacity of modern technology to produce oil, which he wished to make abundantly available, thus freeing the United States from its dependence on foreign supplies of that product vital to current civilization. Its excessive consumption of oil had already given rise to energetic protests from environmentalists.

Not even George W. Bush had dared to take that step given the bitter experiences suffered in Alaska with a tanker that was transporting extracted oil there.

The accident was caused in the search for that product so desperately needed by the consumer society, which the newer generations inherited from preceding ones, the difference being the unimagined speed at which everything moves these days.

Scientists and environmentalists have presented theories related to disasters that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago with the so-called methane mega-bubbles responsible for colossal tsunamis that swept across a large part of the planet, with winds that reached twice the speed of sound and waves that rose to 1,500 meters in height, wiping out 96% of living species.

They have expressed the fear that, in the Gulf of Mexico – which for some cosmic reason is the region of the planet where carsic rock separates us from the vast layer of methane – that layer could be perforated in the desperate search for oil with the cutting-edge technical equipment available today.

With respect to the BP oil spill, news agencies are reporting:

"…The EPA (Environment Protection Agency) has officially stated is on record that Rig No.1 is releasing methane, benzene, hydrogen sulfide and other toxic gases. Workers there now wear advanced protection including state-of-the-art, military-issued gas masks."

Events of enormous significance are occurring with unusual frequency.

The first and most immediate is the risk of a nuclear war in the wake of the sinking of the sophisticated flagship Cheonan which, according to the government of South Korea, was the result of a torpedo fired from a submarine of Soviet make – both manufactured more than 50 years ago – while other sources inform the only possible and non-detectable cause: a mine placed by the intelligence services of the United States on the Cheonan’s hull. The government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was immediately blamed.

Added to this strange event, some days later came Resolution 1929 of the United Nations Security Council, ordering the inspection of Iranian merchant ships within a time limit of no more than 90 days.

The second, which in part is already producing its devastating effects, is the progressive advance of climate change, the effects of which are even worse, giving rise to the condemnation contained in the documentary Home, directed by Yann Arthus-Bertrand with the participation of the world’s most eminent ecologists; and now the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a few miles from our homeland, which is generating all kinds of concerns.

On July 20, a cable from the EFE news agency referred to a statement by the now well-known Admiral Thad Allen, coordinator of and responsible for the battle against the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, who "stated that he had authorized BP, owner of the well and responsible for the spill, to continue for another 24 hours with the tests that it is conducting to determine the solidity of the ‘Macondo’ structure after the installation 10 days ago of a new containment dome."

"According to official data, there are close to 27,000 abandoned wells on the Gulf seabed…"

"Ninety-two days after the accident on the BP platform, the U.S. government’s principal concern is that the underground structure of the well is damaged and that crude is leaking via the rock and will end up flowing out at multiple points of the seabed."

It is the first time that an official statement has mentioned the fear of oil beginning to flow from wells that are no longer productive.

Readers interested in the issue are setting about sifting the sensationalist aspects from the scientific data. For me, there are events that do not have a satisfactory explanation. Why did Admiral Allen state that "the government’s principal concern is that the underground structure of the well is damaged and that crude is leaking through the rock and will end up flowing out at multiple points of the seabed?" Why did BP state that it cannot be blamed for the crude that appeared 15 kilometers from the damaged well?

We would have to wait for another 15 days that it would take to perforate the auxiliary well, which has an almost parallel trajectory to the one that originated the spill, at a distance of less than five meters from the other one, according to the Cuban group that is analyzing the problem. Meanwhile we must wait like well-behaved children.

If they are so confident about the parallel well, why didn’t they implement that measure earlier?

What will we do afterward if that measure fails like all the rest have?

In a recent interchange that I had with a person who is extremely well informed about the details of the accident, due to his country’s interests, I learned that, given the characteristics and the situation around the well, in that case there is no risk there of a methane emission.

July 23: no news whatsoever appeared on the problem.

The 24th: the DPA agency affirmed that, "a prominent U.S. scientist has accused the British BP oil corporation of bribing experts investigating the black tide in the Gulf of Mexico to delay the publication of data, according to the BBC television network," but did not relate that immorality to any damage to the structure of the seabed and emissions of oil and unusual methane levels.

July 26: the principal London press media – the BBC, Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and others – reported that "a BP board meeting would make a final decision today on whether its CEO, Tony Hayward, is to go, for his mismanagement of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico."

For their part, Notimex and El Universal, of Mexico, published that BP "had not made any decision on changes among its directors, and adds that a directors’ meeting is planned for this afternoon."

The 27th: news agencies informed that the executive president of BP had been dismissed.

