Obama At the UN.

Obama has used a speech at the United Nations to appeal to Netanyahu's government to extend its moratorium on settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

"Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. ... We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle."

He also held out a hand to Iran, even as Ahmadinejad displayed an insanity which prompted a walkout.

He spoke of cynics who doubt that peace can be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I must admit that I am of their number.

I would love nothing more than for Obama to prove me completely wrong. But I simply can't see a way for Netanyahu to deliver peace whilst leading the coalition which he currently leads.

But the speech was apparently only the most visible place where pressure was being applied. Behind the scenes many states were pushing Obama's vision.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, were engaged in numerous one-to-one discussions behind the scenes at the UN.

European diplomats were also busy, as well as the British foreign secretary, William Hague, who talked to the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, by phone before coming to New York.

Netanyahu's problem is that he must find a way to avoid angering the US, the main diplomatic and financial backer of Israel, while holding together the coalition over which he presides, and which is weighted towards pro-settler parties.

"No one is putting money on which way this will go," a western diplomat said.

I admire Obama's optimism, and I am genuinely in awe that he will put his presidency on the line in this way. He appears to be determined to play the cards which he has been dealt. Had the Likud Party lost the election in Israel, Obama's task would be ten times easier. And there's a part of me, were I in his position, that would have been tempted to wait for the collapse of the Netanyahu coalition before attempting the gargantuan task of overcoming the sixty years of animosity which fuel that conflict.

But he is pushing on, determined to attempt to make peace, even whilst Israel is represented by a coalition which does not believe in what Obama is attempting to do.

I have an admiration for that, even as I doubt that Netanyahu's government will ever agree to a meaningful peace agreement.

And Obama is to be applauded for pushing on, especially as his chances of success appear so slight.

The irony here is that it was his optimism which inspired so many of us during his campaign. And he continues to display it, even as some of his supporters - like myself - find themselves beginning to harbour doubts, especially when it comes to the dispute between Israel and Palestine and Netanyahu's ability to deliver his coalition to the side of peace.

But Obama, as always, has a way of coming up with a turn of phrase which makes doubters like myself feel ashamed.

This future will not be easy to reach. It will not come without setbacks, nor will it be quickly claimed. But the founding of the United Nations itself is a testament to human progress. Remember, in times that were far more trying than our own, our predecessors chose the hope of unity over the ease of division. And made a promise to future generations that the dignity and equality of human beings would be our common cause. It falls to us to fulfil that promise. And, though we will be met by dark forces that will test out resolve, Americans have always had cause to believe that we can choose a better history.

That's the optimism which he ignited during his election campaign, and that is the fire which he is now demanding we do not allow to be extinguished.

He never, ever, promised that it was going to be easy; so cynics like myself should cut him some slack.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, United Nations, Israel, Palestine

UN panel accuses Israel of war crimes for 'unlawful' assault on Gaza flotilla.

No matter how many times the UN and other legal bodies say this, it never seems to make an iota of difference to Israel's behaviour.

A United Nations panel of human rights experts has accused Israel of war crimes through willful killing, unnecessary brutality and torture in its "clearly unlawful" assault on a ship attempting to break the blockade of Gaza in May in which nine Turkish activists died.

The report by three experts appointed by the UN's Human Rights Council (UNHRC) described the seizure of MV Mavi Marmara, a Turkish vessel, by Israeli commandos as illegal under international law.

It condemned the treatment of the passengers and crew as brutal and disproportionate. It also said that the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian enclave is illegal because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

"There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the fourth Geneva convention: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," the report said.

"A series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

The Israelis have, predictably, rejected the findings as "politicised and extremist". And, of course, Israel refused to take part in this inquiry, despite earlier statements that she had nothing to hide and would co-operate.

In a statement, Netanyahu said: "Israel has nothing to hide. The opposite is true. It is in the national interest of the state of Israel to ensure that the factual truth of the overall flotilla events comes to light throughout the world and this is exactly the principle that we are advancing."

This offer to take part - and the declaration that "Israel has nothing to hide" - is forgotten as Israel now dismisses the report as biased.

But we all remember how shocked we were when we heard of the way Israel had boarded the Mavi Marmara, and that shock is itself and indication of how extreme Israel's reaction was. But, the report indicates that Israel's behaviour was even more shocking than we were led to believe.

The 56-page report – compiled by a former UN war crimes prosecutor, Desmond de Silva, a judge from Trinidad, Karl Hudson-Phillips, and a Malaysian women's rights advocate, Mary Shanthi Dairiam – accuses Israeli forces of various crimes including violating the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression, and of failing to treat the captured crew and passengers with humanity.

"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel toward the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality," the report said.

Of course the Israelis will reject this report, and that, in itself, will surprise no-one. And the Americans will see to it that this report counts for nothing.

But there is a seeping of support away from the Israeli position - and a worldwide acceptance of the Palestinians as the victims of this piece - which Israel, for decades, managed to avoid.

Behaviour of the kind highlighted in this report has done much to undermine Israel's argument.

Indeed, Israel's denial of the use of white phosphorus in Gaza, and her subsequent admission that this substance had indeed been used, make many of us now take Israeli denials with a huge pinch of salt.

"Israel is a democratic and law-abiding country that carefully observes international law and, when need be, knows how to investigate itself," the foreign ministry said in a statement.

It's impossible to take that statement seriously, when one can clearly see Israel violating international law through the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and offering to cease doing so only if the United States will free Israeli spies.

That is hardly the action of a nation which "carefully observes international law". Indeed, that kind of blackmail comes perilously close to the behaviour of a rogue state.

Click here for full article.

Tags: United Nations, Mavi Marmara, Israel, Palestine, Turkey

Fierce debate on Israel underway inside Obama administration.

It is being reported that "fierce debate" is taking place within the Obama administration about how to proceed with Israel, as unnamed sources within the Israeli cabinet are letting it be known that they regard Obama as pro-Palestinian and Israel's "greatest disaster".

