The Lying Tactics of the Anti-Israel Movement

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/11/lying-tactics-of-anti-israel-movement.html

The anti-Israel movement has always thrived on lies: Israel as an outpost of European colonialism, Israel as an apartheid state, Jews having no historical connection to the land of Israel or the city of Jerusalem. This mendacity extends to strategic considerations--for example, the International Solidarity Movement claims that it is nonviolent, yet not only do its founders endorse Palestinian terrorism but it also has strong links to Palestinian terror groups. The movement to get American colleges and universities to divest from Israel (as part of the so-called "BDS movement"--boycott, divestment and sanctions) is entirely based on deception as well as double standards.

It should come as no surprise that the tactics used by those opposed to the existence of a Jewish state often stoop to the level of the false pretenses by which they advertise themselves. A few illustrative examples have arisen just recently:

Example 1: In the northern California university town of Davis, just outside Sacramento, the City Council recently adopted an innocuous sounding resolution declaring November 7 as "Davis Peace Day" and endorsed a group that calls itself "Davis Peace Connections" as the sponsoring organization. Now I don't blame the good citizens on the City Council for not doing their research beforehand; this is one of those instances where you don't expect to find the bomb belts hidden inside the ambulance. But as a perusal of the "Davis Peace Connections" website shows, they have "friendly links" to numerous anti-Israel sites, from the extreme right to the extreme left. On the far right they link to If Americans Knew (a project of Alison Weir, who is disturbingly comfortable with neo-Nazis) and also to the website of the viciously anti-Semitic Swedish fascist who writes under the pen name of Israel Shamir. The far left is well represented by Electronic Intifada, Anna Baltzer and the International Action Center (the parent group of International ANSWER, whose anti-Semitism is on display at their public marches ). They even link to Hezbollah's own al-Manar news site (click on the last link under "sinister videos").

Fortunately, one concerned citizen of Davis was able to alert the City Council to this situation. Mayor Ruth Asmundson then took the responsible step of quickly publishing a letter in the local newspaper which stated, in part:

"However, contained within the proclamation is a reference to a Web site that contains Internet links to several sites that contain biased views of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. I regret that my call for world peace can be interpreted as an endorsement by the City Council or me as an individual member of the viewpoints of any particular group or Web site, and I want to be absolutely clear that that was not my intention. I apologize for any hurt my proclamation may have caused anyone."

I suspect that the next time the Davis Peace Coalition tries to slide an endorsement past the City Council it will be scrutinized just a bit more closely.

Example 2: Elsewhere in Northern California, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" (the theatrical tribute to the ISM volunteer who was sent to Gaza to block IDF anti-terror operations) was staged at Stanford University last week. In a story first broken by Solomonia, the American Red Cross had been listed as a sponsor of this event. Not quite the usual earthquake/hurricane/flood relief type of activity that we donate to ARC to support. As the person who brought it to the attention of the Silicon Valley Red Cross office, I can confirm that their media relations director Cynthia Shaw (and presumably the rest of the local ARC leadership) was, to put it mildly, not pleased to have their name associated with this event. The "miscommunication" that led to ARC's name being lent in support was, basically, fraudulent--leaders of the student chapter of the Red Cross on campus were asked if they would have its name listed as an organization that promoted human rights. Fortunately, the Red Cross has acted responsibly and insisted that its name be withdrawn from any online and print promotional materials. So now there's a few more students at Stanford (not to mention some Red Cross leaders) who have learned firsthand about the lies that anti-Israel activists will use to promote their agenda.

Example 3: Earlier this month in upstate New York, former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (who has made a second career out of anti-Israel activism including outright support of Hamas and Hezbollah ) gave a talk at Binghamton University. Student members of Hillel, in the time honored tradition of peaceful protest and free speech, passed out informational flyers outside the auditorium prior to the event. However, before McKinney spoke, the event organizers asked that all of the flyers be handed in to them. Not surprisingly, those who dared to ask critical questions of McKinney were cut off or derided. There's really only one possible conclusion-- they were so afraid of free speech and of having to defend their positions against challenging questions that they prevented either one of those from occurring. Yet the anti-Israel groups are always the ones calling for "open discussion" about Israel-- at least as long as they are the only ones doing the discussing.