July 28: Twelve cables and 14 countries, including the United States and a number of its most important allies, drew up embarrassing statements given the divulgation, by the Wikileaks organization, of secret documents on the war in Afghanistan. Although "Barack Obama admitted that he was ‘concerned’ about the leak… he noted that the information is old and does not contain anything new."

That was a cynical statement.

"The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, said that the documents are evidence of war crimes committed by the U.S. forces."

They so accurately evidenced them that they have shaken U.S. secretiveness to the foundations. They talk of "civilian deaths that were never made public." It has created conflicts among the parties involved in those atrocities.

On the risks of methane gas emanating from wells that are not in production, total silence.

July 29: an AFP cable informs on the unimaginable: Osama Bin Laden was an agent of the U.S. intelligence services: "… Osama Bin Laden appears in secret reports published by Wikileaks as an active agent, present and adulated by his men in the Afghan-Pakistani area."

It was known that, during the Afghanis’ fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Osama cooperated with the United States, but the world supposed that, in his fight against foreign invasion, he accepted the support of the United States and NATO as a necessity and that, once the country was liberated, he rejected foreign interference by creating the Al Qaeda organization to combat the United States. Many countries, Cuba among them, condemn his terrorist methods that do not exclude the death of countless innocent victims.

What a surprise for world public opinion now to discover that Al Qaeda was a creation of the government of that country.

That was the justification for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and one of the motives, among others, for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq by the military forces of the United States. Two countries in which thousands of young Americans have died and a large number of them have been mutilated. Between the two, more than 150,000 U.S. soldiers are committed for an indefinite period and together with them, members of units of the militaristic NATO organization, and other allies like Australia and South Korea.

On July 29, a photo was published of a 22-year-old U.S. citizen, Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst, who leaked 240,000 classified documents to the Wikileaks website. There has been no statement as to his guilt or innocence. However, nobody can touch one hair of his head. The members of Wikileaks have sworn to make the truth known to the world.

The Brazilian theologian Frei Betto published an article datelined July 30, titled "Cry of the earth, clamor of the peoples."

Two paragraphs express the essence of its content. "The ancient Greeks had already noted: Gaya Earth, is a living organism. And we are the fruit of her, engendered in 13.7 billion years of evolution. However, in the last 200 years we have not known how to take care of her, but have transformed her into merchandise, from which it is hoped to obtain the maximum profit."

"Today all forms of life on the planet are threatened, including the human race (two-thirds of the world population is surviving below the poverty line) and Earth herself. Avoiding the anticipation of the Apocalypse demands questioning the myths of modernity – as market, development, uninational state – all of them based on instrumental reason."

For its part, that same day AFP published: "The People’s Republic of China 'does not approve of the unilateral sanctions’ adopted by the European Union against Iran, Jiang Yu, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, stated today."

Likewise Russia delivered an energetic protest condemning the sanction of that region, closely allied to the United States.

July 30: an AFP cable notes that the Israeli defense minister stated: "The sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN… will not make it suspend its uranium enrichment activities in search of the atomic bomb."

August 1: an AFP cable notes "High-ranking military chief of the Guardians of the Revolution warned the U.S. today against a possible attack on Iran."

"Israel did not discount military action against Iran in order to halt its nuclear program."

"The international community, headed by Washington, recently intensified its pressure on Iran, accused of seeking to equip itself with nuclear weapons via a covert civil nuclear program."

"Javani’s affirmations preceded a statement from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, who assured this Sunday that a U.S. plan of attack on Iran is in place to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

August 2: an AFP news report similar in content to those of other news agencies informed:

"’I have to travel to New York in September to take part in the UN General Assembly. I am prepared to sit down with Obama, face to face, man to man, before the media in order to find the best solution,’ Ahmadinejad affirmed during a speech broadcast by state television."

"But President Ahmadinejad warned that the dialogue will have to be based on mutual respect.

"’If they believe that they can wave a wand and tell us that we have to accept everything that they say, that will not happen,’ he added. The Western powers ‘do not understand that things have changed in the world,’ he added."

"’You are backing a country that has hundreds of nuclear weapons but you are saying that you want to stop Iran, which could possibly have them some day…’"

The Iranians have stated that they will fire 100 rockets against every one of the U.S. and Israeli ships that are blockading Iran, as soon as they inspect any Iranian merchant ship.

In that way, when Obama gives the order to comply with the Security Council resolution, he will be decreeing the sinking of all the U.S. warships in that area.

Never before has such a dramatic decision fallen upon a president of the United States. He should have foreseen that.

On this occasion, for the first time in my life, I am addressing United States President Barack Obama:

You must know that it is in your hands to offer humanity the only real possibility of peace. Only on one occasion can you make use of your prerogatives by giving the order to fire.

It is possible that later, on the basis of this traumatic experience, solutions might be found that will not lead us once again to this apocalyptical situation. Everybody in your country, including your worst adversaries of the left or the right, will doubtless be grateful to you, and also the people of the United States, who are not in any way guilty of the situation created.