White House Middle East strategist Dennis Ross is apparently making the case that the US government needs to be sensitive to Netanyahu's political position, which really is the line of the Israeli government.

“He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests,” one U.S. official told POLITICO Saturday. “And he doesn't seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this Administration.”

Ross has been criticised before, especially by Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team between the Israelis and the Palestinians in 1999-2000. Miller said that Ross had acted "as "Israel's lawyer", and their policy of "no surprises" (meaning all US proposals were first reviewed by Israel), led to a lack of negotiating flexibility and independence."

But, it is to be expected that there will be some in the US administration who want negotiations to proceed as they have always done before, but the intransigence of Netanyahu has surely meant that this is impossible if the Americans are serious about peace in the Middle East?

And the sheer ferocity of the Israeli leaks surely prove that Obama's stance is piling the pressure on Netanyahu.

"We're talking about something that is diseased and insane," the confidant told the paper. "The situation is catastrophic. We have a problem with a very, very hostile administration. There's never been anything like this before. This president wants to establish the Palestinian state and he wants to give them Jerusalem … You could say Obama is the greatest disaster for Israel, a strategic disaster."

Ross, apparently, has been arguing that there is only so far that Netanyahu can go and he has been pushing that same line which is pushed by the Israeli government, that the US must be careful not to do anything which will increase Palestinian demands.

Last week, during U.S.-Israeli negotiations during Netanyahu’s visit and subsequent internal U.S. government meetings, the first official said, Ross “was always saying about how far Bibi could go and not go. So by his logic, our objectives and interests were less important than pre-emptive capitulation to what he described as Bibi's coalition's red lines.”

When the U.S. and Israel are seen to publicly diverge on an issue such as East Jerusalem construction, the official characterized Ross's argument as: "the Arabs increase their demands ... therefore we must rush to close gaps ... no matter what the cost to our broader credibility.”

A second official confirmed the broad outlines of the current debate within the administration. Obviously at every stage of the process, the Obama Middle East team faces tactical decisions about what to push for, who to push, how hard to push, he described.

As to which argument best reflects the wishes of the President, the first official said, “As for POTUS, what happens in practice is that POTUS, rightly, gives broad direction. He doesn't, and shouldn't, get bogged down in minutiae. But Dennis uses the minutiae to blur the big picture … And no one asks the question: why, since his approach in the Oslo years was such an abysmal failure, is he back, peddling the same snake oil?”

The more Obama pressurises Netanyahu the more one can expect people who have a great fondness for Israel to argue that Obama should cut him some slack. Even to the point which Ross is demanding, which is that the US must do this "no matter what the cost to our broader credibility.” But the point which Petraeus made is that the US lack of credibility may actually cost the lives of American soldiers. At that point, Ross's argument collapses.

And surely "cutting Israel some slack" is what almost every previous US administration has ever done and the results have almost always been disastrous.

The ferocity of the leaks coming from Israel - and the fact that the leaker is claiming that Obama's policies are "a strategic disaster" for Israel - means that the pressure Obama is applying is being felt.

And, there are no signs that he plans to take Ross's advice; indeed, he appears willing to apply even more pressure. He is apparently now considering one of the things which I have always argued that Obama should do.

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.

The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

I have always argued that, if the US wanted to apply serious pressure to the Netanyahu government, then it should let the Israelis know that the automatic use of the American veto at the UN was going to be withdrawn.

The fact that the Obama team are even willing for it to be leaked that they are considering this, piles even more pressure on Netanyahu.

And the fact that some Americans are leaking stories of Ross's pro-Israeli negotiating stance, is itself proof that this administration is not willing to play this game the way in which it has always been played.

UPDATE:

As always, it's fascinating to see how this plays in the Israeli press:

Obama's reaction is not a result of his victory in passing health care reform. The American president doesn't need to be strong to offend an Israeli prime minister over a matter such as settlements. And despite the hopes of some in Israel, it doesn't appear that the U.S. Jewish community will go out of its way to defend Israel on the settlement issue either.

Netanyahu is playing his cards terribly, assuming that the American Jewish community will argue for settlement building in Judea and Samaria. He's totally misjudging their mood.

"Netanyahu should have taken into account the change within the American Jewish community," Dov Weisglass, a senior adviser to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told the MESS Report. "Their support for Israel is decreasing and they will defend Israel in the face of the administration only on matters where there is a real threat to Israel. I have serious doubt that U.S. Jews see the Netanyahu government's territorial aspirations in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and the Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem as an existential matter."

It's really hard to hold the moral high ground whilst stealing someone else's land. Netanyahu doesn't seem to have grasped that yet.

UPDATE II:

Astonishingly, I find myself in agreement with the Moustache of Understanding when he detects "a tectonic shift that has taken place beneath the surface of Israel-U.S. relations."

Both Vice President Joe Biden and Gen. David Petraeus have been quoted recently as saying that the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict foments anti-U.S. sentiments, because of the perception that America usually sides with Israel, and these sentiments are exploited by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to generate anti-Americanism that complicates life for our soldiers in the region. I wouldn’t exaggerate this, but I would not dismiss it either.

Petraeus's comments were the game changer for me. He is defining what Obama means when he states that peace between Israel and Palestine is in "America's interests".

UPDATE III:

And I'm not sure if Friedman is even aware of how he is highlighting a classic example of the way the Israelis manipulate each situation to ensure that peace talks are non-viable.

At the same time, Israel’s erecting of a wall around the West Bank to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from entering Israel (there have been no successful attacks since 2006), along with the rise of the high-tech industry in Israel — which does a great deal of business digitally and over the Internet and is largely impervious to the day-to-day conflict — has meant that even without peace, Israel can enjoy a very peaceful existence and a rising standard of living.

Instead of pining for peace, they’re now asking: who needs it?...

