31 oct 2013
In the ninety-sixth anniversary of the Balfour Declaration the Ministry of Culture called on Britain on Wednesday to apologize to the Palestinians for the major crime it committed and to compensate them for all the years of British and Israeli occupation. The ministry also said in a statement, "Britain should support the right of Palestinians of independence ,self-determination and the establishment of the Palestinian state."
The ministry appealed to the United Nations to implement all the resolutions on Palestine and the resolution (194) in particular, to work on establishing the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and to allow the Palestinians to conduct their own affairs.
It also called the Arab and Islamic parliaments to take their role towards the question of Palestine and its people, and expose the Israel's activities and consider Balfour Declaration as a major crime and scandal that affected directly on the Palestinian rights.
The ministry stressed on the need to afford time in schools ,universities and all the educational institutions, to explain this crime and emphasize on the Palestinians right of all their land.
It called the Arab and Palestinian media to address the Palestinian historical and legal right of Palestine.
The ministry appealed to the United Nations to implement all the resolutions on Palestine and the resolution (194) in particular, to work on establishing the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and to allow the Palestinians to conduct their own affairs.
It also called the Arab and Islamic parliaments to take their role towards the question of Palestine and its people, and expose the Israel's activities and consider Balfour Declaration as a major crime and scandal that affected directly on the Palestinian rights.
The ministry stressed on the need to afford time in schools ,universities and all the educational institutions, to explain this crime and emphasize on the Palestinians right of all their land.
It called the Arab and Palestinian media to address the Palestinian historical and legal right of Palestine.
24 sept 2013
British friends of Israel, the so-called groups in the UK, which support Zionist regime of Israel and its expansionist policies, are promoting pro-Israeli propaganda initiatives at Britain’s universities as students start a new academic year.
In an attempt to undermine Palestine solidarity campaigns in the UK, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) is hiring Canadian Beca Bookman, whose main area of expertise comprises working with the apartheid regime of Israel to weaken Palestinian solidarity movements. Bookman has already received a “Hasbara in Action” award from the Menachem Begin Foundation for his anti-Palestinian activities.
The Canadian will work as an “Israeli Engagement Officer” in the UK and will be paid by UJIA, Jewish Agency for Israel and the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity that monitors and tackles what it describes as anti-Semitism in Britain.
The Jewish Agency for Israel has also picked an ‘emissary’ to be dispatched to Britain to work with the Israel Engagement Officer in promoting hasbara initiatives in the UK universities.
The new conspiracy in-the-making has been coordinated with Israeli ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub. The UJS team has also held a training session, in which speakers from the Israeli embassy in London, Israel lobby group BICOM, and Labour Friends of Israel have discussed ways to tackle the growing sympathy for the Palestinian cause across the UK.
Representatives of liberal Zionist advocacy group Yachad, BICOM project ‘We Believe in Israel’, and StandWithUs UK have also held a panel discussion on campus hasbara, which is concentrating on promoting Israeli regime’s policies among British students and picking pro-Israel student leaders from among the students.
In Britain, supporters of the Zionist regime’s aggressive policies and its destructive measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, have been dwindling in recent years thanks to a growing Palestinian solidarity movement as well as the activities of English language TV channels such as Tehran-based PRESS TV, which promotes the Palestinian cause all across the world.
Meanwhile, young British Jews are increasingly turning against traditional ‘Israel right or wrong’ approaches. Therefore, pro-Israel advocacy groups are struggling to adapt to these new developments.
Their strategies to deceive young Britons at the campuses include first trying to introduce every pro-Palestinian campaigner as an extremist and second seeking to portray Israeli regime’s apartheid as anti-Semitism, which is a totally different issue. They must acknowledge the fact that fighting Zionism and its apartheid policies has nothing to do with the Jews and their religion.
In an attempt to undermine Palestine solidarity campaigns in the UK, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) is hiring Canadian Beca Bookman, whose main area of expertise comprises working with the apartheid regime of Israel to weaken Palestinian solidarity movements. Bookman has already received a “Hasbara in Action” award from the Menachem Begin Foundation for his anti-Palestinian activities.
The Canadian will work as an “Israeli Engagement Officer” in the UK and will be paid by UJIA, Jewish Agency for Israel and the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity that monitors and tackles what it describes as anti-Semitism in Britain.
The Jewish Agency for Israel has also picked an ‘emissary’ to be dispatched to Britain to work with the Israel Engagement Officer in promoting hasbara initiatives in the UK universities.
The new conspiracy in-the-making has been coordinated with Israeli ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub. The UJS team has also held a training session, in which speakers from the Israeli embassy in London, Israel lobby group BICOM, and Labour Friends of Israel have discussed ways to tackle the growing sympathy for the Palestinian cause across the UK.
Representatives of liberal Zionist advocacy group Yachad, BICOM project ‘We Believe in Israel’, and StandWithUs UK have also held a panel discussion on campus hasbara, which is concentrating on promoting Israeli regime’s policies among British students and picking pro-Israel student leaders from among the students.
In Britain, supporters of the Zionist regime’s aggressive policies and its destructive measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, have been dwindling in recent years thanks to a growing Palestinian solidarity movement as well as the activities of English language TV channels such as Tehran-based PRESS TV, which promotes the Palestinian cause all across the world.
Meanwhile, young British Jews are increasingly turning against traditional ‘Israel right or wrong’ approaches. Therefore, pro-Israel advocacy groups are struggling to adapt to these new developments.
