محاضرة جرت حديثا للدكتور عزمي بشارة بعنوان "الإشكاليات الجديدة للمثقف العربي: التحديات والرهانات"

UN Human Rights Council: Egypt Rights Abuses in Spotlight

Member States Call on Cairo to End Violations, Ensure Justice

MARCH 7, 2014

For the first time UN member states have used the forum of the Human Rights Council to spotlight the abuses going on in Egypt. Egyptian authorities are now on notice that the international community will not ignore their crackdown on dissent and impunity for repeated, unlawful killings of protesters.

Julie de Rivero, Geneva director

(Geneva) –A joint declaration by 27 United Nations member states expressing concern about Egypt’s repeated use of excessive force against demonstrators turned the international spotlight on Egypt’s human rights abuses. It was the first such action at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva since Egyptian security forces killed hundreds of protesters in dispersing a sit-in at Raba’a Square in Cairo on August 14, 2013.

The joint declaration on March 7, 2014 called for Egyptian authorities to hold those responsible for the abuses to account. The 27 countries also denounced Egypt’s restrictions on peaceful assembly, expression and association and urged the government to release those arrested solely for exercising those rights.

“For the first time UN member states have used the forum of the Human Rights Council to spotlight the abuses going on in Egypt,” said Julie de Rivero, Geneva director. “Egyptian authorities are now on notice that the international community will not ignore their crackdown on dissent and impunity for repeated, unlawful killings of protesters.”

The joint statement highlighted the need for justice for the killing of protesters and security forces since June 30, 2013, and the installation of a military-backed government. The statement called for findings of the national Fact Finding Commission, established by the interim president in December 2013, to be made public and for those responsible for grave violations to be held accountable.

On March 3, 2014, a group of 15 nongovernmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch, sent aletter to UN member countries calling on the Human Rights Council to address the “grave situation of human rights in Egypt at the upcoming 25th Session of the UN HRC.”

The situation in Egypt has grown increasingly dire over the past eight months, as security forces use excessive lethal force against protesters. Authorities arrest or harass journalists, peaceful protesters, and others for exercising the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly, as well as solely for membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. There have been no efforts to hold accountable security officials responsible for ordering or carrying out attacks that have killed well over 1,000 people since July 3, 2013.

The joint statement was in response to a call by the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, for Egypt to respect human rights, in particular protection from arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

“Egyptian officials should understand that the world is watching and will not accept denial, foot-dragging, and impunity for pervasive rights violations,” de Rivero said. “After killing hundreds and arbitrarily detaining many more, Egypt needs to act to address serious concerns about its human rights record.”