See how it works? The argument used to be "we cannot negotiate because they are attacking us". Now the argument moves to, "Why should we negotiate, we are not being attacked?" There's always a case to be made for not negotiating.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Netanyahu, Israel, United States, Palestine

Iran touts nuclear gains and quashes protests.

There's a reason why Ahmadinejad is playing up the fact that Iran is now, "a nuclear state". He's highlighting something which even the Iranians who oppose him take great pride in. And, should the US and others come together to sanction Iran, Ahmadinejad knows that this will quell those who question his governments legitimacy after the recent elections and the torrent of protests which those elections unleashed.

Yesterday, as Iran celebrated the anniversary of the revolution, Ahmadinejad spoke of Iran's nuclear power whilst using his security forces to put down any hint of protest.

Anti-government protesters had hoped to use revolution day celebrations for a big display of defiance, but a massive security clampdown choked off the threat of major disruption. There were clashes with police at several locations across Tehran, with tear gas and paintballs fired to disperse crowds chanting opposition slogans. Opposition websites claimed at least one person was shot dead by security forces.

Leading figures from within the opposition camp were reportedly harassed, including the elderly cleric Mehdi Karroubi, who stood in last June's disputed elections. He was attacked by hardliners who broke the windows of his car and had pepper sprayed on him.

Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of Mirhosein Moussavi, the other presidential challenger, also reportedly suffered a beating when she appeared in the streets, while Zahra Eshraghi, the reformist granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, was briefly detained.

Videos purportedly of protesters shouting "Death to the dictator" in Isfahan Mashhad and other Iranian cities were posted on opposition websites. But posts on Twitter from Iran reported that while counter-demonstrations took place in locations such as Tehran's Saddeqiya Street, efforts to move into the heart of the city were pushed back by armed Basiji militias on motorbikes.

It was exactly what was to be expected after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had threatened to give protesters a "punch in the mouth" if they used yesterday as a means to challenge the legitimacy of the regime.

But it's also an indication of the danger Obama faces as he tries to challenge Iran's nuclear programme. Sanctions, oddly enough, will play into Ahmadinejad's hands. Most Iranians think that they should be allowed to be a nuclear power and they are also well aware that, under the NNPT, Iran is within it's rights to enrich uranium.

It would suit Ahmadinejad to be portrayed as being picked on unfairly by western empiricists. Nationalism is no less powerful when played by Ahmadinejad than it was when it was played by Bush. "With us or with the terrorists" can easily be transferred to Iran as "With us or with the West."

As Obama's main goal is to stop the Iranian nuclear programme then he possibly has no choice other than to proceed with sanctions. But, every sanction we impose will further stifle opposition to the Ahmadinejad regime. I think he is well aware of that, which is why he is shouting about his nuclear capability quite so loudly.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Iran, Ahmadinejad, sanctions

Israel calls UN Gaza report 'anti-Semitic'.

This is simply tiresome:

A UN report on Israel's 22-day offensive against Hamas-controlled Gaza is anti-Semitic, an Israeli government minister said, as the Jewish state prepares to formally respond to its allegations of war crimes.

"The Goldstone Report ... and similar reports, are simply a type of anti-Semitism," Diaspora and Information Minister Yuli Edelstein told the YNet news agency ahead of a trip to New York, where he will present Israel's rebuttal on Thursday.

Israel can have many reasons for disagreeing with the report, but to claim that this is anti-Semitism is simply the laziest defence that the Israelis could possibly muster.

Perhaps the Israelis are forgetting that we all witnessed the conflict in Gaza and many of us thought that we were witnessing war crimes. We all saw the wanton destruction, we all saw the use of white phosphorous, we could all see the appalling amount of civilian casualties.

Indeed, I note that as we today cheer the rescuing of persons found under the rubble in Haiti, that the Israeli government continue to impose a cruel embargo upon the citizens of Gaza, an embargo which many of us would describe as an act of collective punishment.

One does not have to be anti-Semitic to think that Israel's behaviour in Gaza was - and continues to be - criminal.

So why do the Israelis feel that they can get away with this? Why do they feel that they can ignore the United Nations and even go so far as calling it - and anyone who supports Goldstone's report - anti-Semitic?

Gideon Levy, an Israeli columnist, has a theory:

As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. . . . When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price.

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

It is simply impossible to imagine any Western journalist speaking on this subject with such force, but Levy is correct. Israel can behave in this way only because she is sure that the United States will back her, no matter how outrageous her behaviour.

Even as Netanyahu treats Obama and his plans for peace in the Middle East with barely disguised contempt, he knows that Obama, when push comes to shove, will always back him.

It is that guarantee which gives Israel the nerve to accuse anyone who backs the Goldstone report of being anti-Semitic.

The United States has for so long backed every Israeli policy, no matter it's legality, as to be considered complicit in Israel's crimes.

I had hoped that the election of Barack Obama would change that dynamic, but, so far, that hope has been tragically misplaced.

Having started out very well, calling for the Israelis to stop the illegal building of settlements on Palestinian lands, Obama has quickly backed down and backed off.

Indeed, the Obama administration were amongst the very first to question the validity of Goldstone's report. The United States continues to be an enabler here.

Those of us who expected this situation to change under Barack Obama have, so far, been bitterly disappointed.

As Levy points out, the current US position - of backing every and any Israeli action - is not only bad for the US, it is bad for Israel herself. We are still waiting for what Levy calls, "An unambiguous, presidential no."

Click here for full article.

Tags: Goldstone report, Israel, Gaza, war crimes, Obama

Iraq inquiry: Blair told Bush he was willing to join, 11 months before war.

I can't even pretend that I am remotely surprised:

Tony Blair made it clear to George Bush at a meeting in Texas 11 months before the Iraq invasion that he would be prepared to join the US in toppling Saddam Hussein, the inquiry into the war was told today.