I ask you to deign to hear this appeal that I am conveying to you in the name of the Cuban people.

I understand that a rapid response cannot be expected, nor would you ever give one. Think it through well, consult your specialists, ask your most powerful allies and international adversaries for their opinion on the matter.

I am not interested in honors or glories. Do it!

The world really can be liberated from nuclear weapons and also conventional ones.

The worst of all the variants will be nuclear war, which is already virtually inevitable. PREVENT IT!

Palestinian Boy Used As A Human Shield Submitted To The UN For Investigation

August 3, 2010

[Ramallah, 3 August 2010] - On 3 August 2010, DCI-Palestine submitted a case involving the use of a child as a human shield to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture for further investigation.

DCI-Palestine has received credible evidence that on 16 April 2010, a 14-year-old boy was used as a human shield by units of the Israeli army whilst conducting operations in the village of Beit Ummar, near Hebron, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is alleged that two soldiers forced the boy to walk in front of them in an attempt to shield the soldiers from stones being thrown during clashes with local Palestinian youths. The boy was subsequently tied, blindfolded and beaten, before being released several hours later, without charge. Part of the incident was photographed and reported in Ma'an News.

The practice of using human shields involves forcing civilians to directly assist in military operations or using them to shield an area or troops from attack. Both of these circumstances expose civilians to physical, and sometimes, mortal danger. Civilians are usually threatened and/or physically coerced into performing these tasks, most of the time at gunpoint. The practice is illegal under both international and Israeli domestic law.

Since April 2004, DCI-Palestine has documented 15 cases involving Palestinian children being used as human shields by the Israeli army. Fourteen of the 15 cases, occurred after the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled the practice to be illegal in October 2005, suggesting that the army is not effectively implementing the Court's decision.

On 7 April 2009, DCI-Israel wrote to the Israeli Ministers of Justice and Defence requesting information regarding what measures the authorities had taken to investigate five specified incidents involving the use of children as human shields. Some seven months later, DCI received a response from the authorities, dated 3 November 2009, requesting further information regarding just one of the incidences referred to, the case of nine-year-old Majed R. who was used as a human shield during the war in Gaza. Two soldiers were subsequently charged in the case with deviating from authority to the extent of endangering life or health and unbecoming behaviour, in circumstances where the child was forced at gunpoint to search bags thought to potentially contain explosives. A decision has yet to be handed down in the case. As far as DCI is aware, no other investigations leading to charges have been conducted in the 14 other documented cases, and the authorities have not requested any further information.

DCI reiterates its position that full and impartial investigations meeting international standards must be carried out in all cases involving the use of children as human shields, and that the army be given adequate training and supervision to ensure compliance with the 2005 ruling of the Israeli High Court of Justice.

The 14-year-old boy the subject of the present complaint continues to experience behavioural problems, lack of concentration and memory loss since reportedly being used as a human shield in April 2010.

Lies In Ireland

Step Away From Democracy

Israel is showing signs of distress. The non-violent boycott campaign has now joined the ranks of all other forms of Palestinian resistance, being awarded the label of 'economic terrorism’ by Israeli officials. As is the standard response, alongside the highly effective (though no longer very novel) use of the T-word, Israel is remedying its anxiety with legal force: The prohibition on imposing a boycott bill, is the third in recent months which sets out to criminalise criticism of Israel.

The bill passed the first of three votes almost unanimously, with even so-called centrist parties supporting the bill within the Knesset. However it has also raised concern. Coordinator of the BNC, Ingrid Gardner tells Palestine Monitor "[the bill]’s blatant disregard for even symbolic democracy has triggered criticism among not less racist veteran parliamentarians such as Rubi Rivlin (Kadima) and the former editor in chief of Haaretz David Landau, who has called for a boycott of the Knesset."

The bill states: "[It] is prohibited to initiate a boycott against the state of Israel, to encourage participation in a boycott, or to provide assistance or information with the intention of promoting a boycott." It has three targets in mind: Israeli citizens, foreign citizens and foreign political entities. How this will be applied remains to be seen, but there is little doubt that it will be used zealously and with impressive creativity.

Since the bill was put forward in direct response to the Palestinian Authority’s adoption and legal enforcement of the BDS campaign the likelihood is that it will hit them hard. The Israeli government will prevent the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority which they are obliged to do under international law. However the specific impacts are unknown at present: the BNC told Palestine Monitor that it was too early to make any comment, but that "the BNC is currently arranging for consultation with lawyers, in order to obtain advice about how to relate to this particular law bill".

Palestinians are unlikely to be directly impacted: according to Ayala Shani of 'Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from within’:"Palestinians from the West Bank were exempt from the version of the law that passed the preliminary vote last week."