صراع دولي على سوريا أم اتفاق على تدميرها؟

د. فيصل القاسم

MARCH 7, 2014

يتحجج الذين يريدون إطالة أمد الدمار في سوريا بأن القضية ليست مجرد صراع بين نظام ومعارضة، بل هي صراع دولي على سوريا بين أمريكا وحلفها من جهة وروسيا وأتباعها من جهة اخرى بما فيهم إيران.
لكن لو دققنا في الصراع المزعوم بين الشرق والغرب على سوريا، نجد أنه مفتعل. فلو كان صراعاً فعلياً بين المحور الأمريكي وشركاه والمحور الروسي وشركاه، لما سمحت أمريكا وإسرائيل بدخول حزب الله وإيران وأذنابها بهذه القوة والفجاجة إلى سوريا. 
ولو كانت أمريكا فعلاً في صراع مع المحور الروسي على سوريا، وتريد أن تنتصر هي ومحورها بما فيه قوى المعارضة السورية لقامت بتسليح حلفائها في الداخل السوري بالسلاح النوعي، الذي يقلب الموازين على الأرض. لكنها حتى الآن تعارض تزويدهم بمضادات طيران. وهو ما يشير إلى أنها ليست حليفة لهم، ولا هي في صراع مع الروس والإيرانيين، الذين يدعمون النظام بالغالي والرخيص.
بعبارة أخرى، فإن التردد الأمريكي والغربي والإسرائيلي في حسم الوضع السوري لا يدل على أنهم في صراع مع روسيا وايران والنظام، فلو كانت المعركة بين الطرفين الروسي والامريكي في سوريا معركة كسر عظم، كما كانت في أفغانستان ذات يوم، لكانت أمريكا زودت المقاتلين السوريين بصواريخ مضادة للطيران، كما فعلت مع المجاهدين الأفغان، وكان لتلك الصواريخ من طراز (ستنغر) الدور الحاسم في إخراج سلاح الطيران السوفييتي وقتها من المعركة وهزيمة الروس.
ولا ننسى كيف كانت أمريكا تضغط على حلفائها العرب والإقليميين لدعم المجاهدين الأفغان بمليارات الدولارات. وتذكر بعض المصادر أن دول الخليج وحدها دفعت أكثر من عشرين مليار دولار كمساعدات للمقاتلين الأفغان لدحر الدب الروسي. فهل تدعم أمريكا المقاتلين السوريين، الذين يتصدون لنظام الأسد وحلفائه الروس بنفس القوة؟ بالطبع لا.
الكل يعلم الآن أنه لو توفرت لمقاتلي المعارضة السورية صواريخ مضادة للطائرات لحسموا المعركة منذ زمن، خاصة وأن الطائرات السورية تشل قدرة قوى المعارضة بالبراميل المتفجرة وغيرها. 
إذاً، وعلى ضوء هذا التقاعس الامريكي في مواجهة الحلف الروسي في سوريا يمكن القول إن الطرفين متفقان، وليسا متصارعين على سوريا. ومن الواضح أن الاتفاق بين الحليفين الروسي والأمريكي هو على تدمير سوريا وتهجير شعبها لأغراض لا يعلمها إلا الله! 
روسيا تدعم النظام بكل أنواع الأسلحة، وايران تساعده على الأرض لإحداث أكبر قدر من التدمير، وأمريكا وحلفها تزود المعارضة بسلاح لا يحسم المعركة، بل يجعلها تستمر بغرض استمرار التدمير. 
بعبارة أخرى، المطلوب في سوريا من الأمريكان والروس استمرار القتال وليس الانتصار، بدليل أنه كلما دخلت قوات المعارضة منطقة حاصرها جيش الأسد، ودمرها، فانتقل مقاتلو المعارضة إلى منطقة أخرى كي يلاحقهم جيش النظام ويدمر المنطقة الجديدة، حتى يأتي الدمار على كل أنحاء البلاد!
كم هم سخفاء أولئك الممانعجيون والمقاومجيون وهم يقولون إن الصراع الدائر الآن: في أي حلف يجب أن تكون سوريا، في محور المقاومة والممانعة المدعوم روسياً، أو في المحور الآخر المدعوم أمريكياً؟!
لا شك أنه طرح سخيف، لا لشيء إلا لأن أمريكا وروسيا أقرب إلى التحالف في سوريا منهما إلى الصراع. ويجادل البعض في هذا الإطار بأنه لا يمكن لأي شخص فيه ذرة من العقل أن يتوقع انتقال السيطرة على سوريا أصلاً الى المعسكر الغربي. 
وهذا الأمر لا تريده أمريكا ولا إسرائيل، لأن سوريا بلد على حدود فلسطين، وأي تغير في جهة التبعية، سوف يؤدي إلى خلل سياسي كبير. بعبارة أخرى ، فإن أمريكا وحلفاءها ومنهم إسرائيل تبارك لروسيا وحلفائها بقاء سوريا ضمن سيطرة قوى الشرق بزعامة روسيا، لأن روسيا هي من أخلص الخدم لإسرائيل، وبالتالي فإن بقاءها مسيطرة على سوريا يعني أنها تبقى محافظة على أمناسرائيل، وتبقى حالة العداء الصوري لإسرائيل طافية على السطح في السياسة السورية لتبقى صمام الأمان، كالذي يقوم به حلف المقاومة والممانعة .
وكي نوضح الأمر أكثر، فلا بد للجميع أن يعلموا أن لب الصراع على سوريا مرتبط ارتباطاً وثيقاً بأمن إسرائيل. فحتى لو بقيت سوريا في المحور الروسي – الإيراني (الممانع)، فهذا لن يضير أمريكا ولا إسرائيل، لأن روسيا أكبر حليف لإسرائيل، وأكبر وأقوى لوبي في إسرائيل هو اللوبي الروسي، ولا يمكن بالتالي أن تسمح روسيا بأي خطر يهدد أمن إسرائيل. وهذا يعود بنا إلى فكرة أن سوريا ليست محل صراع بين الشرق والغرب، بل الهدف من الصراع الصوري بين المحورين الروسي والامريكي على سوريا تدمير سوريا وإنهاكها كي تنام إسرائيل قريرة العين.
إن إظهار روسيا على أنها قوة عظمى في الشرق وحفاظها على حلفائها ودفاعها عنهم في الشرق الاوسط تحديداً هو أصلاً مطلب إسرائيلي – أمريكي. فبدل أن تدخل إسرائيل وأمريكا في كل كبيرة وصغيرة في الملفات الساخنة داخل الدول العربية ‘المعادية’ لإسرائيل، تستلم هذه المهمة روسيا، التي تظهر على أنها معادية للسياسات الامريكية في الشرق الاوسط، بينما هي في الحقيقة أكبر حلفاء اسرائيل، وتربطها بأمريكا علاقات مصالح كبيرة خلف الكواليس، بحكم أن اللوبي الصهيوني هو من يدير أمريكا وروسيا في آن معاً. 
وعندما تحتوي روسيا كل الدول العربية، التي لم تظلها العباءة الامريكية في المنطقة، فهذا يعني أن روسيا تخفف الضغط عن أمريكا وإسرائيل في احتواء هذه الدول ومتابعة كل كبيرة وصغيرة فيها، وتتحكم بسياساتها، بما يوافق ويخدم المصلحة الروسية والامريكية والاسرائيلية معاً.
أخيراً، عندما أرى هذا الغرام بين روسيا وإسرائيل أتساءل: كيف يمكن أن تكون روسيا حليفاً ‘للمقاومين والممانعين’، وفي الوقت نفسه في حلف استراتيجي مع اسرائيل؟