The prime minister repeatedly told the US president that British policy was to back United Nations attempts to seek Iraq's disarmament, Sir David Manning, his foreign policy adviser, told the inquiry.

However, Blair was "absolutely prepared to say he was willing to contemplate regime change if [UN-backed measures] did not work", Manning said. If it proved impossible to pursue the UN route, then Blair would be "willing to use force", Manning emphasised.

Manning recalled the meeting between the two leaders at Crawford, Bush's Texas ranch, in April 2002. "I look back at Crawford as the moment that he [Blair] was saying, yes, there is a route through this that is an international, peaceful one and it is through the UN, but if it doesn't work, we will be willing to undertake regime change," Manning said.

Regime change is, of course, illegal under international law as Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General, repeatedly made clear to Blair. This is why false dossiers were compiled and so much emphasis was placed on the non-existent WMD, as they were to supply the reason for the regime change.

Of course, that option still required a second UN resolution in order to be legal, something which Bush and Blair did not achieve, as they did not manage to convince the rest of the world that Saddam did, indeed, possess such weaponry.

As we all now know, the rest of the world proved to be right in their cynicism and Bush and Blair were shown to be utterly wrong with their overblown claims.

But, if the reasons for invading were regime change, and it is now being claimed that this is what Blair wanted, then it is possible to see Blair's claims regarding WMD as merely a means to an end.

The same was true of the UN weapons inspections. Blair and Bush didn't act as if they were seriously wanting to know if Iraq had WMD.They acted as if they wanted to invade and, if the inspectors couldn't assure them that Iraq did have WMD then they wanted the inspectors to get out of the way so that the invasion could begin; a point that Manning was critical of:

"I personally believed [UN weapons] inspectors should have been given more time to work." They left Iraq when it was clear that the US, with British backing, was about to invade Iraq even though there was no hard evidence, despite intelligence claims, that the Iraqi leader had pursued a banned weapons programme.

We all know that the inspectors should have been given more time, but that would only have been useful if the inspections were to find out the truth.

Neither Bush nor Blair wanted the truth, unless it was a truth that they had already decided upon.

They wanted regime change, and it's hard not to see the dance at the UN as merely a way of getting to the point of invasion.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Bush, Blair, Iraq war

UN delays action on Gaza war report.

I suspected something like this might happen. The Palestinians have withdrawn their support for the Goldstone resolution, accusing Israel of committing war crimes, and the UN will now delay the vote on whether to send the report to the UN security council for further action until March of this year.

Again, unsurprisingly, Obama's hands are behind the pressure being heaped upon the Palestinians.

The Palestinian reversal came after "intense diplomacy" by Washington, which told the Palestinians that going ahead with the vote would harm efforts to restart peace talks with the Israelis, according to diplomats quoted by news agencies.

"The Palestinians recognised that this was not the best time to go forward with this," the official said.

I said at the time that Obama would be wise to use this as one of the many ways in which he can bring pressure on Netanyahu to drag him to the table for peace talks. Other ways include removing American funding and withdrawing the American veto at the UN for matters relating to the Middle East.

It is notable for instance that this resolution has not been removed from the table, merely postponed until March of next year, giving Netanyahu six months to come to his senses before the matter comes before the UN again.

However, Imad Zuhairi, the deputy Palestinian ambassador in Geneva, said the report "remains alive" and would be debated next spring. The delay "is not a victory for Israel", he added.

No doubt Obama felt that pushing forward with this would kill any chance he has of getting the Israelis and the Palestinians back around the table, but he must also be careful that Israel don't see this as yet another indication that the US will avoid them ever being held to account in that chamber.

Obama needs to push hard behind the scenes to spell out to Netanyahu that this could all come back to haunt him.

Netanyahu's speech to the UN on this matter was little short of disgraceful, where he attacked the UN itself for daring to criticise Israeli actions; and where he failed to deal with any of the specific charges made in the report and, instead, responded with a broadside defence which basically stated that the United Nations were on the side of terrorists.

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

So, maybe Obama wants to use this to pressure Netanyahu to the table. That is all we can hope. For if anyone accepted the travesty of Netanyahu's argument, then the UN would be disgraced, but not for the reasons Netanyahu claims.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Obama, United Nations

Huckabee in St. Louis: Get America Out of the U.N.

Mike Huckabee has told a crowd at the “How To Take Back America” conference, that:

“It’s time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip off that part of New York City,” said Huckabee, “and let it float into the East River, never to be seen again!” That remark got him a standing ovation, and Huckabee went on to suggest de-funding the U.N. entirely.

“It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer’s dollar being spent on something that may have been a noble idea, but has become a disgrace!” said Huckabee. “It has become the international equivalent of ACORN and it’s time to say enough!”

He talked of the ridiculous speeches made by many of the speakers, although I am sure he would have loved the speech which I regarded as the most hyperbolic of any given.

The truth, of course, is that Huckabee loathes the UN because he fears - apart from the fact that such an organisation runs contrary to his belief in American exceptionalism - that the UN would love to impose a two state solution on the Israel/Palestine dispute, when Huckabee has explicitly come out against a two state solution.

This is because Huckabee is a believer in the end times, when the world will come to an end and God will reappear. This fantastical situation can only come into being as long as the Palestinians are made to disappear from what Huckabee and others regard as Eretz Israel. To that end, he has already called for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

All of this should be borne in mind when one listens to Huckabee denouncing the UN.

He's waiting for the second coming and he's worried that the UN might get in the way of it....

Tags: Huckabee, United Nations, Israel, Palestine, End Times

Iran's nuclear plant admission brings sanctions showdown nearer.

Obama, Brown and Sarkosy have revealed that they have discovered a secret facility in Iran for the enrichment of uranium which they claim adds suspicion to the charge that Ahmadinejad is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Barack Obama said western intelligence agencies had known of the secret plant, – near the holy city of Qom, a seat of Shia learning – for more than two years. He called on Iran to allow UN inspectors to visit it, and to co-operate fully with scrutiny of its nuclear programme.