Their strategies to deceive young Britons at the campuses include first trying to introduce every pro-Palestinian campaigner as an extremist and second seeking to portray Israeli regime’s apartheid as anti-Semitism, which is a totally different issue. They must acknowledge the fact that fighting Zionism and its apartheid policies has nothing to do with the Jews and their religion.
8 sept 2013
Houses of Parliament in London
British companies sold sodium fluoride, a key ingredient in the manufacture of the deadly nerve gas sarin, to a Syrian firm from 2004-2010, British media reveal, a sale that has been called ‘disturbing’ following the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Between July 2004 and May 2010, the British government issued five export licenses to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, necessary for the production of sarin, according to a report in the Daily Mail, a British daily.
Sarin, a nerve gas that is hundreds of times deadlier than cyanide, is considered one of the world’s most dangerous chemical warfare agents. It works on the nervous system, over-stimulating muscles and vital organs, and a single drop can be lethal in minutes. The US, France and Germany say the deadly chemical was used in the attacks of August 21 in the Damascus neighborhood of Ghouta that left hundreds of civilians dead or injured.
The Sunday Mail says UK firms did export sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics firm throughout the six years for what they claim were legitimate purposes. The daily quotes British MPs admitting for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria which has been condemned as a ‘grossly irresponsible’ move and a clear violation of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances.
British MPs signaled their extreme displeasure with the shocking revelations.
"These are very disturbing revelations uncovered by The Mail on Sunday regarding the provision of sodium fluoride to Syria. At no time should we have allowed President Assad’s regime to get its hands on this substance,” Thomas Docherty MP, a member of the Commons Arms Export Controls Committee, said on Saturday.
“Previously we thought that while export licenses had been granted, no chemicals were actually delivered. Now we know that in the build-up to the Syrian civil war, UK companies – with the backing of our Government – were supplying this potentially lethal substance,” he added.
While the last export license was issued in May 2010, the licenses are obtained prior to manufacture and the industry standard requires four to five months before the chemicals are delivered.
"We are looking at late 2010 for the British supplies of sodium fluoride reaching Syria,” Docherty said.
The Government has some very serious questions to answer, he concluded.
However, a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was “commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria’s chemical weapons program. This remains the case.”
The BIS refused to release the names of the two UK exporters for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
British companies sold sodium fluoride, a key ingredient in the manufacture of the deadly nerve gas sarin, to a Syrian firm from 2004-2010, British media reveal, a sale that has been called ‘disturbing’ following the chemical weapons attack in Damascus.
Between July 2004 and May 2010, the British government issued five export licenses to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, necessary for the production of sarin, according to a report in the Daily Mail, a British daily.
Sarin, a nerve gas that is hundreds of times deadlier than cyanide, is considered one of the world’s most dangerous chemical warfare agents. It works on the nervous system, over-stimulating muscles and vital organs, and a single drop can be lethal in minutes. The US, France and Germany say the deadly chemical was used in the attacks of August 21 in the Damascus neighborhood of Ghouta that left hundreds of civilians dead or injured.
The Sunday Mail says UK firms did export sodium fluoride to a Syrian cosmetics firm throughout the six years for what they claim were legitimate purposes. The daily quotes British MPs admitting for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria which has been condemned as a ‘grossly irresponsible’ move and a clear violation of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances.
British MPs signaled their extreme displeasure with the shocking revelations.
"These are very disturbing revelations uncovered by The Mail on Sunday regarding the provision of sodium fluoride to Syria. At no time should we have allowed President Assad’s regime to get its hands on this substance,” Thomas Docherty MP, a member of the Commons Arms Export Controls Committee, said on Saturday.
“Previously we thought that while export licenses had been granted, no chemicals were actually delivered. Now we know that in the build-up to the Syrian civil war, UK companies – with the backing of our Government – were supplying this potentially lethal substance,” he added.
While the last export license was issued in May 2010, the licenses are obtained prior to manufacture and the industry standard requires four to five months before the chemicals are delivered.
"We are looking at late 2010 for the British supplies of sodium fluoride reaching Syria,” Docherty said.
The Government has some very serious questions to answer, he concluded.
However, a spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) defended the sale of the chemical to Syria, saying the amount was “commensurate with the stated end use in the production of cosmetics and there was no reason to link them with Syria’s chemical weapons program. This remains the case.”
The BIS refused to release the names of the two UK exporters for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed by nerve gas in the Ghouta region, in the Duma neighbourhood of Damascus August 21, 2013
This comes on top of another sarin-related scandal as earlier British officials were found to have granted export licenses for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride exports to Syria on the eve of the Syrian civil conflict breakout. The January 2012 licenses were given in the knowledge that both substances “could also be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of chemical weapons,” according to a report published by the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls.
Angus Robertson, a Scottish National Party MP, told RT that the matter was raised in the House of Commons last week following the House of Commons ruling not to participate in military action against the Syrian government.
“Defense ministers had to explain why it was that the UK would even consider granting an export license,” he said, adding that it was "impossible to tell" whether rebels could have got hold of the chemicals once they had passed into the country.
“I’m still concerned, however, as the chemical licenses were issued at a time when the situation in Syria had already deteriorated,” Robertson added.
Meanwhile, in the US, members of Congress are debating whether to give President Barack Obama the green light for a military strike on the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad, who the White House holds responsible for last month’s deadly chemical weapons attack.
The US leader had earlier warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was the “red line” that, if crossed, would necessitate US involvement. The White House caveat, however, did not consider the possibility that Syrian rebel forces would jump at the opportunity of bringing US forces over to their side in the event of such an attack.
During the G20 summit, which just wrapped up in St. Petersburg, the White House released a joint statement signed by the leaders and representatives of 11 nations – ten of whom are G20 members. The signees included Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The signatory nations said they “support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”
However, the signatories to the statement were clearly opposed to any military action against Syria.
“Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria,” it read.
Russia and China, among other nations, remain highly skeptical of claims that the Assad regime resorted to the use of chemical weapons, saying there is not enough evidence to prove with any certainty the identity of the perpetrators of the attack.
At the G20 summit, President Vladimir Putin called the chemical attack “provocation” carried out by rebels and cautioned strike supporters to act within the UN charter, and only after firm results of the UN probe are published, which may happen as soon as next week.
This comes on top of another sarin-related scandal as earlier British officials were found to have granted export licenses for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride exports to Syria on the eve of the Syrian civil conflict breakout. The January 2012 licenses were given in the knowledge that both substances “could also be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of chemical weapons,” according to a report published by the House of Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls.
Angus Robertson, a Scottish National Party MP, told RT that the matter was raised in the House of Commons last week following the House of Commons ruling not to participate in military action against the Syrian government.
“Defense ministers had to explain why it was that the UK would even consider granting an export license,” he said, adding that it was "impossible to tell" whether rebels could have got hold of the chemicals once they had passed into the country.
“I’m still concerned, however, as the chemical licenses were issued at a time when the situation in Syria had already deteriorated,” Robertson added.
Meanwhile, in the US, members of Congress are debating whether to give President Barack Obama the green light for a military strike on the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad, who the White House holds responsible for last month’s deadly chemical weapons attack.
The US leader had earlier warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was the “red line” that, if crossed, would necessitate US involvement. The White House caveat, however, did not consider the possibility that Syrian rebel forces would jump at the opportunity of bringing US forces over to their side in the event of such an attack.
During the G20 summit, which just wrapped up in St. Petersburg, the White House released a joint statement signed by the leaders and representatives of 11 nations – ten of whom are G20 members. The signees included Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The signatory nations said they “support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”
However, the signatories to the statement were clearly opposed to any military action against Syria.
“Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria,” it read.
Russia and China, among other nations, remain highly skeptical of claims that the Assad regime resorted to the use of chemical weapons, saying there is not enough evidence to prove with any certainty the identity of the perpetrators of the attack.
At the G20 summit, President Vladimir Putin called the chemical attack “provocation” carried out by rebels and cautioned strike supporters to act within the UN charter, and only after firm results of the UN probe are published, which may happen as soon as next week.
6 sept 2013
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has shamelessly attacked Islam as a “fundamentally extremist” religion, which could threaten future security of the UK.
In an interview with the BBC, Tony Blair lashed out at opposition Labour Party chief Ed Miliband for opposing the coalition government’s push for launching an invasion against Syria, moaning that the country “could become a potent source of extremists”.
The former head of the Labour party, who engineered the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq together with former U.S. president George W. Bush on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), acknowledged that the true reason western warmongers are spearheading wars in the Middle East region was fighting Islam.
There is a “fundamental battle about religion and politics within Islam, which has vast consequences for our future security”, Tony Blair claimed.
“The truth is, the reason why Iraq makes us hesitant is because Iraq showed that when you intervene in the circumstances, where you have this radical Islamist issue, both on the Shia side and the Sunni side, you are going to face a very difficult, tough conflict”, the warmonger former premier added.
Blair and fellow invading countries in Iraq failed to find even a trace of WMDs in the country, but left the scene with hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and millions more displaced as a result of expansionist policies of certain warmongers both in the UK and the U.S.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair conceded the fear western warmongers cannot sleep with whenever there is Iran and its anti-imperialistic ideology.
He called for a military intervention in Syria to topple the popular government of President Bashar al Assad, warning “without intervention there would be an Assad-dominated state, and that means in this instance an Iran-dominated state, probably around the borders of Lebanon and controlling most of the wealth of Syria.
“And then you'll have a larger geographical hinterland to the east that will be controlled by various Sunni groups, most of whom are likely in these circumstances to be extreme, and you could have a breeding ground for extremism actually much worse and much more potent than Afghanistan.”
Blair went on to say that he was "disappointed" that the House of Commons killed a government motion that called for invading Syria militarily.
“This is something where I just have to disagree with the leadership of the party,” he said. “I know it's a difficult position for political leaders to be put in when they have got to take decisions like this.”
Blair was forced to resign as premier in 2007 in the aftermath of the failed military invasion of Iraq, after 10 years in office.
Responding to Blair's intervention, a Labour source told The Independent, “We have learnt the lessons of the Iraq War. That is why Ed was determined to stop David Cameron's ill-judged and reckless rush to war.”
In an interview with the BBC, Tony Blair lashed out at opposition Labour Party chief Ed Miliband for opposing the coalition government’s push for launching an invasion against Syria, moaning that the country “could become a potent source of extremists”.
The former head of the Labour party, who engineered the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq together with former U.S. president George W. Bush on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), acknowledged that the true reason western warmongers are spearheading wars in the Middle East region was fighting Islam.
There is a “fundamental battle about religion and politics within Islam, which has vast consequences for our future security”, Tony Blair claimed.
“The truth is, the reason why Iraq makes us hesitant is because Iraq showed that when you intervene in the circumstances, where you have this radical Islamist issue, both on the Shia side and the Sunni side, you are going to face a very difficult, tough conflict”, the warmonger former premier added.