When corpses rule the Arab world

March 08, 2014 12:12 AM
By Rami G. Khouri

The Daily Star

Is there no limit to the assault on the basic rights and humanity of Arab citizens? The latest insult to common human decency and the struggle of hundreds of millions of Arabs for democratic and accountable governance comes from Algeria, where President Abdelaziz Bouteflika announced earlier this week that he would run for his fourth consecutive term as president. Not surprisingly, in central Algiers security forces arrested Thursday 40 people who were demonstrating in protest against Bouteflika’s announcement. A similar small protest last week met the same fate at the hands of the security services.
Even though a state of emergency in the country was lifted in 2011, public protests remain banned throughout the land. Another protest last week was similarly broken up. Then and again this week, the brave Algerians who took to the streets to bring an end to military rule and the perpetual hold on power by ailing old men chanted slogans such as “Long live Algeria!” and “Free and democratic Algeria!”
The police intervened forcefully against the protests, but the lessons of the past three years in the Arab world suggest that this latest attempt at perpetual incumbency by military-backed families and cliques will not pass without more protests.
Even after the demonstrators were bundled into vans by security forces, they continued to oppose Bouteflika’s candidacy by banging on the sides of the vehicles. One female protester cried out, “Fifty-two years – Barakat!” (That’s enough!), referring to the fact that the Algerian military in one form or another has ruled the country for the past 52 years of its independence from France.
“Barakat” is a new popular movement that opposes a fourth Bouteflika candidacy, similar to the Kefaya movement in Egypt that opposed the intention of former President Hosni Mubarak to pass on the presidency to his son Gamal. Kefaya protests were always broken up, but they played a historic role in giving Egyptians the courage to openly challenge the Mubarak regime by publicly protesting against perpetual Mubarak family rule.
A liberal who presented himself as a presidential candidate but dropped out of the race in disgust after hearing of Bouteflika’s candidacy, told AFP, “We are tired of this half-dead man and the thugs who surround him. The political equation must change.”
The spectacle of an ailing old man such as Bouteflika clinging to power after 15 years as president is a sickening reminder of the single most debilitating legacy of the modern Arab state system that is now so directly challenged by its own citizens who are tired of being treated like children with no rights. That would be the legacy of soldiers and families ruling entire countries for decades on end, with neither the legitimacy that free elections confer nor the credibility or efficacy in governing that would result from participation, accountability and transparency in the conduct of policymaking.
Bouteflika, who is 77 years old, suffered a stroke in April 2013 and spent months being treated in France. His rare public appearance last Monday was necessary for him to submit his candidacy papers in person for the April 17 presidential vote. He then appeared on television to confirm his candidacy, marking the first time he spoke in public since returning from Paris eight months ago.
Before his presidential years began 15 years ago, he had held senior posts in the National Liberation Front that has ruled the country since independence, and was foreign minister for 16 years in the 1960s-1970s. He is credited in his first term with ending the 10-year-long civil war against Islamists in the 1990s. However, after being re-elected in 2004 he amended the constitution so that he could run again in 2009 and 2014. Power, it seems, is addictive.
Bouteflika is likely to be re-elected, but not because a majority of Algerians want him to serve again. The country has witnessed hundreds of small demonstrations in recent years against corruption, mismanagement, economic conditions and lack of democratic participation, all to no avail. The military’s hold on power remains firm, and Algerians seem unlikely to wage a national rebellion to oust the regime as has happened in other lands across North Africa, mainly because they have challenged the state before and always lost to the generals. Algerians also seem fearful of reigniting national strife after their ugly civil war.
So Bouteflika will win despite the protests against his candidacy, and will serve another term, or as much of it as his frail health permits. But he will remain a sad symbol of the inability of Arab old men with guns to come to terms with their people’s desire to live with dignity and full rights as citizens
.

البرنامج - موسم 3 - الحلقه 5 كامله

Iran's Man In Iraq is Protected by US Special Forces! U.S. special forces sent to train Iraqi special forces in Jordan

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speaks during an interview with Reuters in Baghdad January 12, 2014.

CREDIT: REUTERS/THAIER AL-SUDANI

RELATED TOPICS

• World »
• Iraq »

(Reuters) - The United States recently sent a small number of special forces soldiers to Jordan to train with counterparts fromIraq and Jordan, a new step in the Obama administration's effort to help Baghdad stamp out a resurgent al Qaeda threat, a U.S. defense official said on Friday.

The U.S. contingent was dispatched to take part in a training exchange with counterterrorism forces from Iraq and Jordan, allowing the administration to provide a modest new measure of support to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"The training will bolster skills in counterterrorism and special operations tactics, techniques and procedures," a U.S. defense official said on condition of anonymity.

The training, which includes less than 100 elite soldiers from the three countries, began last weekend. It will continue through the end of April, although the Iraqi soldiers will only take part through the end of this month, the official said.

The new training complements stepped-up sales of U.S. weaponry to Maliki's government, and reflects increased concern among U.S. officials about Iraq's security trajectory more than two years after all American troops departed.

Reuters was first to report in January that U.S. officials were considering supporting training of elite Iraqi forces in a third country.

In the past, U.S. officials had said that they were considering training the Iraqi forces at a privately run special operations training center near Amman.

Jordan, grappling with the mounting impact of the grinding conflict in neighboring Syria, is one of the United States' closest allies in the Middle East.

The U.S. response to mounting sectarian tensions and surging violence in Iraq has been limited by reluctance to further empower Maliki, a Shi'ite Muslim leader increasingly at odds with Iraqi Sunni Muslims, and a widespread desire to ensure U.S. soldiers aren't involved in another Middle Eastern conflict.

Because U.S. soldiers cannot conduct military activities in Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement, training with Iraqi forces outside of Iraq is one way the Obama administration can try to help Iraq beat back a surge in militant attacks over the last year.

Since early 2013, suicide bombings and other sophisticated attacks have once again become more common in Iraq, seeming to break the lull in violence that coincided with the final years of the U.S. military presence that began in 2003.

U.S. anxiety about Iraq skyrocketed when militants from an al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), with the help of other Sunni groups, overran Iraq's city of Falluja in largely Sunni Anbar province.

Roundtable: As Crimea Threatens Succession, Does East-West Split Hasten Ukraine’s Political Divide?

Democracy Now!

"Russian President Vladimir Putin is rebuffing warnings from the U.S. and European Union as the crisis in Ukraine threatens one of the worst east-west standoffs since the Cold War. The pro-Russian Crimean parliament has voted to hold a referendum on splitting off from Ukraine and joining Russia. But the vote’s legitimacy has been called into question after the installation of a pro-Russian government in Crimea just last week. We host a roundtable discussion with three guests: Anton Shekhovtsov, a Ukrainian citizen and researcher at the University College London specializing in far right movements; Jonathan Steele, former Moscow correspondent for The Guardian and author of "Eternal Russia: Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the Mirage of Democracy"; and Keith Gessen, an editor at N+1 magazine who covered the 2010 Ukraine elections for the New Yorker....."

Egypt bars Gaza-bound Irish Nobel Peace Laureate Maguire

CAIRO (AFP) -- Egypt detained and deported Northern Irish Nobel Laureate and peace activist Mairead Maguire on Wednesday and held up others who had been planning to go to neighboring Gaza, the activists and officials said.

Maguire had intended to join a delegation of women activists going to the blockaded Palestinian enclave on Thursday.

The group could embarrass the military-installed government, which is at odds with Gaza's Hamas rulers, yet does not want to be seen as party to a siege of Palestinians, blockaded by Israel.

On Tuesday, airport police had already detained and deported American anti-war activist Medea Benjamin, also part of the delegation, who told AFP police broke her arm.

Maguire said she arrived at Cairo airport on Tuesday night with fellow activist Ann Patterson.

"We were taken to the detention center and questioned and held for eight hours, and were told we would not be allowed entry into Cairo and would be put on a plane," she told AFP by telephone from Britain after her expulsion.

She said police were polite but gave no reason for barring her, while an airport official told AFP she had been blacklisted.

Maguire, born in 1944, won the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize with Betty Williams for founding a peace group to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland.

She has become a vocal supporter of the Palestinians and was expelled from Israel in 2010, after trying to enter the blockaded Gaza Strip aboard a ship with other activists.

The delegation of activists that will try to enter Gaza through the Egyptian Rafah border crossing was meant to be led by Djamila Bouhired, an icon of the Algerian war of independence from France.

Bouhired had been expected to arrive at 1800 GMT on a flight from Paris, but did not do so.

Meanwhile, about 15 other activists were barred from leaving the airport, their comrades said, and it was not immediately clear if they too would be deported.

Egypt controls the only border crossing with Gaza that bypasses Israel, and is accused of colluding with Israel to blockade the territory ruled by Hamas.

Complying 'with blockade'

The border crossing is opened irregularly.

"I think it's sad, what they've done," Maguire said of the reception she and the other activists received in Egypt.

"It is an example and confirmation of the Egyptian government's compliance with the blockade of Gaza."

In 2006, Israel imposed a blockade on the enclave and tightened the siege in 2007 when Hamas seized control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas.

Egypt refuses to recognize Hamas' authority in Gaza and only infrequently allows some aid through the Rafah crossing.

Cairo says the crossing is meant for people, not goods, and a 2005 agreement between Israel and the Palestinians stipulates that Abbas's forces should be present at the passage.

Pro-Palestinian activists from abroad protested in Cairo in 2010 when they were prevented from entering Gaza.

The government of then president Hosni Mubarak eventually allowed some of the activists to cross.

Medea Benjamin on Her Egyptian Detention

This week on Truthdig Radio in association with KPFK: The CodePink co-founder tells us why Egypt thinks she’s a threat to national security. Also: Making sense of Ukraine, Uganda bans homosexuality, and the Advocate’s Matthew Breen on AIDS breakthroughs.

Listen to the show:

 

AP Photo/Chris Greenberg

CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin, left, and fellow anti-war activists, including actor Sean Penn, march past the U.S. Supreme Court in this 2007 photo.

Fly me, I'm the Iraqi minister's son!

Standard class, business class ... and nepotism class

By Brian Whitaker

"Do you know who I am?" That's a question that officials everywhere in the Arab countries dread hearing. If they don't know the answer they had better find out pronto – otherwise they will be in trouble.

Privilege, nepotism, corruption ... whatever you call it, it's bad news. It's also one of the main causes of public discontent in the region – the idea that rules and procedures exist to keep the plebs under control and don't really apply to those with plenty of money or connections in high places.

Pulling rank happens on a daily basis but yesterday brought an especially notable example.

A Middle East Airlines flight from Beirut to Baghdad was ready to take off but two of its passengers were missing. Staff checked the business class lounge and final calls went out over the loudspeakers but there was no sign of Mahdi al-Amiri and his friend, so the flight took off without them – six minutes late.

Shortly afterwards, Amiri turned up. Furious to find he had missed his flight, he then made a phone call to someone in Baghdad, according to MEA.

Mahdi al-Amiri is the son of Hadi al-Amiri, who happens to be Iraq's transport minister, and a few minutes after his phone call Baghdad airport contacted MEA to say the flight would not be allowed to land in Iraq. It therefore returned to Beirut.

However, if Amiri had been hoping he would then be allowed to board the plane and fly to Iraq, he was mistaken. MEA cancelled the flight, forcing Amiri and all the other passengers to wait 24 hours for the next one.
  

Transport minister Amiri

In customary fashion, the Iraqi transport ministry denied that the plane's return to Beirut had anything to do with the minister's son or his phone call. It claims the plane was not allowed to land in Baghdad because of "cleaning operations" there.

A check by Reuters established that 30 other flights landed normally in Baghdad yesterday and the only plane affected by these alleged "cleaning operations" was the one supposed to have Mahdi al-Amiri on board.