Standing alongside him, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, said the alternative would be tougher sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Moscow issued a separate statement describing the plant as a "violation" of UN security council decisions, and offering to support an investigation.

Iran, certainly from the behaviour of Ahmadinejad, appear nonplussed by this discovery, and Ahmadinejad has stated that the facility will be open for inspection by the United Nations.

He claimed the plant was legal and open for scrutiny. "We don't have any problems with inspections of the facility. We have no fears," Ahmadinejad said. He said the three western leaders would "regret this announcement", claiming it had been made to disrupt the Geneva talks.

"They wanted to set up a sort of media game, take the stage to sort of set up the upper hand. This is not nice," he said.

And Ahmadinejad continues to insist that his country's Fatwa against nuclear weapons still holds force. "We believe that nuclear weapons are against humanity," he said. "This bomb belongs to the last century."

Obama is on stronger ground here than Bush ever was.

By agreeing to reduce the US's nuclear arsenal, and by getting Brown to promise to reduce the number of British nuclear submarines, Obama has complied with the NNPT in a way which Bush did not. Bush was exploring new bunker busting nuclear weapons whilst condemning Iran for simply enriching uranium, which is it's right under the NNPT. So, Bush was engaged in blatant hypocrisy. Obama is not.

Obama is now insisting that Iran must submit it's facilities to inspections, something which Ahmadinejad is saying that he is more than willing to do.

Obama said yesterday: "This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities."

Sarkozy said the world would not be drawn into prolonged talks while the centrifuge "motors are running". He said: "If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken."

Brown said Iran was guilty of "serial deception" and it was time for the international community to draw a line in the sand. "On 1 October, Iran must engage with the international community and join the international community as a partner," Brown said. "If it does not do so, it will be further isolated."

But Ahmadinejad is still insisting that he was playing within the rules:

He justified Iran's apparent concealment of the plant by saying there were no international requirements to declare any nuclear facility until 180 days before fissile material was introduced into it.

There was a flat denial of the claims - by US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown - that the plant was a secret facility.

"If it was, why would we have informed the IAEA about it a year ahead of time?" Mr Ahmadinejad was reported as saying.

The only way this could ever prove problematic would be if Iran refuses to allow UN inspectors to do their jobs. Or if the west insisted on pursuing Sarkosy's point, that the centrifuges must stop turning. After all, Obama made clear the other day that he has no problem with Iran pursuing nuclear energy in line with it rights under the NNPT. They should not have to turn off their centrifuges in order to prove that, we should be able to ascertain that simply by inspections.

And, if Obama is telling the truth, and western intelligence has known about this facility for more than two years, there is more than a hint of seeking to recreate the Adlai Stevenson moment to all this dramatic revelation. It strikes me as slightly overdone. The very fact that we waited until the UN had assembled together almost all the world's leaders to reveal that we know of this facility screams of theatricality.

It's all so unnecessary because, unlike his predecessor, Obama is using the United Nations in the way it was intended to be used. Ahmadinejad has the right to enrich uranium, and we have the right to inspect what he is doing to make sure that he is not pursuing a bomb. And, again differing from his predecessor, Obama is also complying with the letter and the spirit of the NNPT.

So there is no need for this amount of drama. We want to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities and Ahmadinejad says that he is prepared to allow us to do so. He either will or he won't. We'll have our answer soon enough.

UPDATE:

Listen to this steaming pile of pooh from Lieberman, Bayh, and Kyl - supporters of the Iraq war one and all:.

For years, Iran has cheated and lied to the world about its nuclear activities and its nuclear ambitions. Just last week, a secret IAEA report was leaked, describing Iran’s covert nuclear weapons work. Now it has been caught red-handed once again.

That is simply blatantly false. Even The NYT who broke the story didn't make that claim:

On Tuesday evening in New York, top officials of the world nuclear watchdog agency approached two of President Obama’s senior advisers to deliver the news: Iran had just sent a cryptic letter describing a small “pilot” nuclear facility that the country had never before declared.

In other words, they were declaring it in that letter. The claim that someone sending the IAEA a letter - informing them of a facility which they are building - is the same as that person "being caught red handed" is simply dishonest. They weren't "caught", they told the IAEA within the time frame in which they were obligated to tell them.

But Lieberman, Bayh, and Kyl don't stop there:

After today, the evidence all points to one inescapable conclusion: Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

What evidence do these three lunatics think points to some "inescapable conclusion"? There isn't any evidence as the facility not only hasn't been inspected yet, it's not yet even fully operational.

It's nice to see that they've learned from the mistakes they made prior to the Iraq war and that they are letting the evidence lead them rather than jumping to conclusions.

UPDATE II:

After the last Iranian election these same people cheered on the protesters, pretending that they had the best interests of ordinary Iranian people at heart. Glenn Greenwald points out how very quickly their concern for ordinary Iranians has vanished:

In the absence of what they call "immediate" compliance, the Senators call for "crippling new sanctions against Iran." In The Washington Post today, AIPAC's most trusted House member -- Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D) -- similarly recommends sanctions that would "cause the Iranian banking system to collapse" and impose other severe economic hardships. [Emphasis mine] So much for all of that oh-so-moving, profound, green-wearing concern for the welfare of The Iranian People. Time to bomb them or, at best, starve them until their government complies with our dictates.

If Lieberman, Bayh, and Kyl wanted to unite the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad's regime, they couldn't have come up with a better way to do it than this. After 9-11, everyone in the US rallied behind Bush because he was the president and they couldn't afford not to at a time when the nation was being attacked. Do Lieberman, Bayh, and Kyl not think that the Iranians would do exactly the same if they percieve that their country is under siege?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, Sarkosy, Brown, Ahmadinejad, Iran, NNPT, nuclear facility, United Nations

Malkin's venom knows no bounds: Obama 'doesn't like this country very much,' is the 'Groveler in Chief'.