It's not surprising that students would act this way; after all, they learn from their elders. The BDS movement continues to perpetuate such lies as the "divestment" at Hampshire College or the investment fund family TIAA-CREF--in both cases, routine portfolio transactions that resulted in a sale of stock of companies doing business in Israel were trumpeted by anti-Israel activists as a victory for divestment. Both organizations were quick to clarify that this was not the case. On Muzzlewatch, the blog of Jewish Voice for Peace, (where comments have been closed for several years), the JVPers continue to rail against anyone who dares to criticize them by accusing them of "muzzling" their position. (You can also read Solomonia's excellent commentary about JVP). A recent post from JVP's Alice-in-Wonderland world discussed efforts by local Israel supporters to stop the local Jewish Community Federations from funding of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (after the SFJFF's debacle this summer in showing the film "Rachel" and giving Cindy Corrie a speaking platform). Cecilie Surasky of JVP blamed the rise of the BDS movement not on anti-Israel activists, but rather on Jewish community leaders who insist that our institutions support the existence of the world's one-and-only Jewish state: "You, Jewish leaders, have left us no choice. You started the BDS movement. Only you can stop it." Yes, we must be at fault for being so unreasonable in not turning our community institutions over to those who would subvert one of their core principles: support of a Jewish state of Israel. Just as Israel must be at fault for unreasonably not giving in to those who only insist on the end of Jewish statehood by the influx of millions of great-grandchildren of the 1947-8 war started by the Palestinians to prevent a Jewish state. Just as the Jews of Europe were at fault for unreasonably not giving in to those who only insisted that they convert to Christianity, or the Jews of Arab countries who were similarly at fault for not accepting Islam. Or just as the Jews of Jerusalem, in the time of the Second Temple that stood on the Temple Mount 700 years before the Dome of the Rock was built, unreasonably refused to submit to Roman idolatry. I can just hear Titus now "You, Jewish leaders, have left us no choice. You started our attack against your independence. Only you can stop it."

An Iranian front organization is donating huge sums to American academic institutions

Kislev 7, 5770, 24 November 09 10:15by Malkah Fleisher

?
?Earl Hall, Columbia University
?
(Israelnationalnews.com) An Iranian front organization is donating huge sums to American academic institutions who employ pro-Iran, anti-Israel professors and speakers, according to back-to-back reports by the New York Post and New York Times.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the prestigious Columbia University and Rutgers University for Middle East and Persian studies programs, according to the papers. The courses are taught by professors who openly slur Israel and express sympathy for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, as well as terrorist groups Hizbullah and Hamas.
The Alavi Foundation, which recently had up to $650 million seized by United States federal law enforcement, donated $100,000 to Columbia University in 2007 after the institution agreed to host Ahmadinejad, who is responsible for a bloody crackdown?on protesters last summer following a controversial election in Iran, and who frequently denies the Holocaust, as well as Israel's right to exist as a state.
Last year, Britain's director of the Brunel University Center for Intelligence and Security Studies, Anthony Glees, reported that up to 48 British universities have been infiltrated by Muslim fundamentalists heavily financed by major Muslim groups, to the tune of more than a quarter billion Sterling.

www.IsraelNationalNews.com
? Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.io.com/pipermail/freemanlist2/attachments/20091124/75163970/attachment-0001.html>

Dubai Debt Delay Rattles Confidence in Gulf Borrowers (Update3)

By Laura Cochrane and Tal Barak Harif

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRsjlClzl500

Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Dubai shook investor confidence across the Persian Gulf after its proposal to delay debt payments risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina in 2001.

The cost of protecting government notes from Abu Dhabi to Bahrain rose, extending the steepest increase since February as Dubai World, with $59 billion of liabilities, sought a "standstill" agreement from creditors. Its debt includes $3.52 billion of bonds due Dec. 14 from property unit Nakheel PJSC. Dubai credit-default swaps climbed 90 basis points to 530 after yesterday increasing the most since they began trading in January, CMA Datavision prices showed.

"There is nothing investors dislike more than this kind of event," said Norval Loftus, the head of convertible bonds and Islamic debt at Matrix Group Ltd. in London, which manages $2.5 billion of assets including Dubai credits. "The worst-case scenario will of course be involuntary restructuring on the Nakheel security that brings into question the entire nature of the sovereign support for various borrowers in the region."

