Palestinians protest against the Israeli blockade in southern Gaza. The Libyan government attempted to send aid, however, their vessels were turned back by the Israeli military forces.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos
Gaza-bound Libyan aid ship
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Friday, December 05, 2008
UNITED NATIONS
Libya protested in vain Wednesday before the UN Security Council over Israel's interception of one of its cargo ships attempting to offload aid in the impoverished Gaza Strip.
Ambassador Giadalla Ettalhi told an emergency council session that Israel was guilty of "piracy in the high seas," and called for "effective action that will ensure compliance of Israel with international humanitarian law and the law of the seas."
His complaints, however, failed to elicit a formal condemnation of Monday's actions by Israel, which needed unanimous consensus by the council's 14 members - Libya is one of the 15-strong council's 10 rotating members.
Israeli warships on Monday prevented a Libyan cargo vessel, the Al-Marwa, from reaching Gaza with 3,000 tons of humanitarian aid for the impoverished Palestinian territory, which has been under a crippling Israeli blockade since Hamas won legislative elections in 2006.
The Jewish state further sealed off Gaza after Hamas ousted the rival Fatah movement in 2007.
Various UN and EU officials have slammed the siege as "collective punishment of a civilian population," an act illegal under international law that the Fourth Geneva Convention defines as a war crime.
Israel's ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, invited to speak at the council meeting even though her country is not a member, rejected Libya's accusations, especially the piracy contention, and in turn charged Tripoli with provocation.
She said that since Libya does not recognize the state of Israel in light of its treatment of Palestinians, the interception was justified on grounds of national security.
The Libyan aid shipment is the first effort by an Arab state to circumvent the illegal blockade of Gaza, which Israel has sealed off since the Islamist movement Hamas won legislative elections in 2006.
An official in Tripoli said the crew of the Al-Mawra will have no option but to return to Libya, since the aid cannot be unloaded in Gaza.
US Deputy Permanent Representative Alejandro Wolff also rejected Libya's arguments during the debate and deemed it "absurd to assert Israel committed an act of piracy" since not a single shot was fired nor was the Libyan ship boarded.
He said Libya's attempt to access a blockaded seaport instead of following the usual channels for international aid was "dangerous and irresponsible."
However, the American official failed to elaborate on how following normal channels for aid would have seen supplies reach their destination, as Israel has only allowed in a trickle of international assistance in the past month.
Several council members used the debate to voice their concerns over the humanitarian situation in Gaza and deplore the Israeli blockade of the coastal territory. - AFP
Israeli West Bank forces on alert
Israeli forces are on high alert after violence erupted following the eviction of Jewish settlers from a building in the West Bank city of Hebron.
Several Palestinians were attacked, with homes set ablaze and mosques desecrated with anti-Muslim graffiti.
Israeli officials have also restricted entry by Muslim worshipers to the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
Thursday's operation to remove the settlers took about one hour and involved at least 100 Israeli soldiers.
The settlers had refused to leave the house, in defiance of an Israeli Supreme Court order.
Clashes broke out across a number of West Bank towns as settlers vented their anger at the eviction.
The Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, says settlers shot and wounded three Palestinians.
According to Israeli Haaretz newspaper, stones were hurled by settlers at Palestinian cars in Nablus, Ramallah and Hebron.
The Jerusalem Post reports that settler youths set fire to a number of Palestinian homes and cars.
There are fears the attacks could plunge the West Bank into further communal violence.
Maj-Gen Amos Gilad, the Israeli military co-ordinator in the Palestinian Territories, has met Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to urge him to restrain Fatah forces throughout the West Bank.
But the governor of the Nablus region, Jamal Moheisin, has warned that if Israel did not control the settlers, "we will call on the Palestinian residents to go out to the streets and fight back".
Legal wrangle
Ownership of the building is in dispute.
The settlers say that they bought the house from its Palestinian owner for nearly $1m (£660,000), but the owner says he pulled out of the deal.
The Israeli Supreme Court ordered the building to be cleared of its occupiers until another court could decide who owned it.
Israeli Defence Minsiter Ehud Barak said the building would be handed over to the guardianship of the Israeli military until the dispute was resolved. Settlers denounced the military action.
"This could have been done peacefully and legally. Instead Barak chose violence," said Danny Dayan, leader of the Yesha settler council. "This surprised us completely. He threw a match in a pile of gun powder."