Obama earned round after round of applause at the United Nations, where a grateful world applauded the fact that the dreadful years of George W Bush were over and a new sensible American president was speaking a language which the entire world understands and shares.

Cue head explosions over at Faux News.

Malkin has gone as far as to say that Obama has proven that he doesn't like the United States very much.

Malkin: He doesn't like this country very much. And I think you did a great video tour there of all of his wonderful hits on his "We Suck '09" tour, ah, so far. And this latest speech before the United Nations and its cast of villainous characters -- it was really a Legion of Doom parade that he dignified with his presence -- and he solidified his place in the international view as the Great Appeaser and the Groveler in Chief!

What they actually can't bear is that Obama is admitting in public what the entire world already knows: George Bush - and the style of leadership supplied by the neo-cons - made the US more despised around the globe than at any time since the Vietnam war. That is simply a fact.

But listen to what it is that they actually find most offensive. Hannity bemoans the fact that "Obama was saying we're not going to force our values on you." Malkin is horrified that Obama has offered "a rejection of American exceptionalism."

I mean seriously, is Malkin actually insane enough to believe in such an abstract concept as American exceptionalism? That it's okay if the US does things which it condemns others for doing because the US is innately good? Does Hannity seriously believe that it's a good thing to force your values on to other people and other cultures?

Those are rhetorical questions. Of course they believe that. They really are that insane. However, even by their insane standards, Malkin reached new levels of nuttiness:

Malkin: With this speech, and over the last eight months with his policies of retreat and surrender, he has solidified his place as the weakest of weak leaders of modern American history. There's no question about it! They laugh at us! He is a laughingstock.

Yes, that's why the world applauded. Applause must be the new form of laughter.

This produces the exact same reaction in me as I had to yesterday's conversation between Glenn Beck and John Bolton: these people are so out of touch with where the world currently find itself that the only thing which they are emphasising is their own irrelevance.

They have nothing of value to offer, so they are simply left spluttering with rage on the sidelines spitting venom at passers-by. They are yesterday's people, and there's something about the bile which they are spewing which tells me that, deep down, they know this.

The ideas and the world views which they have spent the past eight years defending have all been explicitly rejected. And it's driven them nuts.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.

Tags: Malkin, Hannity, Obama, United Nations, American exceptionalism

Obama hails historic resolution to rid world of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama yesterday became the first US president ever to chair a session of the UN council, whilst that council took steps for the first time in it's history to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Obama described the resolution as "historic", saying it "enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons".

The resolution calls for states with nuclear weapons to continue disarming, to ratify a ban on testing them and to agree a treaty stopping the production of fissile material. In return, non weapons states should accept stronger safeguards designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

The resolution, however, is non-binding, and there are many obstacles to its aspirations becoming reality. Obama faces serious opposition in the Pentagon and the US Congress, which has yet to ratify the test ban.

I find it fascinating that Obama's instincts are so in tune with the rest of the world - I mean, we all can see that getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether is the only way to prevent smaller nations from eventually seeking them - and yet the place where he faces his toughest opposition is when he tries to get the US Congress to ratify what the UN has proposed.

That's because in the US Congress he has to deal with Republicans, a group of people who make Mugabe look sane in comparison. Their answer to nuclear proliferation is not to ban these weapons, but to construct a missile defence system which would, in theory, allow them to fire the weapons and avoid retaliation. The fact that the missile defence system doesn't work is not something which deters them, indeed, it appears not to bother them at all.

The US and Russia are due to sign a treaty in December bringing down the number of their deployed strategic weapons from more than 2,000 each to 1,500. Obama today promised much deeper cuts to follow. In January negotiations are due to start on a treaty banning the production of new weapons-grade fissile material. In May, the NPT comes up for review, and Obama hopes to persuade the US Senate to ratify the test ban soon afterwards. "The next 12 months will be absolutely critical in determining whether this resolution and our overall efforts to stop the spread and use of nuclear weapons are successful," Obama said.

Of course, should the Republicans refuse to ratify the deals which Obama has worked out here they will be going against the instincts of their own hero, Ronald Reagan, as it was Reagan who proposed a complete elimination of these weapons at Reykjavik.

In 1986 at the Reykjavik summit, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, both passionate about nuclear disarmament, shocked deterrence experts with an unimaginable proposal – total nuclear disarmament. “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,” said Reagan. “We can do that,” replied Gorbachev, “Let’s eliminate them. We can eliminate them.”

However, U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz explained that the proposal was “too much for people to absorb, precisely because it was outside the bounds of conventional wisdom,” and “the world was not ready for Ronald Reagan’s boldness.”

Obama is all for bipartisanship, so I have a theory. Obama should sell this to the US Senate as the Ronald Reagan Bill for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Present it to them with a big bow wrapped around it and see if they will still refuse to ratify Reagan's vision 23 years later.

Force them to stand up and tell us why Ronald Reagan was wrong.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, United Nations, nuclear proliferation, Ronald Reagan

Mr Obama Goes to The UN.

After the years of George W Bush, where the UN were told that their duty was to give him what he wanted or prove their own irrelevance, Obama's appearance produced more rounds of applause than I think I have ever heard any leader earn before.

But this wasn't simply Obama-mania, the guy actually turned up and spoke the language of international co-operation, even going as far as to make clear that he understood that the NNPT demanded that nations with nuclear weapons disarmed, not simply that non-nuclear nations gave up their pursuit of them.

America intends to keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

[...]

Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations — it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East — then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.

So, he made it very clear that the US would pursue a way to reduce it's own nuclear arsenal, whilst asking nations such as Iran and North Korea to forego a nuclear weapon, but not the right to nuclear energy. He couldn't have put it better. He was absolutely on the money.

But he began by making, I thought, an even better point. He reminded the world that one couldn't have it both ways.