Dubai World's assets range from stakes in Las Vegas casino company MGM Mirage to London-traded bank Standard Chartered Plc and luxury retailer Barneys New York through asset-management firm Istithmar PJSC. The Dubai government's attempt to reschedule debt triggered declines in stocks worldwide that had been rebounding from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Worldwide Slump

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index of stocks headed for the biggest decline in four weeks, falling 2 percent, led by Russia and China. Europe's Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index lost 2.5 percent, the biggest decline since July 2, at 2:46 p.m. in London. South Africa's rand and the Turkish lira weakened 2.1 percent against the dollar. Hungary's forint lost 1.7 percent per euro. Credit- default swaps on Russia increased to 205 basis points from 192.

The MSCI World Index of 23 developed markets has risen 26 percent this year after banks worldwide recorded more than $1.7 trillion in writedowns and losses and governments committed about $12 trillion to shore up economies.

"The announcement was a shock," said Beat Siegenthaler, chief emerging-market strategist at TD Securities Ltd. in London. "It is strongly affecting European markets."

Dubai, ruled by Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, borrowed $80 billion in a four-year construction boom to transform the economy into a regional tourism and financial hub. The emirate suffered the world's steepest property slump in the global recession with home prices dropping 50 percent from their 2008 peak, according to Deutsche Bank AG.

Downgrades

Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's cut the ratings on Dubai state companies yesterday, saying they may consider Dubai World's plan to delay debt payments a default.

Gulf region default swaps jumped, with contracts linked to Bahrain adding 29 basis points today to 223.5, the biggest increase since Feb. 18. Contracts linked to Abu Dhabi added the most since February yesterday, climbing 36 basis points to 136.5 and were another 23 basis points higher at 159.5 today, according to London-based CMA. Qatar default swaps rose 13 basis points to 117, adding to yesterday's 11 basis-point increase.

"Dubai is the most indicative of the huge global liquidity boom and now in the aftermath there will be further defaults to come in emerging markets and globally," said Nick Chamie, head of emerging-market research at Toronto-based RBC Capital Markets.

Saudi Debts

Saudi Arabia default swaps climbed the most since February, adding 18 basis points to 108. The British Bankers' Association asked the U.K. government to intervene with Saudi authorities over debts of at least $20 billion owed to as many as 100 banks by Saad Group and Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers Co., two family holding companies based in the oil city of Al-Khobar, according to a letter dated Nov. 20.

Default swaps on Dubai World unit DP World Ltd., the Middle East's biggest port operator, jumped by a record 181 basis points to 540.5 yesterday and were priced another 72 basis points higher today at 612, according to CMA data.

Dubai World had $59.3 billion in liabilities and $99.6 billion in total assets at the end of 2008, subsidiary Nakheel Development Ltd. said in an August statement. Dubai owes $4.3 billion next month and $4.9 billion in the first quarter of 2010 through government and corporate debt, Deutsche Bank AG data show.

"DP World and its debt are not included in the restructuring process for Dubai World," the government said in a statement to Nasdaq Dubai today.

'Brink of Failure'

The price of Nakheel's bonds fell to 70.5 cents on the dollar from 84 yesterday and 110.5 a week ago, according to Citigroup Inc. prices on Bloomberg.

"Nakheel is now standing on the brink of failure given the astonishing amount of cash Dubai would have to inject on it in order to see the enterprise survive," said Luis Costa, emerging-market debt strategist at Commerzbank AG in London. "Events like this are a perfect storm."

Dubai credit-default swaps now rank as the fifth most expensive worldwide, exceeding Iceland's and Latvia's.

The contracts, which increase as perceptions of credit quality deteriorate, pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a company fail to adhere to its debt agreements. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point and is equivalent to $1,000 a year on a contract protecting $10 million of debt.

Abu Dhabi Aid

UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank, said it expects the U.A.E. will prevent a default by Nakheel. Owners of bonds sold by Nakheel scheduled a conference call today, said an investor and a trader who received the details.

Dubai is one of seven sheikhdoms in the U.A.E. that includes Abu Dhabi, which holds 8 percent of the world's oil reserves and bought $5 billion of bonds sold by Dubai yesterday through state-controlled banks.

Sheikh Mohammed turned to Abu Dhabi's central bank on Feb. 23 to raise $10 billion by selling debt. The emirate's credit default swaps dropped 178 basis points that day, after trading for a record 976 basis points.

Unlike Argentina, which stopped payments on $95 billion of debt eight years ago after yields on benchmark bonds more than doubled in four months to more than 40 percent, Dubai's announcement yesterday "was a surprise," said Alia Moubayed, a London-based economist at Barclays Plc.

Standstill Agreement

The government raised $1.93 billion last month in its first sale of Islamic bonds, attracting more than $6.3 billion of orders. The dollar-denominated securities due 2014, which are governed by Shariah laws barring investors from profiting from the exchange of money, dropped to 5.5 percent today to 92 cents, lifting the yield to 8.4 percent from 6.2 percent on Nov. 24, according to ING Groep NV prices on Bloomberg.

Gulf International Bank BSC, a Bahrain-based lender owned by the governments of six Gulf Arab states, postponed a planned sale of bonds in a $4 billion debt program, citing the "unexpected announcement" from Dubai, according to an e-mailed statement today.

Dubai World will ask creditors for a "standstill" agreement as it negotiates to extend maturities, including $3.52 billion of Islamic bonds due Dec. 14 from Nakheel, Dubai's Department of Finance said in an e-mailed statement yesterday.

'Brink of Failure'

Dubai World's more than 70 creditors face the prospect of writedowns on as much as $60 billion of debt if they haven't unloaded their holdings and the state-owned company fails to win additional support from Abu Dhabi.

The biggest creditors are Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and Emirate NBD PJSC. Other lenders include Credit Suisse Group AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, according to a person familiar with the situation. Barclays slumped as much as 6.9 percent, the biggest intraday loss in a month, while RBS sank as much as 8.3 percent. Lloyds and Credit Suisse dropped more than 3 percent.

"Our exposure is immaterial," said Credit Suisse spokesman Marc Dosch. HSBC, Lloyds and RBS declined to comment when contacted by Bloomberg. Simon Eaton, a spokesman for Barclays Capital in London, also declined to comment.

Emaar Properties PJSC, the U.A.E.'s biggest developer, was cut by four levels by Moody's to Ba2, two steps below investment grade. Jebel Ali Free Zone, an operator of business parks, and DIFC Investments were also lowered to speculative-grade by Moody's yesterday. DP World and Dubai Electricity & Water Authority were downgraded two levels to Baa2, the second rank above junk. Moody's and S&P said they may cut ratings further.

The debt "restructuring may be considered a default under our default criteria," S&P said in a statement.

'Shut Up'

Borrowing from Abu Dhabi state banks accounted for half the $10 billion Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed said he planned to raise by yearend. He said Nov. 9 the program will be "well received," and those who doubt the unity of Dubai and Abu Dhabi should "shut up."

Sheikh Mohammed removed the chairman of Dubai World from the board of Dubai's main holding company, the Investment Corporation of Dubai, last week.

Contracts on Abu Dhabi National Energy Co., the state- controlled energy producer known as Taqa, jumped 70 basis points to 250, the highest since August. Swaps linked to Mubadala Development Co., a government-backed investor that announced an $8 billion joint venture with General Electric Co. last year, rose 111 basis points to 247, according to CMA. Mashreqbank PSC, the United Arab Emirates-based lender owned by billionaire Abdul Aziz al-Ghurair, jumped by a record 254 basis points to 639.

"It's very important to resolve this in a way that will minimize contagion across the region," Matrix Group's Loftus said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Cochrane in London at lcochrane3@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 26, 2009 10:53 EST

You don't say: Outlook for tough Iran sanctions is dim

Well yes, we already knew the outlook for tough Iran sanctions is dim - USSR and China watered down all previous sanctions resolutions, didn't they? But as the Obama administration had about 10 months to prepare for this moment, you would've thunk they had thought about the problema and worked out solutions, no? Apparently not.

 

Don't ever take it for granted that the people in charge know what they are doing. No matter who is in charge - it just isn't true in many cases.

 

Of course, one guy knew what he is doing. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  understood that there would be no sanctions and wagered that there would be no military action, and that he could make the US and other Western powers look like helpless idiots.