But legislator Avshalom Vilan, a member of the left-wing Meretz-Yahad party, defended the evictions as a victory for justice.
"This was a test for the rule of law and it shows there is one law for everybody for people in Hebron, Tel Aviv and everywhere," he said.
It was the most significant fight between hard-line settlers and the Jewish state in three years, says the BBC's Tim Franks near the scene.
The house is in a strategically important position between Hebron's Jewish settlements and an important religious site sacred to both Jews and Muslims.
About 600 Jewish settlers live in the city, with several thousand more in surrounding settlements.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//1/hi/world/middle_east/7766727.stm
Published: 2008/12/05 11:26:16 GMT
Concerns grow over Obama choices
By Rob Reynolds in Washington
The shadow of Bill Clinton looms large over the Obama cabinet
Rumblings of discontent over Barack Obama's cabinet choices are being heard from left-wing Democrats disappointed by the decidedly centre-right cast of characters set to occupy the new administration's highest offices.
So far, Obama has stocked his cabinet largely with Clinton-era faces.
Most obvious among these is the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton herself.
Obama spent much of his time during the epic nomination battle belittling Clinton's foreign policy experience.
An Obama staffer told the press Clinton's foreign policy role in her husband’s administration was restricted to attendance at tea parties.
And of course Clinton embarrassed herself with her Bosnia sniper fire fantasy.
Now, Obama is apparently acting on the advice of the old proverb, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
I think there is a good chance that Clinton will not last long in the Obama administration.
She is likely to be tempted to step on Obama's toes, and grab that 3am phone call herself, figuratively speaking.
Hillary's outsize ego, ambition and Bill Clinton's ambiguous position hovering on the foreign-policy sidelines will create so many contradictions that Obama may well find it impossible to work effectively with her.
Familiar faces
Hillary Clinton is only the biggest name in what has become the second coming of the Clintonites and other old, familiar faces to Washington.
Obama's new chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was an insider in the Clinton White House.
So was Susan Rice, who will serve as UN ambassador.
Attorney general-designate Eric Holder and homeland security secretary nominee Janet Napolitano were both in the Clinton era justice department.
Bill Richardson, who will become commerce secretary, was energy secretary in the 90s.
Housing and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle is a long-time member of the Washington 'good-old-boys' network.
Lawrence Summers, Obama's new top economic adviser, was Clinton's treasury secretary.
Obama opted to keep a Bush administration appointment, Robert Gates, in charge of the Pentagon, and to appoint a jut-jawed retired general, Jim Jones, as his national security adviser.
Both men opposed Obama's single most important military and foreign policy promise, to set a timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq.
Jones backed McCain in the election and Gates is as Republican-establishment as it gets.
Including Joe Biden, the vice-president elect, all of the incoming president's core foreign policy team backed the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The chairman of Obama's economic advisory council, Paul Volcker, isn't from the Clinton era - he is of an even earlier vintage, having served as Federal Reserve chairman under Jimmy Carter three decades ago.
Concerns grow
Is this 'Change We Can Believe In', as the campaign slogan promised?
At The Nation magazine, Christopher Hayes writes: "Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one."
Blogger Chris Bowers laments the lack of leftist Democrats in Obama's so-called 'Team of Rivals'.
"It is just so very frustrating … why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? We are being entirely left out of Obama's major appointments so far."
I guess I should have realised Obama was a real oldies fan during the campaign, when his rallies were always preceded by a relentless blast of recorded Motown hits from the 1960s and '70s: Diana Ross, Jackie Wilson, Kool and the Gang - the signs of Obama's penchant for the rhythms of the past were there for all to hear.
What next? Having ransacked the past two Democratic administrations in search of old, tired blood, Obama can always reach back even further - to the Kennedy and Johnson era.
JFK and LBJ's Defence secretary Robert McNamara is a vigorous 92-years-old and may have some choice, Vietnam-era wisdom to impart to the new president.
Source: Al Jazeera
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback Number of comments : 1
Grossman
Canada 05/12/2008
Change? Change? Obama, can you Spare some Change?
Well, that's exactly what I've been saying. It is rare to read something you so totally agree with. Bob Reynolds is either precisely as wrong as I am, or, much worse, we are both equally correct. It seems to me that Obama is buying himself a very high-powered motorcycle he won't be able to control. It's a dangerous motorcycle to ride, because there's something wrong with the steering. It keeps going off the road, into the ditch. The ditch on the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment