Category Archives: Russia

ISIL Against the World, America Next?

Posted on by

The leftist argument for quite some time is that the United States never should have gone into Iraq. It is a popular ethos but way off base if one would bother with the real history and reasons. So, Barack Obama pulled America troops out in 2011 ending the war, telling the world that Iraq is now stable.

The very moment coalition troops exited Iraq the vacuum was filling up again. Barack Obama blames Iraqi leadership for the failed ‘status of forces’ agreement, when that was yet another lie on behalf of the White House. Yet, if Barack Obama wanted to actually keep Iraq stable after the American exodus, then why did Barack Obama refuse all later requests for military support by Maliki which were requests of urgency that began in 2012?

After this past week of the Pershmerga and Yizidis being trapped on top of a mountain by ISIS, Barack Obama told us that America could not turn a blind eye to the innocent desperations on that mountain. The Pentagon with Obama’s nod authorized only a handful of air-strikes but they were not offensive at all versus ISIS, they were only gestures of defense to protect American personnel in Irbil and Baghdad. While Barack Obama was on the golf course this weekend at Martha’s Vineyard, the United State was evacuating our personnel from Irbil and Baghdad, leaving behind only very essential personnel. (Cant have another Benghazi).

Now, as hostilities were building, al Maliki is under pressure to step down and he refuses so he has surrounded his palace with military forces and dispatched additional forces throughout the ‘green zone’ fending off a coup.

Meanwhile, ISIS continues to be bold issuing public threats to Jordan, Turkey, and the West. Some in America are taking notice by voicing concern that the United States is in the crosshairs of ISIS. Sure the threat is there but we have our government to protect our homeland right?

Must watch video: The World at War

ISIS recruits globally and does so effectively and as a result of seizing banks and military hardware, the terror group is worth an estimated $1.8 billion and that buys a lot of terror and fighters.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-11/suspected-american-isis-supporter-arrested-new-yorks-jfk-airport

Having demanded “American blood,” the news that a suspected American militant who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group in chilling Twitter rants is being held without bail after his arrest at New York’s Kennedy Airport is somewhat concerning. Donald Ray Morgan, 44, who has a previous conviction for firing a gun, had allegedly been brokering deals for military-grade weapons and ammo in his home state of North Carolina and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, according to The Daily News. The presiding judge noted, his actions “clearly implied to me that he is trying to go to Syria or Iraq as the next step and trying to be actively engaged.”

 

As The Daily News reports,

FBI agents nabbed Donald Ray Morgan, a 44-year-old ex-convict from North Carolina, on Aug. 2 when he returned to the U.S. after an eight-month stay in Lebanon, where his wife lives.

 

Morgan, who has a previous conviction for firing a gun, had allegedly been brokering deals for military-grade weapons and ammo in his home state and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

 

But what caught counter-terrorism agents’ attention were his chilling Twitter rants from the Middle East under the alias “Abu Omar al Amreeki.”

 

“It’s possible that he traffics in guns to people in this organization (ISIS),” Moore said in Brooklyn Federal Court.

 

Besides pledging allegiance to chief ISIS thug Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, his tweets strongly suggested he may have been preparing for jihad in Syria, Iraq or possibly the states, law enforcement officials feared.

 

He also referred to himself as a mujahedeen, or jihad fighter.

——

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-isis-more-dangerous-now-than-al-qaeda-was-pre-911/

As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — or simply “The Islamic State” as the group now says it should be called — continues to sweep through northern Iraq, U.S. lawmakers are sounding the alarm that it could be just as dangerous as al Qaeda in the days before it launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

“Every day that goes by, ISIS builds up its caliphate and it becomes a direct threat to the United States of America. They are more powerful now than al Qaeda was on 9/11,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

Experts say the Islamic jihadist group has indeed been able to accomplish an enormous amount in a short period of time. And in global reach, fundraising capabilities and pure operational ability, they are certainly outpacing Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

 

“Al Qaeda in the pre-Sept. 11 phase was capable of engaging in strikes and bombings,” Tom Sanderson, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News. But what ISIS has now, he said, “is more significant and more varied than what al Qaeda had in terms of its actual combat capabilities where they are fielding artillery. They are holding much greater territory than al Qaeda had, they are governing people, they have a more diverse funding base… they have a greater localized funding base than al Qaeda.”

The group is in fact a rival faction to modern-day al Qaeda, whose general command cut ISIS off from its network in February because it disobeyed orders from leader Ayman al-Zawahri.

The Internet has afforded ISIS the ability to recruit all over the world. The group gained power and experience fighting in Syria, where an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 foreigners have traveled to join the fight, including 1,500 and 2,500 Sunni extremists from Europe and 100 to 200 Americans who hold Western passports and have far easier access to the U.S. if their terror activities go undetected by authorities.

 

 

Al Qaeda “simply did not have the technology that ISIS has now, the social networking that enables them to reach a much greater audience,” Sanderson said.

Still, big does not always mean organized.

Juan Zarate, CBS News’ Senior National Security Analyst, said that ISIS is probably less well-organized than pre-9/11 al Qaeda, which spent years meticulously training and plotting to attack the United States. And Sanderson said the surprise element of its attack on the United States was part of what made the group so lethal.

But ISIS could also be benefiting from the years of groundwork laid by its predecessor-turned-rival.

“ISIS, especially with the announcement of the Islamic State, is piggybacking off of the global networks and inspiration that al Qaeda fomented post-9/11 and give them, in some ways, a global infrastructure on which to build. It’s not as if they’re starting from scratch,” said Zarate.

One of the group’s biggest advantages over al Qaeda is the fact that it has seized a vast swath of territory and virtually erased the border between Iraq and Syria. Unlike al Qaeda, “in some ways…rented from the Taliban in Afghanistan,” Zarate said, ISIS has gained strength from the territory it occupies.

“In the 21st century any operating room for a terrorist group is a prescription for disaster because they have the ability not just to build up their local strength but to allow themselves global reach,” he added.

ISIS has a local fundraising base from Iraq and Syria, where it brings in revenue from the granaries, oil wells and power plants it has captured. Last week, it seized Iraq’s largest dam, gaining control of enormous power and water resources as well as access to the river that runs through Baghdad. Trafficking, extortion and kidnap-for-ransom operations bring in millions of dollars.

“There’s no daddy for ISIS when it comes to funding,” Sanderson said. By contrast, al Qaeda was dependent on bin Laden’s personal fortune, which was not limitless, and donors from the Gulf states that could impose a certain amount of pressure and control over the group.