 

Why shouldn't they look like helpless idiots, if they are helpless idiots?

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Analysis: Outlook for tough Iran sanctions is dim

 

By ROBERT BURNS (AP)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is shifting the focus of its Iran policy from talk to sanctions, but the prospect of winning early international support for toughened new penalties appears dim.

Equally problematic is finding a set of sanctions that would have a significant impact on the prime target of American and international worry: Iran's suspected pursuit of an atom bomb. Three rounds of U.N. sanctions, dating to December 2006 and aimed mainly at squeezing Iran's nuclear work, have had little apparent effect.

The administration may get an early indication of its prospects at a huddle Friday in Brussels with senior diplomats from the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Russia, China, Britain and France — plus Germany. Any decisions on new Iran sanctions, though, are likely weeks away.

The administration has tried for months to draw Iran into talks to resolve international worries that its declared intent to develop a civilian nuclear power network is cover for a secret nuclear weapons program. But the Iranians have shown little interest, while denying any clandestine nuclear ambition.

The diplomacy, while unsuccessful so far, may improve the administration's chances on sanctions by demonstrating to the Europeans, Chinese and others that Washington has at least tried to find an accommodation with Iran.

"Many of them are still instinctively against sanctions, but Iranian intransigence has put them in a bind," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.

President Barack Obama said Thursday in South Korea that because the Iranians rejected a U.N. proposal to ship the majority of Iran's low-enriched uranium out of the country, "we have begun discussions with our international partners" about new pressure tactics. He said "a package of potential steps" against the Iranians would be developed over the next several weeks. He was not more specific.

The uranium gambit was seen as a way of getting Iran to open up, but on Wednesday Iranian Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki appeared to close that door by saying Iran would not send its uranium abroad. The uranium, if enriched sufficiently, could be used to produce a nuclear weapon, although Iran insists it is intended as fuel to power a planned network of civilian nuclear power reactors.

If, as some suspect, China and perhaps Russia balk at imposing new sanctions on Iran, the U.S. could enact its own penalties and coordinate them with the European Union, as it has done in the past. The administration's first choice, however, is to get the U.N. Security Council to ratchet up the pressure.

One possibility is to strengthen existing U.N. sanctions such as a March 2008 provision for financial monitoring of certain banks with suspected connections to the illicit spread of nuclear technologies.

Both houses of Congress are considering legislation that would give Obama a broad new array of authority to target Iran's energy sector by penalizing foreign companies that sell and ship refined oil products to Iran. Despite Iran's large oil holdings, it has limited capacity to make refined products like gasoline.

Obama has expressed confidence that he can persuade allies to join him in getting tougher on Iran, given widespread opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran. But it's far from clear that China, which has strong and growing commercial and investment ties to Iran, would go along. Russia's intentions also are unclear, although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in September that sanctions may be inevitable.

Stephen P. Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development, said it's no surprise that China has not publicly expressed a willingness to consider new sanctions, even if it might eventually go along. More significant, Cohen said, are recent Russian statements suggesting possible support.

"This is probably why the president thinks that he can discuss sanctions now without it being blown out of the water within five minutes by the Chinese and the Russians," Cohen said in a telephone interview.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, is doubtful of a positive turn of events, in part because he sees the Iranian leadership in turmoil following a disputed presidential election in June.

That might be why, he suggested, Iran has shown little interest in a separate International Atomic Energy Agency offer to provide nuclear fuel for an Iranian research reactor in exchange for Iran's shipping the majority of its low-enriched uranium to Russia or another third country.

"You may have a political system (in Tehran) that is so fractured, that is so at each other's throat, that they are incapable of making a decision of this magnitude," Parsi said.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Robert Burns has been covering national security and military affairs for The Associated Press since 1990

 

AP: "Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban"

Allah be DELETED BY CENSOR! The.Muslim countries are seeking a "blasphemy" ban. Supported by the usual majority and the leverage of petroblackmail, it might just pass the UN General Assembly. Blasphemy is of course in the eye (or ear) of the beholder or auditor. In Iran, the Bahai religion is blasphemous for example. Strict Muslims believe that the teaching of evolution is blasphemous. Presumably, it would be forbidden to speculate on the honeymoon of Muhammad and his first wife, Aisha, aged 9 and similar subjects. It would also be forbidden to express doubt about proven facts of Muslim belief: Muhammad flew to Jerusalem in a night and tied up his horse at the Wailing Wall, Suleiman the Muslim built the temple (even the New York Times believes that it seems) and Ibrahim was the first Muslim. The penalty for blasphemy? In Iran it's hanging.  