But make no mistake: This cannot solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

Having argued for years against American unilateralism, Obama's offer demands that the rest of the world rise to the challenge he is giving them, that the rest of the world puts it's money where it's mouth is.

Again, he's being utterly fair and he's calling out those who think knocking the US is some cheap game which lets them off the hook from their own responsibilities. Obama is saying, "I hear you. I'm listening. What do you want to do about this?"

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

That is the future America wants — a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

He told them that he had ordered an end to torture. He promised an end to the Iraq war. He promised to end the war in Sudan. And then he turned to the Israel/Palestine dispute; the dispute where the UN and the US have most often been at loggerheads.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The time has come — the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.

After the Bush years, what he was saying rung around the hall like music to their ears. And, once again, he received rounds of applause that are so rare in such a setting. And I am sure that Mr Netanyahu will have noticed that one of Obama's loudest rounds of applause was given when he stated that he did not accept the legitimacy of Israel's settlements.

Here, Obama was taking his argument to the world chamber, and it was abundantly clear that a majority of nations favour Obama's stance as opposed to that of Netanyahu.

Hell, he even got the United Nations to applaud when he attacked them for their past stances:

To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

(Applause)

And — and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security.

(Applause. This surprised and pleased me, for they were actually clapping as he chastised them.)

Then he turned to climate change.

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.

It is fair to say that he could not have made it any clearer that the Bush years are over. But, rather than allowing the world simply to celebrate that, Obama is throwing down a gauntlet. He is asking the rest of the world to step up to the plate. He agrees that the US should not be demanding that the rest of the world follow it's dictate, so he is asking the rest of the world to show some initiative. He has, in effect, taken away all of their excuses.

Obama has shown that he is committed to the Charter of the United Nations.

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation — one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. And so, with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve.

Now it's up to others to step up to the plate.

As far as I am concerned he couldn't have said it better than he did.

Click title for transcript.

Tags: Obama, United Nations

Source: Obama strongly expressed his impatience to Netanyahu and Abbas.

Netanyahu's intransigence appears to be getting on Obama's nerves.

The meeting at the UN on the subject of Israel and Palestine restarting peace talks produced the nearest thing we have so far seen to anger from the new US president. If I am overstating things by calling it anger then we would have to settle for extreme impatience.

Obama is certainly letting it be known that he is displeased by the lack of progress so far achieved.

U.S. President Barack Obama told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday that he was dissatisfied with their recent foot-dragging on getting Israeli-Palestinian talks restarted.

A senior U.S. administration source Tuesday told Haaretz that "during the tripartite meeting Obama strongly expressed his impatience."

The source said the meeting was "businesslike" but not cordial.

Netanyahu has made it clear over the past couple of months that he is simply not interested in playing Obama's game. He won't stop his illegal settlement building and he certainly has no interest in discussing East Jerusalem as a future Palestinian capital city. In other words, Netanyahu has no interest in obeying international law, which he does not recognise when it comes to the subject of Israel and the illegal settlements.

Obama laid out his impatience for all to see.

"Simply put, it is past time to talk about starting negotiations," Obama said. "It is time to move forward... Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon."

But the truth is that George Mitchell, the man who famously got the IRA to put down their guns, has had almost no success in moving the intransigent Netanyahu an inch forward towards peace.

Obama has stated that, "all sides must move forward with a sense of urgency", but it can't have escaped his attention that the Israelis aren't moving forward at all. There's not only no sense of urgency, there's not even a hint that they have any interest in this process taking place at all.

I've said for years that I don't buy the Israeli line that they are anxious for peace but simply can't find a "partner for peace". You can't steal someone else's land whilst saying that you are anxious for peace. Those are utterly contradictory positions. Stealing someone else's land is an act of aggression. Indeed, imposing a brutal military occupation on another people's land is an act of aggression.

So Netanyahu is only being more brutally honest about the Israeli position than most other Israeli leaders, and he is only doing so because Obama is refusing to give him the cover which most US presidents give to Israeli actions which threaten peace.

The difference this time is that Obama is deadly serious about wanting an agreement between both sides; which he has, rightly, argued is in America's interests.

To that end, Obama appears to have abandoned his demand that Israel stop settlement building before peace talks can begin and he is now pushing for talks without that precondition having been met. He will also press Abbas to give up that particular Palestinian demand.

[Round One to Netanyahu.]

I don't think Netanyahu is in any doubt about how serious Obama is, I simply think he is equally serious about not giving Obama what he wants.

So, I was pleased to see Obama displaying the diplomatic equivalent of a hissing fit, it's long overdue that he made his displeasure at Israeli intransigence known. For too long US leaders have pretended that Israel's interests and those of the US are interchangeable, and they have twisted to adjust US policy to whatever the Israelis were prepared to give them. Obama is showing that he is prepared to allow the cracks on the surface to become visible to all. I have no idea whether that will have an effect on Israeli public opinion, but if Israel falls out with the United States, surely most Israelis would recognise this as a very bad development?

However, I fear Obama is going to have to be much, much tougher if he is ever to have any hope of moving Netanyahu towards a peace deal which Netanyahu not only doesn't want, but which goes against his every belief.

Sure, Obama can take settlement building off the table and talks can begin. But, the Israelis will talk, and they will keep building. Indeed, they will talk and talk and talk until they have covered every inch of Judea and Samaria (as they refer to the West Bank) with their illegal settlements.

They are determined to establish what Obama's idiotic predecessor referred to as "facts on the ground".

Sooner, rather than later, Obama is going to have to let the Israelis know that there is a terrible price for their continued intransigence. US aid to Israel could be suspended and the US could remove the guaranteed veto which it accords Israel at the UN.