 

Plus, ISIS has captured millions of dollars of American weaponry abandoned by Iraqi troops that fled the fight early on in the jihadist group’s takeover. David Rohde, a columnist for Reuters and The Atlantic said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” Sunday called that a “disaster.”

“What’s so astonishing about the Islamic State is that they’re able to maneuver, use this weaponry. They can move 1,000 guys very quickly and that they defeated the Peshmerga [Kurdish forces] so quickly I think surprised many people,” Rohde said.

There is one glaring similarity between the two groups, Zarate said, and that is the extent to which the U.S. does not entirely know what ISIS will do next.

“There were massive blind spots as to what al Qaeda was doing or planning and I think you’ve started to hear the same threads or chords of insecurity on the part of U.S. counterterrorism officials about blind spots with respect to ISIS,” he said.

“I think we had certainly not done enough through the ’90s and into 2001 to disrupt al Qaeda’s infrastructure, training, plotting and in some ways we’ve allowed ISIS to gain a foothold by being fairly inactive in Syria to date so in some ways you can say we’re rather equivalent in terms of our passive posture.”

Experts and lawmakers have debated whether ISIS will carry out the next 9/11-style terror attack. With the group’s full capability somewhat of a mystery, it is hard to predict when they might turn their attention to the U.S.

But earlier this summer, former acting CIA Director and CBS News Analyst on Intelligence Michael Morell said that an increasing U.S. presence in Iraq could speed up that process.

 

“That’s one of the downsides of U.S. involvement,” he told CBS News. “The more we visibly get involved in helping the [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] government fight these guys, the more we become a target.”

And with President Obama’s decision to launch airstrikes in Iraq as a means to provide humanitarian aid and safety for thousands of Iraqi religious minorities being targeted by ISIS, that day could come sooner.

 

 

Putin vs. NATO and tomatoes

Posted on by

Have you ever read an Executive Order signed by Vladimir Putin? Here is your chance. With the sanction war going on against Russia initiated by Barack Obama, Europe has feebly joined the cadence of the United States and Putin is fighting back. Russia is stopping all agricultural imports for at least a year.

When it comes to NATO, Putin is drawing out the weakness of member nations. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is getting advise from U.S. General Breedlove as to how to address Putin’s aggression that is building in Ukraine.

 

Putin has indeed isolated the weakness of NATO by launching irregular warfare.

‘A linchpin of Russian strategy is what the committee calls “ambiguous warfare.” As one Russian defense theorist puts it, ambiguous warfare involves using irregular forces, cyberattacks and information warfare to “neutralize adversary actions without resorting to weapons (through indirect actions), by exercising information superiority.”

The trouble ambiguous warfare poses to NATO is that the Alliance’s collective-defense obligations, and the strategic doctrines pinned to them, call for responding to “armed” assaults. But Russian aggression against, say, Lithuania may not look like an outright assault. The Kremlin is more likely to use Russian-language media to agitate the country’s ethnic-Russian population while debilitating basic state functions through cyberattacks and the deployment of irregular commandos.’

 

Russia now has about 20,000 troops stationed “in an area along the entire border with eastern Ukraine.” The buildup nearly doubled the troop deployment in the last week by adding 8,000 more forces to 12,000 already there, the official said.

It comes a week after the United States and the European Union increased economic sanctions on Russia for supporting pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukraine government forces in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, along the border with Russia.

‘This will no longer be Special War, but a real war — one which may not be possible to limit to Ukraine.

Nevertheless, Russia has a long habit of invading places in August — East Prussia and Galicia (1914), Poland (1920), Manchuria (1945), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Georgia (2008) — so all bets may be off. It’s clear that Putin is reluctant to back down in the face of Western economic pressure, scoldings, and admonitions, not least because consistently doubling-down has worked well for him many times in the past. I have no crystal ball, but if we learn in a few days, perhaps this weekend, that Russian “peacekeepers” are moving by the battalion into Southeastern Ukraine, you won’t count me among the surprised.’

 

The Cold War part two is brewing and Putin is so far tactically successful at his mission to rebuild the ‘Soviet Union’. General Dempsey admitted the Pentagon has pulled out and dusted off war game options from the Cold War, which should have been done in 2012 at least. Bring out the spies again and re-train them to the tactics some of which are listed here. Moscow has their rules, the question is what rules will America have and who will join her?

“Although no one had written them down, they were the precepts we all understood for conducting our operations in the most difficult of operating environments: the Soviet capital.” – Antonio Mendez, retired CIA Technical Operations Officer specializing in support of clandestine and covert CIA operations.

The Rules

1. Assume nothing.
2. Technology will always let you down.
3. Murphy is right.
4. Never go against your gut.
5. Always listen to your gut; it is your operational antennae.
6. Everyone is potentially under opposition control.
7. Don’t look back; you are never completely alone. Use your gut.
8. Go with the flow; use the terrain.
9. Take the natural break of traffic.
10. Maintain a natural pace.
11. Establish a distinctive and dynamic profile and pattern.
12. Stay consistent over time.
13. Vary your pattern and stay within your profile.
14. Be non threatening: keep them relaxed; mesmerize!

Putin’s move Against NATO, Checkmate

Posted on by

After the no-fly zone mission over Libya to remove Qaddafi, we quickly determined the weaknesses of the member nations in NATO. The United States worked in concert with a few NATO countries to fly the sorties and it was rapidly determined that we had to loan ordnance and assume full control due in part to lack of partnered countries readiness, willingness and longevity in the mission.

Since that time, NATO leadership is attempting to re-gain strength and resolve yet that is proving to be an epic challenge.

The matter of Russia annexing Crimea and then moving into East Ukraine by Putin has put additional pressure on NATO. Success of offensive measures by NATO is fleeting and Vladimir Putin is ready for his checkmate on Ukraine while eyeing other territories.

Diplomatic efforts have failed so far and Ukraine is feeling alone and isolated while other Baltic States are in much the same condition.

This puts larger pressure on the United States and that is only IF the United States is interested in aiding Ukraine and other Baltic countries, which to date is questionable at best.

Video here.

The full report is here published by the British Parliament on NATO’s lacking preparation.

British Defense Committee Finds NATO ‘Poorly Prepared’ to Defend Members From Russian Threat

Our conclusion is that NATO is currently not well-prepared for a Russian threat against a NATO Member State. A Russian unconventional attack, using asymmetric tactics (the latest term for this is “ambiguous warfare”), designed to slip below NATO’s response threshold, would be particularly difficult to counter. And the challenges, which NATO faces in deterring, or mounting an adequate response to, such an attack poses a fundamental risk to NATO’s credibility.