AP Exclusive: Muslim Countries Seek Blasphemy Ban

AP Exclusive: Muslim countries seek UN treaty to protect religion from blasphemy

By FRANK JORDANS

The Associated Press

GENEVA

Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers. The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.

The proposal faces stiff resistance from Western countries, including the United States, which in the past has brushed aside other U.N. treaties, such as one on the protection of migrant workers.

Experts say the bid stands some chance of eventual success if Muslim countries persist. And whatever the outcome, the campaign risks reigniting tensions between Muslims and the West that President Barack Obama has pledged to heal, reviving fears of a "clash of civilizations."

Four years ago, a Danish newspaper published cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad, prompting angry mobs to attack Western embassies in Muslim countries, including Lebanon, Iran and Indonesia. In a countermovement, several European newspapers reprinted the images.

The countries that form the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference are now lobbying a little-known Geneva-based U.N. committee to agree that a treaty protecting religions is necessary.

The move would be a first step toward drafting an international protocol that would eventually be put before the General Assembly — a process that could take a decade or more.

The proposal may have some support in the General Assembly. For several years the Islamic Conference has successfully passed a nonbinding resolution at the General Assembly condemning "defamation of religions."

If the treaty was approved, any of the U.N.'s 192 member states that ratified it would be bound by its provisions. Other countries could face criticism for refusing to join.

Just last month, the Obama administration came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. "I strongly disagree."

But there are signs the U.S. is worried by the Islamic Conference campaign. Behind the scenes it has been lobbying hard to quash the proposal, dispatching a senior U.S. diplomat to Geneva last month for talks described as akin to trench warfare.

"The U.S. presence can be significant in determining the whole destiny of the process," said Lukas Machon, who represents the International Commission of Jurists at the U.N.

From a legal point of view, "the whole exercise is dangerous from A-Z because it's a departure from the practice and concept of human rights," Machon said. "It adds only restrictions."

In a letter obtained by the AP, Pakistan said insults against religion were on the increase.

The Islamic Conference "believes that the attack on sacredly held beliefs and the defamation of religions, religious symbols, personalities and dogmas impinge on the enjoyment of human rights of followers of those religions," the letter said. It was sent last month to members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, a temporary committee created to consider a previous anti-racism treaty.

In a separate submission to the committee, Pakistan proposed extending the treaty against racism to require signatories to "prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion."

It's not clear who would decide what is considered grossly abusive, but each country's criminal courts would likely have initial jurisdiction over that decision, according to Marghoob Saleem Butt, a Pakistani diplomat in Geneva who confirmed the campaign's existence and has lobbied for the ban.

"There has to be a balance between freedom of expression and respect for others," Butt said in a telephone interview.

"Taking the symbol of a whole religion and portraying him as a terrorist," said Butt, referring to the Muhammad cartoons, "that is where we draw the line."

One American expert with more than 20 years experience of the U.N. human rights system said the treaty could have far-reaching implications.

"It would, in essence, advance a global blasphemy law," said Felice Gaer, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The independent, congressionally mandated panel issued a report last week warning that existing laws against blasphemy, including in Pakistan, "often have resulted in gross human rights violations."

In Egypt, blasphemy laws have been used to suppress dissidents, said Moataz el-Fegiery, executive director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. Abdel Kareem Nabil, a blogger, was sentenced in February 2007 to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

He said reformists who reinterpret traditional Islamic texts have also become the target of blasphemy accusations.

More broadly, introducing laws to protect religions from criticism would weaken the whole notion of human rights, said Sweden's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Hans Dahlgren.

"Religions as such do not have rights — it's people who have rights," he said, adding that the European Union, whose presidency Sweden currently holds, would oppose attempts to limit freedom of speech.

The treaty goes against the grain of recent efforts by Western and Muslim countries to find common ground on human rights.