Real News Video: AIPAC Is Losing Influence Over U.S. Foreign Policy

Phyllis Bennis: The failure of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group to force congress to vote for intervention into Syria or for additional sanctions on Iran representing a significant decline in its influence

الاتجاه المعاكس.. الجماعات الجهادية والثورات العربية

A Great Cartoon by Khalil Bendib: AIDS Cure From Egypt!

Crimea

By Signe Wilkinson

At AIPAC, Netanyahu launches “desperate” attack on BDS movement

By Ali Abunimah

BDS movement “will fail,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cheering AIPAC delegates. (Screenshot)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today launched a frontal assault on the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

“One movement that’s definitely on the wrong side of the moral divide is the movement to boycott Israel, the so-called BDS,” Netanyahu told the cheering delegates, in his keynote speech to the annual gathering of the powerful Israel lobby group AIPAC in Washington, DC.

“That movement will fail,” Netanyahu predicted.

While claiming that people were “flocking to Israel” for its technology from all over the world, Netanyahu warned, “I don’t want you to get complacent – because the fact that they’re going to fail doesn’t mean that the BDS movement shouldn’t be vigorously opposed.”

“Anti-Semites”

Netanyahu proceeded to defame supporters of Palestinian human rights in the crudest terms: “Throughout history, people believed the most outrageously absurd things about the Jews, that we were using the blood of children to bake matzos, that we were spreading the plague throughout Europe.”

Those who support BDS today are just as bad, Netanyahu asserted: “Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot. They should be exposed and condemned. The boycotters should be boycotted.”

This speech is Netanyahu’s highest profile attack on BDS, although last summer, he put responsibility for fighting against the movement for Palestinian rights into the hands of the “Ministry of Strategic Affairs.”

Israel is also placing dedicated anti-BDS operatives in its foreign embassies.

In recent months, top ministers in Netanyahu’s government have repeatedly declared that BDS is the “greatest threat” Israel faces.

Desperate

Responding to his remarks, Rafeef Ziadah, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, the Palestinian civil society coalition that leads the BDS movement, said in an emailed statement:

“Netanyahu’s desperate attack on the BDS movement comes as European pension funds are blacklisting Israeli companies and banks, as Israeli concert organizers find it increasingly difficult to persuade artists to perform in Israel and as governments begin to take action to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law.”

“At its core, the BDS movement is a movement against Israel’s systematic discrimination and apartheid policies. The BDS movement is opposed, as a matter of principle, to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia. The world is growing increasingly weary of Israel’s attempts to conflate criticism of its violations of international law with anti-semitism.”

Ziadah is right. It’s hard to see how people who are not already on board with Netanyahu will be swayed by his invective.

If Israel’s only answer to people all over the world who are horrified by its oppression of Palestinians and ongoing theft of their land, is to call them “bigots,” then Netanyahu should fully expect the BDS movement to grow.

On Crimea 'invasion': Why the UN veto has to go

While the US has conditionally supported an increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council, it has been largely opposed to the removal of its veto power, writes LeVine [Reuters]