This Report focuses narrowly on NATO, Article 4 and 5 obligations, Ukraine, and the Baltic States, rather than the more general debate about Russia and global security threats. We have chosen this focus because the NATO conference will be hosted by the UK in September; because this is of central concern to Eastern European NATO members; because the attack on Ukraine has raised the possibility — however currently unlikely — of an attack, conventional or unconventional, on a NATO Member State in the Baltics, potentially requiring an Article 5 response; and because such a response would be challenging and requires significant adaption from the UK and NATO.

The report begins with an analysis of Russia: its conventional forces, its new approach to asymmetric warfare, and its apparent intentions. It then considers NATO’s preparedness to respond, first to the less likely scenario of a conventional Russian attack, then to the scenario of an asymmetric attack. It concludes that NATO is poorly prepared for either scenario, and suggests urgent steps that would need to be taken to meet these challenges.

Our specific concerns about NATO’s deficiencies in its ability to respond to a conventional attack include:

• Shortcomings in NATO’s ability to foresee and to give adequate warning of such an attack;
• Shortcomings in NATO’s command and control structures; and
• Questions about the public’s readiness to honour the Article 5 commitment.

Russia’s use of “next generation warfare” tactics also poses a range of questions for NATO, including:
• Whether Article 5 is sufficient to ensure that the collective defence guarantee will come into effect in the face of asymmetric attacks;
• Whether NATO has the right tools to address the full breadth of threats, including information warfare, psychological operations and, in concert with the EU, exertion of influence through energy and trade policy; and,
• Whether NATO has the ability to effectively counter the threat of cyber attack from Russia and to mount its own offensive cyber operations.

We are also concerned that even ts in Ukraine seem to have taken the UK Government by surprise, that the capacity for analysis and assessment of developments in Russia and for understanding and responding to the current Russian way of warfare appears to have been seriously degraded in recent years.

Recommendations

The NATO alliance has not considered Russia as an adversary or a potential territorial threat to its Member States for twenty years. It is now forced to do so as a result of Russia’s recent actions. Events in Ukraine this year, following on from the cyber attack on Estonia in 2007 and the invasion of Georgia by Russia in 2008, are a “wake – up call” for NATO. They have revealed alarming deficiencies in the state of NATO preparedness, which will be tough to fix. The UK Government should take the lead in ensuring that the NATO Summit addresses these threats in the most concrete and systematic fashion.

We recommend that the NATO Summit sets plans to ensure:
• dramatic improvements to the existing NATO rapid reaction force;
• the pre-positioning of equipment in the Baltic States;
• a continuous (if not technically ‘permanent’) presence of NATO troops, on training and exercise in the Baltic;
• the re-establishment of large-scale military exercises including representatives from all NATO Member States. These exercises must involve both military and political decision-makers;
• the establishment of headquarters structures, at divisional and corps level, to focus on Eastern Europe and the Baltic;
• consideration of the re-establishment of a NATO standing reserve force along the lines of the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force–Land, involving all Member States; and,
• re-examination of the criteria, doctrine and responses to calls under Article 4 for ‘collective security’ support against asymmetric attacks, especially, but not limited to, cyber attacks where attribution is difficult.

We recommend that the NATO Summit also addresses the Alliance’s vulnerabilities in the face of asymmetric (ambiguous warfare) attacks. In particular it should consider:
• How to establish the intelligence processes and an “Indicators and Warning” mechanism to alert Allies to the danger or imminence of such an attack;
• What steps it needs to take to deter asymmetric threats;
• How it should respond in the face of an imminent or actual such attack;
• The circumstances in which the Article 5 mutual defence guarantee will be invoked in the face of asymmetric attack;
• How it can, as a matter of urgency, create an Alliance doctrine for “ambiguous warfare” and make the case for investment in an Alliance asymmetric or “ambiguous warfare” capability.

We recommend that the Ministry of Defence address, also as a matter of urgency, its capacity to understand the nature of the current security threat from Russia and its motivations. Ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of Defence Attachés to provide the analysis and expertise required is one measure which would help to address this issue. In particular we recommend the appointment of additional Defence Attachés to cover the Baltic States and in Central and Eastern Europe and reverse the cutbacks in Russia and Ukraine. We further recommend that the Government ensure that there is adequate representation in Poland which may be of critical importance in the future. We also recommend the creation of a “red team” in the Ministry of Defence to provide a challenge to existing orthodoxy from a specifically Russian perspective.

We recommend that, in opening the NATO Summit, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State should make a commitment to the UK maintaining defence spending at or above 2% of GDP. Increasing levels of spending amongst European NATO Member States and the collective efficiency of such spending must be made a priority of the Summit as a demonstration of NATO’s political will and its commitment to collective defence.

 

The United Nations is a Marxist SpyHive

Posted on by
DISGUSTING, UNITED STATES MUST SUSPEND DUES IMMEDIATELY
http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpPages)/3A2E7F28C6F779E7C1257D1E005C8F02?OpenDocument
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ESTABLISHES INDEPENDENT, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY FOR THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
23 July 2014

The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its Special Session on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, after adopting a resolution in which it decided to establish an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In the resolution, adopted by a vote of 29 States in favour, 1 against and 17 abstentions, the Council strongly condemned the failure of Israel, the occupying Power, to end its prolonged occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and condemned in the strongest terms the widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms arising from the Israeli military operations carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 13 June 2014 that may amount to international crimes, directly resulting in the killing of more than 650 Palestinians, most of them civilians and more than 170 of whom were children, the injury of more than 4,000 people and the wanton destruction of homes, vital infrastructure and public properties.

The Council further condemned all violence against civilians wherever it occurred, including the killing of two Israeli civilians as a result of rocket fire.  It called for an immediate cessation of Israeli military assaults throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and an end to attacks against all civilians, including Israeli civilians.  The Council demanded that Israel immediately and fully end its illegal closure of the occupied Gaza Strip and called upon the international community to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance and services to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

In the resolution, the Council decided to urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014, and to report to the Council at its twenty-eighth session.
It also recommended that the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as depositary of the Fourth Geneva Convention, promptly reconvene the conference of High Contracting Parties to the Convention.