The boycott bill will be targeting Israeli individuals and organisations however. Though slow to catch on, support for the boycott inside Israel has also been growing. 'Boycott! Supporting the BDS Call from within’ started last year and has a growing list of signatories from Israel. A wide range of human rights and advocacy organisations based in Israel have also issued statements in support of the BDS movement. Even Israel’s mainstream media is beginning to express understanding rather than blind indignation regarding the cultural boycott: "The Pixies and Elvis Costello are right – we are the problem" was the title of an article published in Ha’ir Tel Aviv recently. However the state will be able to silence such pro-boycott statements, should the new bill come into place.

Israelis supporting the boycott will face a fine of 30,000 NIS for their efforts. The financial impact on NGO’s will be considerable and undoubtedly crippling for some, who already work with limited budgets. Furthermore, Shani points out that the legislation will be applied broadly. She believes the boycott will also be applied to projects such as 'Who Profits?: "although the word "boycott" is not even mentioned on it, providing information that can be used to call for boycott would also be illegal." Such penalties will not only be levied at the whim of the state: Haaretz reports that "Under the proposed law, any group could sue for damages of up to NIS 30,000 from anyone who launched a boycott against them, or incited a boycott, without having to prove damage was caused".

It is not clear how successful the bill will be in terms of deterring boycott supporters: Shani points out "I think the people who are involved in this movement are experienced activists and long-time human rights defenders and for the most part they won’t be deterred." Furthermore boycott actions committed up to one year before the passing of the law can be prosecuted, so those who have already promoted the call are unlikely to avoid the fines and therefore have little to lose now.

However the bill will damage and limit human rights and advocacy organisations financially and is likely to prevent support for BDS from becoming mainstream in any effective sense. The law will also ban any foreign citizen who initiates or promotes the boycott from entering the country for 10 years and they will be banned from having financial relations with Israel. Despite such penalties however support groups like Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in the UK and organisations which have promoted BDS such as the National Lawyers Guild in the US show no signs of being deterred.

Indeed, whilst the cost might be high enough to stop Israeli citizens and organisations that have a lot to lose financially, such systematic silencing is more likely to incite criticism and encourage the boycott outside Israel. Certainly the international response in recent months has been one of growing intolerance to Israel’s policies. The bill may in fact promote the boycott rather than prevent it, this time at a lower cost to humanity. Colborne (from Palestine Solidarity Campaign) points out "this legislation, borne of fear of the boycott movement’s success, shows that democracy and freedom of speech mean nothing to the Israeli state, whether applied to the Palestinians whose land it continues to brutally occupy or to its own citizens."

Israel is justifying its attack on democracy on the basis that her larger sister was thumping people for ethical consumerism first. According to the 'explanation of the bill’: "in the USA there is a similar law that protects its friends from boycott by a third party, and the assumption is that a citizen or resident of the state shall not call for the imposition of a boycott on his own country or of its allies. This assumption has proved untrue with regard to the citizens and residents of Israel. If the USA protects its friends through law, it should be self-evident that Israel has the duty and the right to protect itself and its citizens through law."

Developed in the 1970’s in response to the Arab Leagues call for a boycott of Israel, the law states that it is illegal to boycott the USA or an ally country because of pressure from foreign countrys. According to the Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance website the aim of the bill is: "(A) to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by foreign countries against other countries friendly to the United States or against any United States person; (B) to encourage and, in specified cases, require United States persons engaged in the export of goods or technology or other information to refuse to take actions, including furnishing information or entering into or implementing agreements, which have the effect of furthering or supporting the restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country against a country friendly to the United States or against any United States person;"

In 1995 L’Oreal was fined $1.4 million by the US for allegedly writing to the Arab League stating that they had stopped production in Israel (though they were found currying favor with Israel not long after). The law has also been applied against companies who failed to notify the state of requests for information of business with Israel: The Bureau of Industry and Security claimed it had imposed over $26 million in fines for violations of the provisions by 2003.

The law has so far not been used against the BDS movement because BDS was not called for by any foreign country (note that Israel was careful to avoid this problem by using the term "Foreign Political Entity" thus including the PA). However, Matt Ross of the National Guild of Lawyers points out that "regulations and materials posted on the Commerce Department’s website sloppily refer to cooperation with a "foreign boycott" of Israel as being unlawful. Taken literally, that would make it unlawful for US groups to openly support the BDS call originating with Palestinian civil society groups in 2005, or even the foreign boycott movements."

But whilst the US has yet to penalize BDS, it seems clear that Israel will use its own anti-boycott bill, and other measures as far possible: the Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar has stated that the Israeli government will be taking action against academics joining the call for boycott soon, and there have been calls for the transport minister to close land and sea ports to Palestinian exports.

1946 - 2000

Click to enlarge