The best response to Russia's Crimea 'invasion'? Get rid of the Security Council veto. By Mark LeVine Al-Jazeera The hypocrisy is as palpable as it is indefensible. So much so that it's hard to imagine how US Secretary of State John Kerry could have said the words with a straight face. "You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped up pre-text," he explained on Sunday to David Gregory, host of the NBC Sunday talk show Meet the Press. No smile or even smirk can be spotted on his face, which remained as stoic as when he famously explained during his last Senate campaign how authorising the invasion of Iraq "met the national security interests of our country". Inside Story: Russian defence or dominance? The larger picture President Barack Obama owes his presidency in good measure to his predecessor's "unwise" (in Kerry's words) use of his Congressionally mandated authority to deploy "all necessary means" to secure US interests in Iraq. One wonders if Russia's next president will look back on its Parliament's authorisation of President Vladimir Putin to send Russian troops into the Ukraine with a similar sense of historical schadenfreude. Much of that depends on how serious President Putin is about expanding Russia's control of Crimea and perhaps even parts of Eastern Ukraine, and whether such actions are part of a larger strategy to annex Russian-speaking parts of the country or  - at least - break them away from central government control and ultimately sovereignty.Militarily, there is little the United States, its NATO allies, or the Ukraine can do to stop Russia from taking control of as much territory as it likes, at least for the time being. The stakes are even higher if Putin's motives are "taking aim at the United States and Europe", as the New York Times is arguing, as much as they are geared towards securing Russia's local interests.  This leaves various forms of sanctions - suspending Russia's participation in the G-8, prohibiting various forms of visas for tourism and business, placing sanctions on various imports from and exports to Russia - as the most likely means of attempting to punish Russia. And depending on the patriotism of middle and upper class Russians, for whom Europe is a primary location both for tourism and banking, such punishment might pressure the government to resolve the crisis in a way that restores something close to the status quo ante in Crimea. But there's only so much pain such actions can inflict, in good measure because the US and Europe need Russia - its oil and gas, and its cash reserves, as well as its cooperation on issues from Syria to nuclear proliferation - more than it needs a Ukraine with its present borders. New cold war? While politicians and the media are already describing the events of the last week as the start of a new Cold War, that binary paradigm neither holds politically in the present multipolar globalised world system, nor does it offer a set of procedures that would effectively compel Russia or any other country to refrain from invading other countries or committing other violations of international law. Militarily, there is little the United States, its NATO allies, or the Ukraine can do to stop Russia from taking control of as much territory as it likes, at least for the time being. The one mechanism that could compel Russia or other countries to stop engaging in acts of aggression such as sending forces to seize parts of a sovereign state is the United Nations Security Council, which has the mandate to declare such actions illegal and demand violators remove their troops. The problem, of course, is that as long as Russia retains a veto, derived from Article 27 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is powerless to act to compel it to remove troops. Of course, Russia is not the only country to use its weight as a permanent Security Council member to prevent votes that might challenge its policies. It and the former Soviet Union wielded their veto power dozens of times during the UN's history, although only the last nine were used by Russia. In contrast the United States wielded the veto upwards of 70 times, with well over a dozen vetoes coming in the post-Cold War period (almost all US vetoes have concerned the Israeli occupation). And innumerable votes have never seen the light of day precisely because Council members knew they'd result in a veto. Benefits of a 'P5' veto Both the US and Russia, as well as China and the United Kingdom, enjoy the benefits of having a "P5" veto: It allows the great powers and their clients (like Israel and Syria) to violate international law, including the most serious of crimes, that of "aggression" against another state, with relative impunity. But while it ensures the greatest freedom of action to the most powerful countries, it doesn't necessarily serve their broader geostrategic interests. Whether regarding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the Russian incursion today, the lack of veto power would have not merely given the international community a powerful tool to rein in excessive force, but, given the countries themselves, a mechanism for avoiding ultimately disastrous mistakes, as the US invasion of Iraq so well demonstrates, and Russia's Crimean folly could well confirm. At the same time, bringing in countries such as Germany, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and/or Indonesia as permanent members (India should be part of this group, but its ongoing occupation of Kashmir would disqualify its becoming a permanent member) would expand the ranks of the permanent membership. It would also strengthen the hands of international forces and mechanisms that meaningfully rather than merely rhetorically support freedom and democracy across the globe. While the US has conditionally supported an increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council, it has been largely opposed to the removal of its veto power (or even its weakening by requiring two or three no votes to be take effect); if not for the sake of its own imperial prerogatives than to ensure the continued protection of Israel, on whose behalf the vast majority of UN Security Council vetoes have been wielded. Making the situation more difficult, according to Articles 108 & 109 of the Charter, amending the UN Charter to expand the Security Council and/or change or do away with the veto would require not just a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly, but constitutional ratification by all those states, and the agreement of all five current permanent members. US condemns Russian 'aggression' in Crimea With the civil war and attending humanitarian diaster in Syria, the Central African Republic spiraling into a conflict across the region, the showdown over Crimea threatening to resurrect the Cold War, there is a growing sense that the only way to get rising powers to play a more proactive role in managing regional conflicts is through their greater empowerment within the international system.   There is also a congruence of interests to support a mechanism that would help save the big powers, and world community as well, from the costs of pursuing their basest geostrategic interests. At the very least, whoever called for or supported such a change to the Security Council would show themselves to be at the forefront of the movement towards greater democratisation of global governance. Those opposing it would show themselves to be standing outside the global consensus for greater transparency and representation within the major institutions governing the international system. In the kind of battles for world public opinion that are being waged now around the Ukraine and Crimea, the side that shows a willingness to relinquish some power to help ensure the great good for all sides will be the one that wins support for their policies towards resolving the conflict.

World powers responsible for failing to stop Syria war crimes: U.N.

A general view of damage after what activists said was an air strike by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the Al-Maysar neighbourhood of Aleppo February 23, 2014.