In the general debate, speakers continued to call for the immediate halt of Israeli operations against civilians and civilian targets in Gaza. Some spoke in support of Israel’s right to defend its population against terrorist attacks, and condemned reprehensible acts, including indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and other armed groups.  Others called attention to the fact that children were bearing the brunt of the escalating violence.  Israel’s attempts to warn Palestinian civilians to flee areas where terrorist military installations were noted by some speakers, while others said this meant nothing as the inhabitants of Gaza had no place to flee.  Many speakers supported the establishment of an independent international commission of inquiry, and some called for a meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Speaking during this afternoon’s debate were representatives of Syria, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Malaysia, Canada, Tunisia, Jordan, Libya, Mauritania, Iceland  Holy See, Sudan, Thailand, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Bahrain, Uruguay, Iran, Switzerland, Malta, Australia, United Nations Children’s Fund, New Zealand, Spain, Niger, Bolivia, Oman, Sri Lanka, African Union, Denmark, Lebanon, Mauritius, Portugal, Norway, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chad, Iraq, Guinea, Djibouti and Angola.

The Independent Human Rights Commission of Palestine spoke and the following non-governmental organizations took the floor: Independent Human Rights Commission of Palestine, Action Contre la Faim International, Norwegian Refugee Council, BADIL Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugees Rights, Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights,
Union of Arab Jurists, World Jewish Congress, Defence for Children International,
Human Rights Watch, Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations B’nai B’rith, Save the Children International, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, UN Watch,
Caritas International, International Commission of Jurists, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, European Union of Jewish Students, Rencontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l’homme, General Arab Women Federation, International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Amnesty International, Amuta for NGO Responsibility and Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights.

Pakistan introduced the resolution on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Israel and Palestine took the floor as concerned countries.  The United States, Italy on behalf of the European Union, Brazil and Peru spoke in explanations of the vote before the vote.  Gabon, Chile and Japan spoke in explanation of the vote after the vote.

This was the twenty-first Special Session of the Human Rights Council. A summary of the first part of the meeting can be found here.  Documentation relating to the Special Session, including the resolution, is available on the Human Rights Council webpage.  The twenty-seventh regular session of the Human Rights Council will take place from 8 to 26 September 2014.

General Debate

Syria said that extremist gangs of settlers had been allowed to abduct a Palestinian child and burn him alive, which had led to further massacres of the innocent, particularly women and children.  Israel had continuously shown utter disregard for international law. The international community had to ensure that such crimes did not go unpunished.  Syria supported the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian people.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation stated that the murderous and blind attacks of the Israeli army had led to hundreds of civilian deaths, flouting international law and gravely violating human rights.  The Council should set up an independent investigative commission to look into those severe breaches of international law.  No country, no matter how powerful it was, should be allowed to massacre civilians with impunity.

Malaysia condemned in the strongest terms the ongoing barbaric and military aggression by Israel on Gaza.  Israel’s so-called self-defence had in fact killed thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians over the years.  Israel had to be held fully accountable, and no room should be left for its disrespect of the United Nations Charter.   Israel should fully halt its military assault on Gaza and end its illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip.

Canada said the Council should call for calm and an end to the hostilities, not establish a new mechanism.  Canada supported Israel’s right to defend its population against terrorist attacks, and condemned reprehensible acts by Hamas and other armed groups.  The Council should not embolden them by agreeing a resolution that did not even condemn such acts.

Tunisia condemned in the strongest possible terms the barbaric terrorist attacks by Israel in Gaza, and asked the Council to demand that the Israelis responsible were brought before the International Criminal Court.  Tunisia quoted testimonies from various world leaders that Israel was a terrorist State acting like the Nazis, committing war crimes and establishing apartheid.

Jordan said Israel was acting in blatant violation of international human rights law.  Some 100,000 Palestinians had been internally displaced.  The targeting of civilians, no matter which side they were on, forced the Council to fulfil its reason for existence.  The Council should establish a commission of inquiry and call for a meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Libya strongly condemned the barbaric invasion by the Israeli occupying power, which had led to the deaths of more than 600 Palestinians, many of them children.  The disastrous situation could not be justified by self-defence, but was rather a collective punishment of the Palestinian people, in contravention of international law.  An independent commission of inquiry ought to be sent to Palestine as soon as possible.

Mauritania condemned in the strongest terms the Israeli aggression, which was an affront to human conscience and constituted collective punishment and genocide.  Israel’s actions would have negative repercussions on the situation in the entire region.  Israel, as the occupying power, was blatantly responsible for the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the occupied territories.

Iceland said that, once again, it was Palestinian civilians, innocent women and children, who suffered most.  Iceland strongly condemned the violations of international humanitarian law by both sides, and called on Israel to cease all military operations in Gaza without delay.  Attacks on Israel also had to stop without delay.  Iceland commended the Secretary-General for going to the region and providing his good offices.

Holy See said the voice of reason seemed submerged by the blast of arms.  The perpetration of injustices and the violation of human rights, especially the right to life and to live in peace and security, sowed fresh seeds of hatred and resentment.  In his pilgrimage to the Holy Land Pope Francois demanded that the present unacceptable situation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be brought to an end.

Sudan said with 650 dead, thousands wounded and many thousands more displaced, the violations committed by Israel represented a policy of racial and ethnic cleansing, a massacre and genocide at a time when mankind had rejected the racist law of the jungle and moved into a time of human dignity.  The Council must recognize that Israel was an occupying power supported by a superpower that could do whatever it wanted.

Thailand said the right to life should be protected at all times and in all circumstances, even in the course of hostilities.  Thailand supported the Security Council call for the immediate cessation of hostilities, including allowing unfettered access to provide humanitarian access to innocent civilians in a timely and sustained manner.  Violence only perpetuated a vicious cycle of violence and greater insecurity in the region.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea condemned, in the strongest terms, Israel’s reckless military actions, which had caused bloodshed again in Palestine.  Israel’s brutal killings of over 600 defenceless Palestinians through indiscriminate military attacks on peaceful residential areas were particularly denounced.  Israel should immediately stop all illegal military actions against Palestine.

Ecuador believed in peaceful coexistence of peoples, and recognized the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to enjoy security and well-being.  Unlimited humanitarian and medical aid to the Gaza Strip had to be guaranteed.  Israel, as the occupying power, had to respect the human rights of the Palestinians, and to abide by its human rights obligations, in accordance with the treaties it had ratified.

Bahrain stated that the barbaric aggression by the Israeli occupying forces was a blatant violation of all international laws and customs.  Israel’s aggression was completely unacceptable, as it completely disregarded the 2012 ceasefire agreement.  Palestinian territories should be placed under international protection until Israel evacuated all the occupied lands.  Israel was called upon to comply with international law.