Obama has to let the Israelis know that he is willing to go all the way to get what he wants. These are tough cookies. They are not going to simply roll over and play dead. Obama is going to have to get covered in mud if he is ever going to get the peace deal which he wants. For the Israelis have been playing this diplomatic game for decades.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas, Israel, Palestine, United Nations

UN Gaza report accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes.

A United Nations investigation into Israel's assault on Gaza has found that it was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population", for which some Israelis should face "individual criminal responsibility".

The inquiry, led by the former South African judge Richard Goldstone, concluded that both the Israeli military and Hamas committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the three-week conflict, but singled out Israel and its policy towards the Palestinians of Gaza for the most serious condemnation. The inquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence.

In a 575-page report (pdf), released tonight, the inquiry said Israel should be required to investigate the allegations raised and if it fails to do so the case should be passed to the prosecutor of the international criminal court. It accused Israel of "grave breaches" of the fourth Geneva convention and of a war crime for using Palestinians as human shields during the fighting.

The Israelis have predictably said that the UN is biased against them, ignoring the fact that Goldstone, the judge in charge of the investigation, is both Jewish and a person with strong ties to Israel.

Goldstone has belittled Israel's objections:

He rejected any suggestion of bias: "To accuse me of being anti-Israel is ridiculous." He said it was in the interests of both Israel and the Palestinians for the truth to be established.

"There should be no impunity for international crimes that are committed," he said. "It's very important that justice should be done."

Of course, what makes the Israeli objections so ludicrous is that we all remember this attack. We all remember the disproportionate use of force and the way that the international community united in condemnation of it.

We all remember incidents like this one:

It studied the deaths of 22 members of the Samouni family who, following instructions from Israeli soldiers, were sheltering in a house in Zeitoun, east of Gaza City. The house was then hit by Israeli fire. The killings were a grave breach of the fourth Geneva convention, the inquiry said.

It found seven incidents in which civilians were shot while leaving their homes, waving white flags and sometimes following instructions from Israeli soldiers.A "direct and intentional attack" on the al-Quds hospital, in the south of Gaza City, which left the building seriously damaged and forced the evacuation of patients, may amount to a war crime./

It will be interesting to see how much room Obama chooses to give Israel at this time.

After all, he has made it perfectly clear that he wishes the building of illegal settlements to stop and Netanyahu has treated him with contempt.

Normally, in this kind of situation, it is the fact that the US will offer Israel unconditional support which means that Israel can ignore trifles such as international law. I wonder if Obama will feel as duty bound to do continue this practice whilst the Likud party treat his policies towards Israel with such open contempt.

After all, Obama has promised to return the United States to being "a country of laws". I wonder if that includes international law?

For, if it does, surely Obama will now insist that Israel investigate the charges which Goldstone has laid out; and, if not, pass this evidence to the international criminal court.

I don't believe for a second that Obama will do so. If he can forgive the Bush regime's war crimes I don't imagine he is going to use any political capital pursuing the war crimes of the Israelis.

But, when it comes to Netanyahu and the illegal settlements, Obama has been handed a powerful card. It's now a question of whether or not Obama wishes to play it.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, United Nations, war crimes

Israel in complete denial of it's abuses in Gaza.

It's hard to take Mark Regev seriously as he squirms around, ignoring what the UN report actually said, and continuing to insist that we should ignore the report because Ban Ki-moon rejected the report's call for a full and impartial investigation into the war. According to Regev this means that he is, "distancing himself from the report."

The board of inquiry, led by Ian Martin, a Briton who is a former head of Amnesty International and a former UN special envoy to East Timor and Nepal, had limited scope, looking only at cases of death, injury or damage involving UN property and staff. But its conclusions amount to a major challenge to Israel.

It found the Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness", and that the military took "inadequate" precautions towards UN premises. It said the deaths of civilians should be investigated under the rules of international humanitarian law.

Regev continues to insist that Israel fired at UN premises because Hamas were using these premises to "draw Israel's fire". Regev simply must know that the UN Report said no such thing and that the report said Israel's claims were "not true":

The most serious incident investigated took place on 6 January, near a UN boys' preparatory school in Jabaliya that was being used as a shelter for hundreds of Palestinians who had fled their homes to escape the fighting. The Israeli military had fired several 120mm mortar rounds in the "immediate vicinity" of the school, killing between 30 and 40 Palestinians, the inquiry found.

Although Israel at the time said Hamas had fired mortars from within the school, the inquiry found this as not true: there had been no firing from within the compound and there were no explosives in the school.

It held Israel responsible for the attack and said the deaths of civilians should be "assessed in accordance with ... international humanitarian law." It also called for a formal acknowledgement from Israel that its allegations about Palestinian militants being present in the school were untrue.

So the report is actually calling for prosecutions, but Ban Ki-Moon is balking at this, which Regev is taking as Moon "distancing himself" from the reports findings. This is simply not true as Ban Ki-Moon published his own summary and stands by the report. He simply lacks the willpower to pursue the prosecutions which the report demands.

And the report was similarly dismissive of other Israeli claims:

5 January An Israeli air strike hit the UN Asma elementary school in Gaza City, where hundreds more Palestinians were sheltering. The missile killed three young men who had been walking to the bathroom in the school compound. The inquiry found no weapons or ammunition were being stored in the school, and that the men had been going to the toilet and not taking part in military activity. The attack was "an egregious breach of the inviolability of the United Nations premises", the inquiry said, again holding Israel responsible for the deaths and damage.

Not that you would know any of this if you listened to Regev. His main defence now appears to be that you can't trust a word that comes out of Palestinian mouths.

And, in the end, confusing even himself with the sheer scale of the mendacity he was engaging in, he appears to deny that Israel even bombed the building:

Snow: "The warehouse was not burned down by your shelling, the people were not killed by your bombs, correct?"

Regev: "Correct, correct"

He gave some astonishingly bad interviews during the assault on Gaza, but this one was jaw dropping, even by Regev's abysmally low standards.

Tags: Israel, Gaza, United Nations, Report