Blair and fellow invading countries in Iraq failed to find even a trace of WMDs in the country, but left the scene with hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed and millions more displaced as a result of expansionist policies of certain warmongers both in the UK and the U.S.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair conceded the fear western warmongers cannot sleep with whenever there is Iran and its anti-imperialistic ideology.
He called for a military intervention in Syria to topple the popular government of President Bashar al Assad, warning “without intervention there would be an Assad-dominated state, and that means in this instance an Iran-dominated state, probably around the borders of Lebanon and controlling most of the wealth of Syria.
“And then you'll have a larger geographical hinterland to the east that will be controlled by various Sunni groups, most of whom are likely in these circumstances to be extreme, and you could have a breeding ground for extremism actually much worse and much more potent than Afghanistan.”
Blair went on to say that he was "disappointed" that the House of Commons killed a government motion that called for invading Syria militarily.
“This is something where I just have to disagree with the leadership of the party,” he said. “I know it's a difficult position for political leaders to be put in when they have got to take decisions like this.”
Blair was forced to resign as premier in 2007 in the aftermath of the failed military invasion of Iraq, after 10 years in office.
Responding to Blair's intervention, a Labour source told The Independent, “We have learnt the lessons of the Iraq War. That is why Ed was determined to stop David Cameron's ill-judged and reckless rush to war.”
1 sept 2013
FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, we can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these
ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.
“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.
“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.
“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, we can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these
ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this
material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.
“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.
“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.
“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”
A man holds the body of a dead child
Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.
“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”
Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.
The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.
The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.
Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.
“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it
its toxic properties.
“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.
“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.
“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”
Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.
UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.
They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.
It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.
On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.
Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.
Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.
Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.
But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.
He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.
Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”
He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.
“And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.
General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.
He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.
Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.
“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.
“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”
Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.
The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.
The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.
Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.
“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it
its toxic properties.
“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.
“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.
“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.
“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can – and do – revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”
Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.
UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.
They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.
It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.
On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.
Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.
Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.
Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.
But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.
He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.
Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”
He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.
“And I’m prepared to give that order.”
Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such
as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.
General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.
He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.
29 aug 2013
The administration insisted Thursday that President Obama has both the authority and the determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria, even as a growing chorus of lawmakers demanded an opportunity to vote on the issue and Britain, the United States’ closest ally, appeared unlikely to participate. Britain’s sudden withdrawal came after Prime Minister David Cameron, deserted by rebels in his own Conservative Party, lost a parliamentary vote for provisional authorization for military action in Syria.
Cameron, who had strongly backed Obama’s pledge to ensure that Syria would face “consequences” for its alleged use of chemical weapons, said he would respect Parliament’s will. Many in his government attributed the vote loss to the legacy of British participation in the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.
A statement distributed by the White House said: “The U.S. will continue to consult with the UK government — one of our closest allies and friends. As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-
making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”
Both privately and publicly, administration officials continued to portray Obama as edging closer to a decision to launch a limited cruise-missile strike on Syrian military targets. As a fifth U.S. warship entered the Mediterranean, Obama’s top national security officials briefed congressional leaders on evidence that they say proves that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government killed hundreds of civilians in an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.
But as more time has elapsed between the Syrian attack and the much-previewed U.S. retaliation, the window for questions and demands from Congress, international allies and the news media has opened wider.
Nearly 200 House members from both parties have signed letters calling on the president to seek formal congressional approval for military action.
Others agree with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said in an interview that the president has “certain powers even under the War Powers Act that he can use [in] the national interest of security, and he can act.”
But while many would support action against the Syri regime, Menendez said, “they want [Obama] to come before them and explain it.”
Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said after Thursday’s administration briefings that he would “support surgical, proportional military strikes given the strong evidence” of chemical weapons use. But Corker said that “whatever limited action is taken should not further commit the U.S. in Syria beyond the current strategy” of supporting moderate opposition forces fighting Assad’s military. He called for continued consultation and said the administration would be “far better off if they seek authorization based upon our national interests, which would provide the kind of public debate and legitimacy that can only come from Congress.”
In a telephone call Thursday with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama “briefed the speaker on the status of deliberations over Syria,” while Boehner “sought answers to concerns . . . including the legal justification for any strike, the policy and precedent such a response would set, and the objectives and strategy for any potential action,” said Boehner press secretary Brendan Buck. “Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,” Buck said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has been in regular contact with Obama in recent days, according to Senate aides.
The White House has said that it will provide Congress with an additional classified assessment of Assad’s responsibility for what it has called an “undeniable” chemical attack and will publicly release an unclassified version this week.
But support for a military strike appeared to be quickly waning. Even in France, where President François Hollande just days ago said Syria should be “punished,” officials called for a delay in any action until United Nations weapons inspectors, who are in Syria, complete their investigation. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Vienna that the investigators will continue their on-site work near Damascus on Friday and leave Syria the next day. Ban said he expects an immediate report from the inspectors, but he has made clear that their mission is only to determine whether a chemical attack occurred, not to assign blame.
At the U.N. Security Council, where Russia and China on Wednesday rejected a British-drafted resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria, the five permanent members met again Thursday. But the meeting, called at Russia’s request, lasted less than an hour and didn’t result in any action, according to U.N. officials.
State media reported that two Russian warships were traveling to the eastern Mediterranean. Russia, Assad’s principal foreign backer along with Iran, has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, although many personnel have reportedly been evacuated in recent days.
Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, said his government would cooperate with Russia to prevent a strike against Syria, which he called an “open violation” of international law.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on “all parties to exercise restraint and calm.” Wang said that China opposes the use of chemical weapons but that the United Nations should determine what happened in Syria.