Uruguay said the political issues underlying the conflict did not fall strictly within the remit of the Council, as other areas of the United Nations dealt with them, but it was clear that the Council could not remain silent given the escalating violence and loss of life in Gaza.  Uruguay condemned any hostilities against civilians, and said the violence must end and international humanitarian law must prevail.

Iran said the brutal use of force by Israel against the Palestinian people, including in residential areas, hospitals and schools, added to the long list of violations by Israel over the past 60 years, in systematic and flagrant breach of international law.  The international community must not repeat previous mistakes; it must take some responsibly for the situation.  The Council must also identify the Israeli officials who had perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Switzerland recalled that reprisals against civilians and indiscriminate attacks were prohibited by international law, and said it supported the establishment of an international commission of inquiry to investigate all human rights allegations.  It called on all parties concerned to agree to a ceasefire, paving the way to the lifting of the blockade and lasting improvement to the security of both the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Malta said that there had been international calls to end attacks by Hamas and retaliatory actions by Israel.  Schools and hospitals in Gaza had been targeted, which meant that children bore the brunt of the ongoing hostilities.  Israeli children were also living in the shadow of rockets, while far too many Palestinian children had died or lost family members.  There were clear European Union parameters for future negotiations, which Malta supported.

Australia was deeply concerned about the growing number of casualties on both sides, including many Palestinian civilians.  The draft resolution was unbalanced, did not mention Hamas’ role in the current situation, and Australia could not support it in its current form.  Australia supported Israel’s right to defend itself, but, in doing so, it should take all necessary steps to prevent civilian casualties.

United Nations Children’s Fund called attention to the fact that children were bearing the brunt of the escalating violence.  As of 22 July, 146 children had been killed.  Protection was needed to ensure the safety of shelters and refuges, and for families trying to relocate to safer areas.   Eighty-five schools had been damaged since the beginning of the emergency.  More than 72,000 were currently in need of emergency psycho-social support, and the number was expected to rise.

New Zealand called for an end to a conflict that could and should have been avoided, saying the tragic events of the past two weeks had led to an appalling degree of human suffering and its ongoing repercussions.  Parties on both sides continued to fall short of their obligations to protect civilians.  It was vital that a meaningful and permanent two-State solution be found, including a sustainable end to the blockade of Gaza.  The pattern of conflict had gone on too long and the cost to innocent civilians was too high.

Spain said while Israel had the right to protect its population it also had a duty to protect civilians and respect the principles of proportionality and international law.  The main priority was to achieve a ceasefire, said Spain, but the need to achieve a negotiated two-State solution – a stable Palestine and a secure Israel – could only be achieved through talking, and Spain urged both sides to return to the negotiating table.

Niger said the seriousness of the events in Gaza had left the international community indifferent, although Israel was responsible for huge violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.  The United Nations Secretary-General was urged to continue his efforts to achieve a ceasefire and bring the parties back to the negotiating table, in recognition of the Palestinians’ right to live in their own land.

Bolivia said that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were victims of the Israeli aggression.  The international community should provide for the urgent convening of a dialogue between Palestine and Israel.  Israel’s violations of human rights were grave and systematic, and should be investigated in the context of international law.  Palestine could count on the support of Bolivia.

Oman stated that it did not seek confrontation, but instead condemned all kinds of violence, which had escalated to the degree that a child had been torched alive.  Practices described by the High Commissioner in the morning were tantamount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.  An independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital, along the 1967 borders, had to be established.

Sri Lanka was deeply concerned at the recent escalation of violence in Gaza, resulting in the tragic loss of civilian lives and extensive damage of property.  Sri Lanka was convinced that dialogue remained the only feasible option.  All parties were called upon to exercise the utmost restraint in a bid to halt the violence.  The Egyptian ceasefire initiative would be a meaningful starting point in that regard.

African Union said a recent declaration issued by the African Union, in a spirit of solidarity between Africa and Palestine, deplored the recent violence in the Gaza Strip.  Both parties were called upon to end the aggression with a view to removing all the blockades against Gaza and work on establishing a climate for negotiations.  Africa wanted peace, nothing less, for the people of the region.

Denmark regretted that once again the civilian populations were bearing the brunt of the hostilities during the confrontation between Hamas and Israel.  It strongly condemned the indiscriminate firing of rockets by Hamas and other militant groups, and condemned the loss of hundreds of civilian lives.  Denmark supported calls for a swift and impartial international investigation into the civilian deaths on both sides.

Lebanon asked why the Council had waited for yet more destruction and death in Gaza before convening this Special Session.  The media showed images of children dying indiscriminately in their beds, elderly people and women being killed for no other reason than being inhabitants of Gaza, and bombs raining down on the city.  If those were they not sufficient reasons to hold the session, when should the Council meet?

Mauritius expressed grave concern at the latest developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and strongly condemned the killing of civilians, among them children and the elderly and the destruction of the civilian infrastructure.  Mauritius appealed to the international community to spare no effort in preventing the escalation of the conflict.  Mauritius also condemned Israel’s illegal colonial settlement campaign.

Portugal was appalled by the continuing escalation of violence in Gaza which had resulted in the loss of hundreds of civilian lives.  While Israel had the right to defend its civilian population from attacks from militant groups, the response had to be proportionate and respect international humanitarian law.  Portugal called for the full implementation of the Security Council resolution 1860 on opening the crossings.

Norway condemned the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, but being the stronger part and operating in very densely populated areas strengthened Israel’s responsibility.  Norway supported the efforts and leadership by Egypt to facilitate a ceasefire, which had to be followed up by measures that could substantially improve the living conditions in Gaza.

Afghanistan strongly condemned Israel’s assaults on Gaza and the rising numbers of civilian lives lost, and urged the occupying power, international community and United Nations to exert every possible effort to secure a ceasefire.  Afghanistan had announced an assistance package in humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza and urged the international community to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.

Bangladesh said the massacres of civilians in Gaza, particularly of children and women, were appalling and had shocked the world’s conscience.  There was no legal, political or moral justification for such actions, which were illegal and in continuous breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Bangladesh supported Palestine’s call to establish a commission of inquiry.

Chad called upon Israel to immediately cease its air raids and land offensive which mainly targeted civilians, schools and hospitals.  Chad also called upon the Palestinians to end their attacks against Israel, including the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip.  Chad called on all parties to show restraint and achieve a ceasefire, as well as to lift the blockade on Gaza.

Iraq paid tribute to the proud Arab people of Palestine who remained steadfast in face of one of the most brutal attacks by Israel.  The Arab world would never fail to stand with the Palestinian people and would continue to support the two-State solution.  Israel continued to enjoy seeming immunity for its crimes; Palestinians had the right to defend themselves against such blatant aggression.

Guinea congratulated the High Commissioner for her powerful statement.  The indiscriminate use of force by Israel in one of the most populated areas in the world was unacceptable, and had further worsened the already dire situation in the Gaza Strip.  The blockade against Gaza had to come to an end.  Guinea totally supported the Palestinian people in their legitimate aspirations to have an independent State.

Djibouti was seriously concerned by the grave situation, which was, unfortunately, not a new scenario.  In violation of international human rights law, Israel had ignored the principles of proportionality and had targeted Palestinian civilians in Gaza.  Perpetrators of any such heinous crimes had to be held accountable.  Djibouti supported Egypt’s proposal for a ceasefire and called upon parties to cooperate.

Angola said it was deeply outraged and appalled by the unacceptable situation prevailing in Gaza, which it considered to be excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate and in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.  Angola joined the calls of the international community for an immediate ceasefire in order to deliver assistance to the victims of the conflict.

Independent Human Rights Commission of Palestine said Israel’s disproportionate and indiscriminate actions had killed 650 Palestinians, injured more than 4,000 and displaced over 150,000 from their homes.  There was no safe haven in Gaza.  The bombardment came from land, air and sea.  An immediate investigation should be carried out by an independent and impartial fact-finding mission and impunity should be ended.

Action Contre la Faim International said in the past week it had successfully delivered aid to thousands of recipients in Gaza, but the intensity of hostilities had seriously impeded the provision of emergency humanitarian aid.  It was extremely concerned about the viability of helping people recover from yet another crisis amidst restrictions that drastically limited Gaza’s economic and social development.

Norwegian Refugee Council said that 44 per cent of the Gaza Strip had been declared a no-go area, making Gaza even more of an open-air prison than before.  In Gaza, the internally displaced persons could not find safety as they were not allowed to leave, and no place in Gaza was safe.  Returning to the status quo ante was not enough.

Al-Haq stated that what they were witnessing in the Gaza Strip was a manifestation of Israel’s prolonged and belligerent occupation of Palestine.  The current situation was an embodiment of the international community’s failure to hold Israel accountable for war crimes in the occupied territory.  The status quo was not sustainable.

BADIL Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugees Rights said that 76 per cent of the Palestinians killed by Israel were civilians.  Testimonies from the ground described attacks by Israel as indiscriminate and disproportionate and directly aimed at civilians.  In the past seven years, the Council had failed to act decisively to ensure that Israel abided by international law.

Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development said the Council was today considering a catastrophic situation which was a result of Israel’s reaction to the kidnapping of three Israeli citizens; this was collective punishment against the citizens of the Gaza Strip.  More than 83 per cent of victims were civilians, killed in an area where there was no option to flee death as the aggression of Israel was all encompassing.

International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights said the Special Session took place three weeks after the execution, torture and murder of a Palestinian teenager in East Jerusalem, and three weeks of Israeli aggression against Gaza.  The Institute condemned the attacks against the Palestinian people, their hospitals, and their schools, and made several recommendations for a fact-finding mission.

Union of Arab Jurists said despite calls from the United Nations and other international bodies, Israel’s aggression in the occupied Palestinian territories continued.  Israel considered itself to be above United Nations resolutions and above the law.  Those countries which supported Israel equated the victim and the aggressor, knowing full well of the inalienable right to self-determination and legitimate resistance.   

World Jewish Congress said that by firing hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians, Hamas had launched an armed attack against a United Nations Member State.  Hamas was the violator of human rights, as it used children as human shields and violated the sanctity of mosques, hospitals and schools.  The Council should reject the resolution and sanction Hamas for its wanton violation of human rights.

Defence for Children International said that thus far more children had been killed by Israeli fire than Palestinian militants.  Eighty-five schools had been damaged by shelling by Israeli forces.  International law was clear in stating that civilians, including children, should never be targeted.  An immediate ceasefire, which should also end the blockade on the Gaza Strip, was called for.

Human Rights Watch had documented eight airstrikes on civilian targets before the ground offensive had begun on 17 July.  Neither the Israeli nor Palestinian authorities had taken the necessary steps to prosecute violators, who existed on both sides.  The Council should mandate the Office of the High Commissioner to form a fact-finding mission, which should establish accountability and issue recommendations to the United Nations and the parties.

Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations; B’nai B’rith said Hamas had fired some 1,700 rockets at Israel, and it used its own people as human shields.  Israel made attempts to warn Palestinian civilians to flee areas where terrorist military installations were, by sending text and telephone messages.  The Coordinating Board said they were here today for peace.

Save the Children International said the number of casualties in the Gaza Strip was unprecedented.  One out of every five people killed by the recent strikes was a child.  Around 80,000 children had experienced death or injury in their families, or lost a home.  Children were being denied access to healthcare and schooling.  Save the Children International called for the protection of school facilities and respect for their integrity.

International Federation for Human Rights Leagues said since the launch of ‘Operation Protective Edge’ on 7 July Israel had killed at least 650 people in the occupied Gaza Strip.  At the same time, thousands of rockets had been fired at Israel from within the Gaza Strip causing the death of two Israeli civilians.  The imbalance of power could not be overlooked.  Israel and Palestine should ratify the Rome Statute to help ensure accountability.

UN Watch said that the draft resolution denied Israel’s right to self-defence.  If in the past year, the Council had not cried out when thousands had been killed in street protests in Turkey, Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan, why did it hold a Special Session on Israel now?  The Assad regime in Syria had killed 1,800 Palestinians, yet the Council had remained silent over that.

Caritas International expressed deep concern about the renewed tension in the Holy Land and the grave violations reported in the Gaza Strip.  During the special prayers for peace in Israel and Palestine, convened in the Vatican on 8 June, Pope Francis had asked for courage, strength and tenacity to say no to conflict.  Caritas called on both parties to the conflict to agree to an immediate ceasefire to enable humanitarian relief.

International Commission of Jurists called for an immediate end to the Palestinian military operations in Gaza and the unconditional withdrawal of the Israeli military from Gaza.   All of Gaza’s crossings had to be opened to allow for unrestricted humanitarian access.  There had been attacks by both parties which constituted crimes under international law and their perpetrators had to be held criminally accountable.