CREDIT: REUTERS/HOSAM KATAN

RELATED NEWS

• Chemical weapons used in Syria appear to come from army stockpile: U.N.

RELATED TOPICS

• World »
• United Nations »
• Syria »

(Reuters) - All sides in Syria's civil war are using shelling and siege tactics to punish civilians and big powers bear responsibility for allowing such war crimes to persist, U.N. human rights investigators said on Wednesday.

In their latest report documenting atrocities in Syria, they called again on the U.N. Security Council to refer grave violations of the rules of war to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution.

"The Security Council bears responsibility for allowing the warring parties to violate these rules with impunity," the report by the U.N. commission of inquiry on Syria said.

"Such inaction has provided the space for the proliferation of actors in the Syrian Arab Republic, each pursuing its own agenda and contributing to the radicalization and escalation of violence."

Divided world powers have supported both sides in Syria's three-year-old conflict and a diplomatic deadlock has exacerbated the bloodshed.

The independent investigators, led by Brazilian expert Paulo Pinheiro, said that fighters and their commanders may be held accountable for crimes, but also states which transfer weapons to Syria.

Syrian government forces under President Bashar al-Assad have besieged towns including the Old City of Homs, shelling relentlessly and depriving them of food as part of a "starvation until submission" campaign, the report said.

It said the Syrian air force had dropped barrel bombs on Aleppo with "shocking intensity", killing hundreds of civilians and injuring many more.

المجازر مستمرة دون ان يعبأ احد!
(Cartoon by Ali Farzat)

Insurgents fighting to topple Assad, especially foreign Islamic fighters including the al-Qaeda affiliated ISIS, have stepped up attacks on civilians, taken hostages, executed prisoners and set off car bombs to spread terror, it said.

The 75-page report, covering July 15-January 20, is the seventh by the United Nationssince the inquiry was set up in September 2011, six months after the anti-Assad revolt began.

The investigators have not been allowed into Syria, but their latest findings were based on 563 interviews conducted by Skype or by telephone with victims and witnesses still in the country or in person with refugees in surrounding countries.

FOUR LISTS OF SUSPECTS

All sides have violated the rules of war embodied in the Geneva Conventions, according to the team of two dozen who include former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte.

It has now drawn up four confidential lists of suspects.

Despite some tactical gains by Syrian government forces backed by more foreign combat forces of Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi militia, the fighting has reached a stalemate, causing significant casualties and material losses, the report said.

"The government relied extensively on the superior firepower of its air force and artillery, while non-state armed groups increasingly resorted to methods of asymmetric warfare, such as suicide bombs and use of improved explosive devices."

As part of a strategy aimed at weakening the insurgents and breaking the will of their popular base, government forces have besieged and bombarded civilian areas, it said.

"Partial sieges aimed at expelling armed groups turned into tight blockades that prevented the delivery of basic supplies, including food and medicine, as part of a 'starvation until submission' campaign."

Rebels throughout Syria have "inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering on civilian populations in areas under their control", including on prisoners, it said.

Referring to the northern area of Raqqa that is under control of an al Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the report said: "The acts committed by non-state armed groups ... in areas under their control against the civilian population constitute torture and inhuman treatment as a war crime and, in the context of (Raqqa), as a crime against humanity."

Rebels have encircled Nubl and Zahra, besieging 45,000 people in the two Shi'ite towns in Aleppo province, it said.

"The siege is imposed by groups affiliated to the Islamic Front, Jaish Al Mujahedeen, Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Syrian Revolutionary Front by checkpoints erected around the area and by cutting off their electrical and water supply lines."

The war, which enters its fourth year next week, has become "deeply fragmented and localized", with multiple front lines involving different parties with shifting priorities, according to the report.

Kurdish forces in northeastern provinces were fighting radical Islamic armed groups in a "distinct sub-conflict".

Thousands of foreign fighters have joined the fighting, fuelling the sectarian dimension of the conflict that threatens to destabilize the wider region, the investigators said.

War crimes had been committed on both sides, including torture, massacres, rapes and recruitment of child soldiers.

"Government forces are conducting a sniper campaign in Bustan Al Qasr (Aleppo). On one day alone in October, doctors treated five men shot in the groin. The same month, six pregnant women were shot in the abdomen," the report said.

On the rebel side, a 26-year-old man was detained on the ground of his sexual orientation in October 2013. "He was beaten and hung by his arms from a ceiling by ISIS in Raqqa. On 31 October, a school headmistress was publicly lashed by ISIS in Raqqa for not wearing a hijab (Islamic head covering)."