Meanwhile, the overseas edition of China’s People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main mouthpiece, compared possible intervention in Syria to the “trick” and “excuse” used by the United States to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq. “Use of force in Syria,” Thursday’s editorial said, “would cause even graver consequences than the war in Iraq.”
Iraq has loomed large in the debate over the wisdom of an attack on Syria and the U.S. right to conduct one.
In a now-infamous presentation to the United Nations in February 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell offered audio intercepts, photographs and testimony from anonymous witnesses as proof that Hussein was developing chemical, biological and, perhaps, even nuclear weapons — despite evidence to the contrary offered by U.N. investigators.
One month later, U.S. troops invaded, backed by a multinational force whose leading contributor was Britain. Within a year, evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had collapsed. Britain’s ongoing support for the operation, with troops who remained until 2009 and the loss of 179 soldiers, was widely opposed and helped lead to the defeat of the Labor Party and Cameron’s ascension to office.
White House and State Department spokesmen Thursday parried repeated questions with assertions that Iraq — Obama opposed the 2003 invasion, calling it a “dumb war” — was different from Syria in every respect.
“As we all know in Iraq, the U.S. was trying to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “In Syria, we know that chemical weapons not only exist but that they were used. . . . That’s undeniable.”
At the same time, Harf said, “we’re not considering analogous responses,” because Obama has repeatedly rejected full-scale U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Anne Gearan and Ed O’Keefe in Washington, Anthony Faiola in London and William Wan in Beijing contributed to this report.
Cameron, who had strongly backed Obama’s pledge to ensure that Syria would face “consequences” for its alleged use of chemical weapons, said he would respect Parliament’s will. Many in his government attributed the vote loss to the legacy of British participation in the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.
A statement distributed by the White House said: “The U.S. will continue to consult with the UK government — one of our closest allies and friends. As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-
making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”
Both privately and publicly, administration officials continued to portray Obama as edging closer to a decision to launch a limited cruise-missile strike on Syrian military targets. As a fifth U.S. warship entered the Mediterranean, Obama’s top national security officials briefed congressional leaders on evidence that they say proves that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government killed hundreds of civilians in an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.
But as more time has elapsed between the Syrian attack and the much-previewed U.S. retaliation, the window for questions and demands from Congress, international allies and the news media has opened wider.
Nearly 200 House members from both parties have signed letters calling on the president to seek formal congressional approval for military action.
Others agree with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said in an interview that the president has “certain powers even under the War Powers Act that he can use [in] the national interest of security, and he can act.”
But while many would support action against the Syri regime, Menendez said, “they want [Obama] to come before them and explain it.”
Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said after Thursday’s administration briefings that he would “support surgical, proportional military strikes given the strong evidence” of chemical weapons use. But Corker said that “whatever limited action is taken should not further commit the U.S. in Syria beyond the current strategy” of supporting moderate opposition forces fighting Assad’s military. He called for continued consultation and said the administration would be “far better off if they seek authorization based upon our national interests, which would provide the kind of public debate and legitimacy that can only come from Congress.”
In a telephone call Thursday with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama “briefed the speaker on the status of deliberations over Syria,” while Boehner “sought answers to concerns . . . including the legal justification for any strike, the policy and precedent such a response would set, and the objectives and strategy for any potential action,” said Boehner press secretary Brendan Buck. “Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,” Buck said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has been in regular contact with Obama in recent days, according to Senate aides.
The White House has said that it will provide Congress with an additional classified assessment of Assad’s responsibility for what it has called an “undeniable” chemical attack and will publicly release an unclassified version this week.
But support for a military strike appeared to be quickly waning. Even in France, where President François Hollande just days ago said Syria should be “punished,” officials called for a delay in any action until United Nations weapons inspectors, who are in Syria, complete their investigation. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Vienna that the investigators will continue their on-site work near Damascus on Friday and leave Syria the next day. Ban said he expects an immediate report from the inspectors, but he has made clear that their mission is only to determine whether a chemical attack occurred, not to assign blame.
At the U.N. Security Council, where Russia and China on Wednesday rejected a British-drafted resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria, the five permanent members met again Thursday. But the meeting, called at Russia’s request, lasted less than an hour and didn’t result in any action, according to U.N. officials.
State media reported that two Russian warships were traveling to the eastern Mediterranean. Russia, Assad’s principal foreign backer along with Iran, has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, although many personnel have reportedly been evacuated in recent days.
Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, said his government would cooperate with Russia to prevent a strike against Syria, which he called an “open violation” of international law.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on “all parties to exercise restraint and calm.” Wang said that China opposes the use of chemical weapons but that the United Nations should determine what happened in Syria.
Meanwhile, the overseas edition of China’s People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main mouthpiece, compared possible intervention in Syria to the “trick” and “excuse” used by the United States to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq. “Use of force in Syria,” Thursday’s editorial said, “would cause even graver consequences than the war in Iraq.”
Iraq has loomed large in the debate over the wisdom of an attack on Syria and the U.S. right to conduct one.
In a now-infamous presentation to the United Nations in February 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell offered audio intercepts, photographs and testimony from anonymous witnesses as proof that Hussein was developing chemical, biological and, perhaps, even nuclear weapons — despite evidence to the contrary offered by U.N. investigators.
One month later, U.S. troops invaded, backed by a multinational force whose leading contributor was Britain. Within a year, evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had collapsed. Britain’s ongoing support for the operation, with troops who remained until 2009 and the loss of 179 soldiers, was widely opposed and helped lead to the defeat of the Labor Party and Cameron’s ascension to office.