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies said as an occupying power Israel had obligations under international humanitarian law, as compelled by the Fourth Geneva Convention, under which it was also bound to refrain from collective punishment.  The practice to warn civilians to leave their houses before the shelling starts should not be seen as an act of morality; with the current blockade on Gaza the civilians had nowhere to go.

CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation said it was appalled by the nightmare of rocket bombings of civilians, including children and soldiers alike, during the third war in Gaza in less than six years.  Above all, CIVICUS was appalled that Israel, after its Holocaust history, had turned from a victim into a victimizer.  Authorities in Gaza must recognize that they would lose support if they used Palestinians cynically as human shields.

European Union of Jewish Students said an entire nation, towns, villages and cities, was under brutal and relentless attack from over 2,000 rockets and long-range missiles fired from Gaza across the holy land.  Israelis were forced to run for shelter, day and night, when air-raid sirens went off.  The world should salute the terrorized and embattled nation of Israel which was showing such strength of spirit in resisting such massive aggression.

Rencontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l’homme was concerned by the systematic violations of international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  Israel, as the occupying power, had to protect civilians during its offensive security operations against Hamas.  Both parties were invited to declare an unconditional ceasefire in order to save human lives.

General Arab Women Federation said that it was the Israeli Prime Minister’s public call for revenge along with his openly declared goal to destroy the newly formed Palestinian unity Government that had set off the recent avalanche of violence.  Israel’s policy against the Palestinians in Gaza violated the fundamental rules of international law, and such atrocities had to be prosecuted as crimes against humanity.

International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists believed that the draft resolution was contrary to the Council’s mandate and did great injustice to Israel.  It made no reference to violations of humanitarian law perpetrated by terror organizations.  Hamas had declared on several occasions that any Israeli was a legitimate target to its attacks.  The Council should condemn Hamas and its terrorist methods.

Amnesty International regretted that once more the Council was intervening after the catastrophe, and said the United Nations must find ways to intervene in crises sooner.  The Council was recommended to build on the analysis and findings of the Goldstone report and back measures to find accountability for victims.

Amuta for NGO Responsibility regretted the rockets being fired at Israel’s main airport, an artery for the nation, which had led to its partial shut-down and many major airlines suspending their flights to Israel.  The representative said that cement given to Gaza to help Palestinians build hospitals and schools was instead used to build kilometres of ‘tunnels of terror’ to murder Israeli civilians.

Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights said the failure of the international community to ensure the protection of civilians had led them to this dark day, this Special Session.  It urged the Council to take swift action to protect the civilians and to prosecute actions that amounted to war crimes.  The international community’s disgrace was the result of world leaders putting political gain ahead of the responsibility laid out in the United Nations Charter.

Action on the Draft Resolution

In a resolution (A/HRC/S-21/L.1) on ensuring respect for international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted by a vote of 29 States in favour, 1 against and 17 abstentions, the Council strongly condemns the failure of Israel, the occupying Power, to end its prolonged occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and condemns in the strongest terms the widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms arising from the Israeli military operations carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 13 June 2014 that may amount to international crimes, directly resulting in the killing of more than 650 Palestinians, most of them civilians and more than 170 of whom are children, the injury of more than 4,000 people and the wanton destruction of homes, vital infrastructure and public properties.  The Council condemns all violence against civilians wherever it occurs, including the killing of two Israeli civilians as a result of rocket fire; calls for an immediate cessation of Israeli military assaults throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and an end to attacks against all civilians, including Israeli civilians; demands that Israel, the occupying Power, immediately and fully end its illegal closure of the occupied Gaza Strip; calls upon the international community to provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance and services to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip; and expresses deep concern at the condition of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli jails and detention centres.  The Council also recommends that the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as depositary of the Fourth Geneva Convention, promptly reconvene the conference of High Contracting Parties to the Convention; and decides to urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014, and to report to the Council at its twenty-eighth session.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

Against (1): United States of America.

Abstentions (17): Austria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Gabon, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom.

Pakistan, speaking on the behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, presenting the draft resolution, said that barbaric acts of violence by Israel were deplorable and had led to the suffering of innocent Palestinian civilians.  The draft resolution underlined the importance of providing humanitarian assistance, and called for the immediate protection of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.  The draft resolution also asked for an immediate dispatch of an independent commission of inquiry into human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the Gaza Strip.  Pakistan hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus.

The President said that there were six additional co-sponsors of the resolution.

Israel, speaking as a concerned country, asked again why the Council believed that naming and shaming of Israel would achieve anything.  Israel had shown its utmost restraint and agreed to a number of ceasefire arrangements, but then had no choice but to start the current operation.  Israel had no interest to be in Gaza, from which it had withdrawn in 2005.  Israel’s attacks in Gaza targeted exclusively Hamas military targets and did what it could to avoid any collateral damage.  A special commission of inquiry had been established by Israel to look into possible violations of human rights, well beyond the requirements of international law.  Hamas was the aggressor, the one committing war crimes – the Council should open its eyes to the truth.

Palestine thanked the States which had supported the convening of the current Special Session, and all those who had supported the draft resolution as presented.  There was a flagrant violation of human rights occurring in Palestine, which the occupying power seemed to have forgotten.  The current operation was the fifth such attack against Gaza.  Palestine was always prepared to find a solution, but the occupying power and those who supported it were asking Palestine to accept the occupation, which would never be accepted.  Palestine was hoping for minimal justice for killed civilians, including numerous exterminated families.  A commission of inquiry should identify those responsible so that they could be brought to justice.  Twenty five Palestinians had been killed for every Israeli.  The occupying power needed to protect civilians, which was not currently the case.  Palestine would like to see an end to the bloodletting immediately.  Palestine asked for all States to support the draft resolution and come to its aid.

United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it remained gravely concerned about the recent violence which had impacted Palestinian and Israeli civilians, and was working intensively to achieve an end to the hostilities.  The resolution today would not help achieve that goal.  It was destructive, not constructive.  The United States was deeply troubled by the resolution and would vote against it.  Once again the Council had failed to address the situation in Israel and occupied Palestinian territories with any semblance of balance.  The resolution did not mention rockets fired from Gaza, or the tunnels made by terrorists.  It would create another one-sided mechanism targeting Israel; the commission of inquiry it called for would be a needless, duplicative effort, the fourth such body established since 2006.  The resolution was a political and biased instrument.  The Council already had a standing agenda item focused solely on Israel, and a Special Rapporteur with a wide mandate.  Furthermore, the resolution took steps outside of Council’s mandate by attempting to convene a meeting of Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.  The United States called for a vote and urged States not to vote for the resolution.

Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, appreciated efforts by the sponsors of the draft resolution to consult with all members of the Council.  The European Union was convinced that the most effective way to react was to use the existing mechanisms, such as through a swift deployment of a mission by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  It was regrettable that the European Union’s suggestions had not been taken aboard by the resolution’s sponsors.  The final draft text continued to be unbalanced and prejudged the findings of the commission of inquiry even  before it was formed.  It also did not condemn the firing of rockets into Israel, which was why the European Union would abstain.  It would have been a far better outcome if there had been a united position of the Council on the issue.

Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would vote in favour of the draft resolution.  The gravity of the situation, in particular the alarming number of casualties, warranted a timely and strong response by the international community.  There were some elements in the draft which did not fully reflect Brazil’s position; Brazil would have preferred a resolution reflecting in a more balanced manner the developments on the ground.  The Council had an important role to play in investigating violations of the human rights and international humanitarian law.  Brazil stood ready to contribute to all international efforts to reach a peaceful solution.

Peru, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote,  said it energetically condemned Israel’s incursions into the Gaza Strip as well as the launching of rockets by Hamas into Israeli territory.  It would vote in favour of the resolution.

Gabon, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that it attached high importance to the resolution of disputes through dialogue and negotiations.  Gabon strongly urged all the parties to cease hostilities and commence talks as soon as possible.  An immediate ceasefire was needed to allow for the salvation of the civilians, especially children, the elderly and the disabled.

Chile, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that violence was causing suffering of civilians.  Chile supported the intervention of the good offices of Egypt.  Chile would have also liked to see inclusion of condemnation of Hamas rockets in the adopted resolution.

Japan, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, appreciated the readiness of Palestine and some co-sponsors to include some changes in the draft resolution.  The Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister was in the region at the moment, trying to help resolve the conflict.  The necessity of the establishment of a new commission of inquiry should have been further considered, and the approach which could lead to further prosecutions at the International Criminal Court was questionable.  That was why Japan had abstained in the vote.

For use of the information media; not an official record

This is what Israel had to say in Geneva. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kWwc-GgaiIk

Text of the Ambassador is here.

Soviet/Russia, What Needs to be Defined

Posted on by

Glasnost and Perestroika

During an interview in 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev is quoted as saying “I detest lies” (1.). It was this yearning for the truth that lead him to introduce the policy of glasnost literally openness in English. The liberal press exploited this leeway and continuously challenged its boundaries. Glasnost. Hardliners tried to retain their grip on people’s minds by frequent attacks on the radicals in the conservative press. Prada the flagship Communist Party newspaper thundered “that extremists and nationalists were hiding their true face behind a mask of commitment to perestroika (2.).

Today, Russia is full of contradictions and this is precisely what Vladimir Putin demands.

There is very little change from the previous Soviet Union to Russia today. The former USSR suffered financially and brought down the Kremlin while the remake of Russia is full of starts and stops. World leaders know very well that Russia today operates with the old KGB model while straddling two governing standards, that of communism and that of controlled capitalism.

This is where the Russian mafia, collusion by oligarchs and the Kremlin as well as countries that are forced to interact with Russia get caught up in the web of thuggish and deadly scandals including Europe, the Baltics and the West.

Spending time with those pesky Wikileaks cables tells us some proven histories. In one cable from January 2010, Spanish prosecutor Jose “Pepe” Grinda Gonzales claimed that in Russia, Belarus and Chechnya “one cannot differentiate between the activities of the Government and OC (organised crime) groups”.

On the heels of the Soviet loyalists shooting a commercial aircraft out of the sky killing all on board over the Russian/Ukrainian borders, Putin still refuses to come clean with any explanation as evidence mounts his people under his orders are guilty. This leads to foreign state leaders seeking tangible consequences for this action against Russia and Putin. To date, many Russian oligarchs have fled the country due to selective prosecution and prison by the Kremlin and those that have remained in Russia are pressing the panic button for what sanctions are still to come as a result of the downed aircraft.

Countries are boxed in by having to do business with Russia for obvious reasons that included existing agreements like in the case of France already in the pipeline and most especially for oil and gas energy resources but most of all will Putin continue his threatening annexing of other Baltic States?

The British government set up a judicial inquiry Tuesday into the strange death eight years ago of former KGB officer and Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, who authorities believe was slipped a lethal dose of radioactive polonium in his tea at a London hotel, possibly at the behest of the Kremlin.

Litvinenko was not the only person in the old KGB who was publically blowing the whistle but he was the most aggressive. If anyone within the Kremlin, any businessman, any dissenter challenges Putin, the thug personality comes out and the result is prison or even deadlier.

Then there is the case of money laundering and how Putin controls the oligarchs, his loyalists and his adversaries. Yet, Putin himself is well known among elitist circles are being a money-launderer himself and all global leaders just look the other way. Very little is written about Putin’s own secret money-laundering schemes for obvious reasons. So one only need to investigate SPAG. There is even a documentary on how Putin was up to his chin in money laundering where the road to Germany began in Columbia.

 

 

‘PUTIN, it turns out, may be a less than perfect pitchman for his anticorruption campaign. New revelations are focusing attention on a murky episode from his past in St. Petersburg, a city known to many Russians as the country’s “criminal capital.” The indictment of a onetime business associate in Western Europe on charges of money laundering and fraud is raising serious questions about Putin’s former role in the affairs of a mysterious Russo-German property-development firm. The company, called the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company (known by its German acronym, SPAG), has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing, but U.S. and European intelligence officials suspect it is linked to the laundering operations of Russian mobsters and Colombian drug dealers. Until he was inaugurated as president, Putin was on SPAG’s advisory board and, according to U.S. and European intelligence officials as well as a SPAG director, he spent more time on its affairs than the Kremlin will now admit. Since then Putin has also maintained a close relationship with the onetime head of SPAG’s Russian operations, Vladimir Smirnov.’

In summary, the Russian mafia, the thug network is world-wide by design and even includes our Southern border and it even goes into Chicago, at least.

More than 200 years ago, the renowned Russian historian Nikolai Karamzin summed up the situation in his country in two words: “They steal.”

They still do, and the news in Russia lately has been dominated by one high-profile corruption scandal after another. Allegations of wrongdoing have reached high into the defense and agriculture ministries and the Russian space program, among other institutions. Nearly nine in 10 Russians say corruption is the nation’s biggest problem.

All the theft, corruption, lies ad fraud has a leader that approves, Vladimir Putin. Glasnost and Perestroika be damned.