Only last month a joint U.S.-Egyptian resolution on freedom of expression won unanimous support in the U.N. Human Rights Council, much to the surprise of seasoned observers. "We will engage, and we're going to keep engaging," said Michael Parmly, spokesman for the U.S. Mission in Geneva.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, the Ad Hoc Committee's chairman, Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, said concerns the treaty could stifle free speech have been "whipped up into a bugaboo."

Failure to agree on a treaty would boost extremists in the Arab world, said Jazairy, a former envoy to Washington now considered a key player in the U.N.'s human rights forum.

"If we keep hitting this glass wall and say there's nothing you can do about Islamophobia — you can do something about anti-Semitism but Islamophobia is out of bounds — you give an ideal platform for recruitment of suicide bombers," he said.

Are Palestinians doing a political suicide bombing?

The United States is bankrolling the Palestinian Authority and the Obama administration put itself way out on a limb to support Palestinian statehood and the peace process. So it is really not the wisest move, perhaps, for the Palestinians to accuse the US of killing peace prospects.

 

One good rule to observe regarding US politics is "don't get Hillary Clinton mad at you." Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman did it, and learned the rule. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu learned the rule too it seems. Now it is the turn of Mr. Abbas.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Palestinians accuse U.S. of killing peace prospects
Sun Nov 1, 2009 7:51pm EST

By Jeffrey Heller

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Pointing an accusing finger at the United States, the Palestinians on Sunday said Washington's backing for Israeli refusal to halt Jewish settlement expansion had killed any hope of reviving peace negotiations soon.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, buoyed by new-found support from the Obama administration, urged the Palestinians to "get a grip" and drop their settlement freeze precondition for restarting talks suspended since December.

 

On a one-day Middle East visit on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed Israel's view that settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming negotiations -- contradicting the Palestinian position.

 

Netanyahu has proposed limiting building for now to some 3,000 settler homes already approved by Israel in the West Bank. He does not regard building in occupied East Jerusalem, annexed in defiance of international opposition, as settlement.

 

U.S. President Barack Obama himself, after persuading Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September to meet Netanyahu in New York, called only for "restraint" in settlement, not the "freeze" he had previously proposed.

 

Stung by Obama's about-face and Clinton's remarks, the Palestinians voiced their frustration.

 

"The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel's intransigence and America's back-pedaling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said.

 

He said the Palestinians were calling for the Arab League to formulate a "unified Palestinian-Arab position" on the stalled peace process.

 

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said it was a "critical moment" and insisted settlement must halt to revive peace moves.

 

"Pressuring Palestinians to make further concessions to accommodate Israeli intransigence is not the answer," he said.

 

Netanyahu told his cabinet that U.S. envoy George Mitchell would continue efforts on Sunday to revive negotiations.

 

"We hope very much that the Palestinians will get a grip and engage in the diplomatic process," Netanyahu said. "It is in the interests of Israel and the Palestinians."

 

DOMESTIC PRESSURE

 

Abbas faces intense domestic pressure from Hamas Islamists who control the Gaza Strip, and any compromise on settlements could hurt him politically in a run-up to Palestinian elections he has scheduled for January 24. Hamas has rejected holding a vote.

 

Some 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem alongside 2.8 million Palestinians. Israel captured the territories in a 1967 war with its Arab neighbors. Palestinians say settlements could deny them a viable state.

 

Netanyahu's coalition, including pro-settler groups, does not believe Abbas is strong enough to deliver Israeli security in any deal. Some analysts see Netanyahu's cooperation with Obama's demand for a resumption of talks on establishing a Palestinian state as intended mainly to ensure U.S. support against Iran.

 

Palestinians warn that popular frustration with the failure to produce statehood deal could spill over into an upsurge in violence, even if few have appetite for a broad new uprising.

 

George Giacaman, a political analyst at Birzeit University in the West Bank said, "The Palestinian Authority is weak and has not been achieving any results.

 

"I believe we are at a dangerous stage. With no credible political process, this could create a political vacuum that might lead to violence."

 

Nadir Saeed, at the same institution, said Abbas had little option but to try and keep talking with Israel and the Americans, adding: "It is no better for him to come back to his public empty-handed.

 

"(Abbas) has built his career on the idea of negotiations. He cannot credibly back away."