White House and State Department spokesmen Thursday parried repeated questions with assertions that Iraq — Obama opposed the 2003 invasion, calling it a “dumb war” — was different from Syria in every respect.
“As we all know in Iraq, the U.S. was trying to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “In Syria, we know that chemical weapons not only exist but that they were used. . . . That’s undeniable.”
At the same time, Harf said, “we’re not considering analogous responses,” because Obama has repeatedly rejected full-scale U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Anne Gearan and Ed O’Keefe in Washington, Anthony Faiola in London and William Wan in Beijing contributed to this report.
27 aug 2013
British Christians responded on Sunday 25th August, to 'A Moment of Truth', the Kairos Palestine document at the Greenbelt Arts Festival, in Cheltenham.
Rafaat Qasis, of the Kairos Palestine, told PNN that the document which was launched in 2009 by leading Palestinian Christians has received an international response in several countries and was reflected through the formation of committees and workshops that call for the actual work to implement what came in the document.
The document that was launched Sunday in Britain announced that Belfour Declaration, which is a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, is a mistake and that it has betrayed the Palestinian people. It says, "It's one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history." Stressing that the declaration was silent on the political rights of the non-Jewish communities – in particular Palestinian Arabs – who by the start of the 1920s, made up almost 90% of the population in Palestine.
The Kairos Palestine document explains why British Christians have a particular responsibility toward the situation in Israel and Palestine and why there is an urgent need for them to be involved in supporting the call of the Palestinian Church for international action. It also identifies "the reality on the ground" in the Holy Land, the truth of life in the occupied Palestinian territories; West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
The document denounce Israel's brutal and cruel policies and measures it carries out against the Palestinians from daily humiliation of women, men and children, deaths of civilians, demolishing of homes, the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, the brutality of administrative detention, the relentless confiscation of land and natural resources, and thousands of olive trees destroyed. It also denounced the continuing construction of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian owned-land.
The document declared its commitment to listen to Palestinian voices and supports the growing Palestinian non-violent resistance movement, the release of prisoners from Israeli jails and the plight of thousands of refugees to return to their homeland. The document also encourages alternative tourism and spreading awareness to tourists and pilgrims about Palestinians' daily life under occupation.
The document also condemns Israel's blatant disregard for international laws and resolutions, and underestimation of the human rights, calling on societies and political leaders to put pressure on Israel and take legal actions to end the occupation and its brutal, arbitrary and racist practices towards the Palestinian people.
The document was built upon previous kairos documents such as Kairos South Africa, 1985, that called for confession, repentance and the rejection of violence. It challenges Christians around the world to hear the cry for justice and recognize that now is a crucial (kairos) moment to act now to attain justice, peace and security."
Rafaat Qasis, of the Kairos Palestine, told PNN that the document which was launched in 2009 by leading Palestinian Christians has received an international response in several countries and was reflected through the formation of committees and workshops that call for the actual work to implement what came in the document.
The document that was launched Sunday in Britain announced that Belfour Declaration, which is a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, is a mistake and that it has betrayed the Palestinian people. It says, "It's one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history." Stressing that the declaration was silent on the political rights of the non-Jewish communities – in particular Palestinian Arabs – who by the start of the 1920s, made up almost 90% of the population in Palestine.
The Kairos Palestine document explains why British Christians have a particular responsibility toward the situation in Israel and Palestine and why there is an urgent need for them to be involved in supporting the call of the Palestinian Church for international action. It also identifies "the reality on the ground" in the Holy Land, the truth of life in the occupied Palestinian territories; West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
The document denounce Israel's brutal and cruel policies and measures it carries out against the Palestinians from daily humiliation of women, men and children, deaths of civilians, demolishing of homes, the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, the brutality of administrative detention, the relentless confiscation of land and natural resources, and thousands of olive trees destroyed. It also denounced the continuing construction of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian owned-land.
The document declared its commitment to listen to Palestinian voices and supports the growing Palestinian non-violent resistance movement, the release of prisoners from Israeli jails and the plight of thousands of refugees to return to their homeland. The document also encourages alternative tourism and spreading awareness to tourists and pilgrims about Palestinians' daily life under occupation.
The document also condemns Israel's blatant disregard for international laws and resolutions, and underestimation of the human rights, calling on societies and political leaders to put pressure on Israel and take legal actions to end the occupation and its brutal, arbitrary and racist practices towards the Palestinian people.
The document was built upon previous kairos documents such as Kairos South Africa, 1985, that called for confession, repentance and the rejection of violence. It challenges Christians around the world to hear the cry for justice and recognize that now is a crucial (kairos) moment to act now to attain justice, peace and security."
5 aug 2013
|
|
In this edition of the show: The criminal use of chemical gases by militants in Syria and security forces in Bahrain has a common denominator: both are supported by the British government to kill freedom. |
18 july 2013
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has told the European Union that it must not label the Islamic resistance movement Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
The Lebanese president made the remarks in a statement issued by his office on Thursday, four days ahead of an important EU foreign ministers meeting.
Suleiman had "asked the foreign minister to notify the European Commission and member states of the government's request, and not to place Hezbollah, an essential component of Lebanese society, on the list of terror organizations," the statement said.
He told the EU in the statement not to take "any decision… in a precipitate manner, and without being based on objective and irrefutable proof."
EU foreign ministers are likely to discuss on July 22 whether to add the military wing of Hezbollah to their list of terrorist groups, a move the EU has avoided so far despite intense US, UK and Israeli pressure.
Earlier this month, Britain renewed its efforts to get Hezbollah on the EU’s terror list, but France, Italy and Germany are still reluctant to back the British move.
On June 4, EU counter-terrorism specialists met on the issue but failed to reach an agreement.
Last year, the EU flatly rejected an Israeli call to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
The EU regards Hezbollah as an active political party in Lebanon. It says there is not enough evidence to warrant listing the Lebanese group as a “terror group.”
Led by France, European countries argue that their relations with Lebanon, where Hezbollah provides extensive social services and its political wing holds government power, would be damaged by the designation.
Currently, among the 27-EU member states, only the UK and the Netherlands are in favor of adding Hezbollah to the EU list of terror.
The Lebanese president made the remarks in a statement issued by his office on Thursday, four days ahead of an important EU foreign ministers meeting.
Suleiman had "asked the foreign minister to notify the European Commission and member states of the government's request, and not to place Hezbollah, an essential component of Lebanese society, on the list of terror organizations," the statement said.
He told the EU in the statement not to take "any decision… in a precipitate manner, and without being based on objective and irrefutable proof."
EU foreign ministers are likely to discuss on July 22 whether to add the military wing of Hezbollah to their list of terrorist groups, a move the EU has avoided so far despite intense US, UK and Israeli pressure.
Earlier this month, Britain renewed its efforts to get Hezbollah on the EU’s terror list, but France, Italy and Germany are still reluctant to back the British move.
On June 4, EU counter-terrorism specialists met on the issue but failed to reach an agreement.
Last year, the EU flatly rejected an Israeli call to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
The EU regards Hezbollah as an active political party in Lebanon. It says there is not enough evidence to warrant listing the Lebanese group as a “terror group.”
Led by France, European countries argue that their relations with Lebanon, where Hezbollah provides extensive social services and its political wing holds government power, would be damaged by the designation.
Currently, among the 27-EU member states, only the UK and the Netherlands are in favor of adding Hezbollah to the EU list of terror.
The UK government named Israel as being a “country of human rights concern.”
The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) revealed that the UK approved more than 3000 arms export licences totalling over £ 12 billion to 27 countries despite their poor human rights records. “Severe concern” was raised specifically about arms exports to Israel that, at £ 7.8 billion, were worth more than half of the total.
The UK government granted 381 export licenses to Israel for equipment such as: all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection, body armour, military helmets, components for pistols, components for assault rifles, military support vehicles, and small arms ammunition. However, most of the value of UK arms exports to Israel consisted of cryptographic equipment.
John Stanley, the chairman of the Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC), commented: "[the] scale of the extant strategic licences to the FCO's 27 countries of human rights concern puts into stark relief the inherent conflict between the government's arms exports and human rights policies." MP Richard Burden, a member of the CAEC, raised further concern about the arms exports and claimed that “the UK’s human rights policy is being fundamentally undermined by the scale and nature of arms exports licenses being approved by the Government.”
The CAEC chairman John Stanley added that, "’[the] government should apply significantly more cautious judgments when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes‚ which might be used to facilitate internal repression‚ in contravention of the government's stated policy." The UK Government’s policy on arms exports states that: “We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”
However, CAEC member Richard Burden – who is also the Chair of the Britain Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group – raised specific concerns about UK arms exports to Israel, and questioned the scale of the exports to the country considering that “[the] UK Government regularly expresses concern about Israel’s breaches of international law and human rights abuses.” He added that the UK Government faces serious questions about its arms exports to Israel.
The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) revealed that the UK approved more than 3000 arms export licences totalling over £ 12 billion to 27 countries despite their poor human rights records. “Severe concern” was raised specifically about arms exports to Israel that, at £ 7.8 billion, were worth more than half of the total.
The UK government granted 381 export licenses to Israel for equipment such as: all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection, body armour, military helmets, components for pistols, components for assault rifles, military support vehicles, and small arms ammunition. However, most of the value of UK arms exports to Israel consisted of cryptographic equipment.
John Stanley, the chairman of the Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC), commented: "[the] scale of the extant strategic licences to the FCO's 27 countries of human rights concern puts into stark relief the inherent conflict between the government's arms exports and human rights policies." MP Richard Burden, a member of the CAEC, raised further concern about the arms exports and claimed that “the UK’s human rights policy is being fundamentally undermined by the scale and nature of arms exports licenses being approved by the Government.”
The CAEC chairman John Stanley added that, "’[the] government should apply significantly more cautious judgments when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes‚ which might be used to facilitate internal repression‚ in contravention of the government's stated policy." The UK Government’s policy on arms exports states that: “We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”
However, CAEC member Richard Burden – who is also the Chair of the Britain Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group – raised specific concerns about UK arms exports to Israel, and questioned the scale of the exports to the country considering that “[the] UK Government regularly expresses concern about Israel’s breaches of international law and human rights abuses.” He added that the UK Government faces serious questions about its arms exports to Israel.
Sponsorship deal between UAE airline, Transport for London forbids any future business dealings with Jewish state; mayor orders Tfl to remove clause
The Thames cable car line, which runs between London's Greenwich neighborhood and the Excel Center, has become one of the most popular tourist attractions in the city since it opened in June 2012 ahead of the Olympics. Now it has also become a symbol of hatred toward Israel.
The Emirates Air Line, also known as the Thames cable car, is considered a success partly because Emirates airlines provided $54.4 million of the project's more than $95 million construction and development costs. In exchange for the funding Emirates airlines, the United Arab Emirate's national airline, was named the sponsor of the cable car line.
But London’s main transportation agency has come under fire for the 10-year partnership deal with Emirates airlines because it excludes Israel from future business dealings.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that according to the 2011 contract, which was revealed by the online watchdog group MayorWatch through a Freedom of Information request, Transport for London agreed to abide by the UAE's foreign policy in the deal.
Under the terms of the contract, Transport for London will default on the agreement if it sells the cable car to a "conflicting person," defined as any competitor or "any person who is a national of, or who is registered, incorporated, established or whose principal place of business is in a country with which the UAE does not at the date of this Contract or at any relevant point during the Term maintain diplomatic relations."
Israel is the only country that falls into that category.
Transport for London would not be allowed to finance the project through Israel-based or Israeli-owned banks, nor would Israel be able to buy the cable cars from Transport for London.
Another clause in the contract forbids London Mayor Boris Johnson from criticizing the UAE. Johnson claimed he was not aware of these clauses, and following his intervention this week Emirates agreed to remove them and "re-work the wording," his spokesman said.
Zionist Federation chairman Paul Charney, who earlier in the week slammed the deal, welcomed the news, saying, "I would personally like to thank Sir Peter Hendy from TfL for urgently resolving this matter with Emirates Airlines. We must remain vigilant against any back-door attempts to boycott Israel in the UK." Amir Ofek, spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in London, said he was certain the "relevant British authorities will know how to handle the matter."
The Thames cable car line, which runs between London's Greenwich neighborhood and the Excel Center, has become one of the most popular tourist attractions in the city since it opened in June 2012 ahead of the Olympics. Now it has also become a symbol of hatred toward Israel.
The Emirates Air Line, also known as the Thames cable car, is considered a success partly because Emirates airlines provided $54.4 million of the project's more than $95 million construction and development costs. In exchange for the funding Emirates airlines, the United Arab Emirate's national airline, was named the sponsor of the cable car line.
But London’s main transportation agency has come under fire for the 10-year partnership deal with Emirates airlines because it excludes Israel from future business dealings.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that according to the 2011 contract, which was revealed by the online watchdog group MayorWatch through a Freedom of Information request, Transport for London agreed to abide by the UAE's foreign policy in the deal.
Under the terms of the contract, Transport for London will default on the agreement if it sells the cable car to a "conflicting person," defined as any competitor or "any person who is a national of, or who is registered, incorporated, established or whose principal place of business is in a country with which the UAE does not at the date of this Contract or at any relevant point during the Term maintain diplomatic relations."
Israel is the only country that falls into that category.
Transport for London would not be allowed to finance the project through Israel-based or Israeli-owned banks, nor would Israel be able to buy the cable cars from Transport for London.
Another clause in the contract forbids London Mayor Boris Johnson from criticizing the UAE. Johnson claimed he was not aware of these clauses, and following his intervention this week Emirates agreed to remove them and "re-work the wording," his spokesman said.
Zionist Federation chairman Paul Charney, who earlier in the week slammed the deal, welcomed the news, saying, "I would personally like to thank Sir Peter Hendy from TfL for urgently resolving this matter with Emirates Airlines. We must remain vigilant against any back-door attempts to boycott Israel in the UK." Amir Ofek, spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in London, said he was certain the "relevant British authorities will know how to handle the matter."
12 july 2013
Sir Bob Russell, Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament
Another member of the British parliament has nearly been sacked for comments his party describes as ‘a denigration’ of the Holocaust, local media reported.
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Sir Bob Russell questioned Zionist regime’s treatment of Palestinians in an address to the House of Commons on Monday.
"On the assumption that the 20th century will include the Holocaust, will he give me an assurance that the life of Palestinians since 1948 will be given equal attention?”, asked Russell.
The MP’s own party members lashed out at him for the comment.
“Bob Russell is a fringe, marginal voice in the community. All parties have them sadly”, said Gavin Stollar, of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel.
Jeremy Newmark, on Britain's Jewish Leadership Council said, “These remarks are a shocking piece of Holocaust denigration. There is simply no comparison between the two situations. It is worrying that so soon after the David Ward affair another MP thinks it is acceptable to play fast and loose with the language of the Holocaust in this context."
The comments come soon after the Liberal Democrat MP David Ward was sanctioned by his party following his conflation between the Middle East conflict and the Holocaust.
Ward, who was rebuked by his party leader Nick Clegg, said on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, "[I am] saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians..."
The Liberal Democrat party also recently expelled Baroness Jenny Tonge following her anti-Israel remarks in which she asserted that "Israel won't be there forever".
Another member of the British parliament has nearly been sacked for comments his party describes as ‘a denigration’ of the Holocaust, local media reported.
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Sir Bob Russell questioned Zionist regime’s treatment of Palestinians in an address to the House of Commons on Monday.
"On the assumption that the 20th century will include the Holocaust, will he give me an assurance that the life of Palestinians since 1948 will be given equal attention?”, asked Russell.
The MP’s own party members lashed out at him for the comment.
“Bob Russell is a fringe, marginal voice in the community. All parties have them sadly”, said Gavin Stollar, of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel.
Jeremy Newmark, on Britain's Jewish Leadership Council said, “These remarks are a shocking piece of Holocaust denigration. There is simply no comparison between the two situations. It is worrying that so soon after the David Ward affair another MP thinks it is acceptable to play fast and loose with the language of the Holocaust in this context."
The comments come soon after the Liberal Democrat MP David Ward was sanctioned by his party following his conflation between the Middle East conflict and the Holocaust.
Ward, who was rebuked by his party leader Nick Clegg, said on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, "[I am] saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians..."
The Liberal Democrat party also recently expelled Baroness Jenny Tonge following her anti-Israel remarks in which she asserted that "Israel won't be there forever".
Page: 2 - 1