 

(Additional reporting by Ali Sawafta and Erika Solomon in Ramallah and Tom Perry and Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)

Afghanistan elections: Karzai vs Karzai, as Abdullah withdraws

 The United States, which is attempting to teach democracy in Afghanistan is apparently intent on giving a very interesting lesson in that form of government. Following the withdrawal of the opposition candidate, it seems the US wants to simply "elect" the incumbent Karzai, with no run off election:

 

On Saturday the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said a decision by Abdullah to pull out would not affect the vote's legitimacy.

A little detail like having only one candidate should not effect the legitimacy, claims Clinton. She is not alone:

Waheed Omar, Karzai's campaign spokesman, said the "election has to go ahead and the people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote".

 

His view was echoed by the IEC chairman, Azizullah Ludin, who said "there was no alternative under the law" to a second round.

The right to vote? The right to choose between Karzai and Karzai? Will he campaign against himself? That should be interesting to watch.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

Afghan election chaos as Abdullah pulls out of run-off

 

 

 

Afghanistan's western backers are pushing for a rapid coronation of Hamid Karzai as president without going through with a second round of voting after the Afghan president's closest rival pulled out of the race today.

 

Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the runoff vote after the rejection of nearly all of his demands for changes to the Independent Election Commission (IEC) and the suspension of government ministers, which he said would have reduced the risk of massive fraud in the next round of voting. The announcement threw the election into disarray, with some analysts labelling the fiasco "a shocking failure" of efforts by the west and other international communities to build a democracy in Afghanistan. A legitimate Afghan leader is seen as essential to western war aims, and has prevented Barack Obama from being able to make a decision on whether to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

 

To cheers and applause, an emotional Dr Abdullah told thousands of his supporters gathered in an enormous tent in Kabul that he had no choice but to bow out "because of the action taken by this government and the action taken by the Independent Election Commission".

 

But despite Abdullah's announcement both Karzai's campaign and the IEC said the runoff vote should go ahead because there was no other legal method for choosing the president.

 

The former foreign minister's supporters know that Karzai now faces two unenviable choices. He could either go ahead and win a mandate based on a second round which is likely to attract even fewer participants than the first vote in August. Or he could be simply be appointed as leader without the 50% of votes the constitution says the president requires to be elected. "Whatever he does he will not be legitimate," said Ahmed Wali Massoud, a leading political figure and a senior member of Abdullah's campaign team.

 

Nick Horne, a former UN political officer who resigned over the organisation's handling of the elections, said a second round without Abdullah would give Karzai an "exceptionally weak mandate" with which to counter the Taliban insurgency.

 

Haroun Mir, head of the Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Kabul, said that the Afghan state could even risk losing control over the northern areas where Abdullah's supporters could refuse to recognise the authority of Karzai. But Waheed Omar, Karzai's campaign spokesman, said the "election has to go ahead and the people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote".

 

His view was echoed by the IEC chairman, Azizullah Ludin, who said "there was no alternative under the law" to a second round.

 

But a UN spokesman said: "It's difficult to see how you can have a runoff with only one candidate."

 

Senior diplomats privately say they do not want to risk their troops' lives in order to protect another election. They say there is enough ambiguity in Afghanistan's constitution that would allow the country's Supreme Court to rule that a second round is not necessary and that Karzai should be elected on the basis that he received the highest number of votes in the first.

 

Many Afghan and western lawyers strongly disagree, however, saying that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret the constitution to the degree necessary.

 

On Saturday the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said a decision by Abdullah to pull out would not affect the vote's legitimacy. But another senior Abdullah campaign member, Nadjib Yussufi, said that if Karzai had any "political wisdom" he would back the establishment of an interim government and reform of the IEC which would allow Abdullah to participate in elections in the spring.

 

Both Massoud and Abdullah hinted yesterday that he would consider re-entering the race if conditions for a runoff vote were made fairer.

 

But western diplomats believe that would simply prolong Afghanistan's political limbo. During the 108 days since the campaign period officially began in July the government has been unable to take major decisions.

 

A spring election would prevent the government from taking steps which foreign diplomats hope will start to deal with the country's many problems, including corruption and declining security.

 

With so many unpalatable options confronting them, diplomats pushed until late on Saturday evening for a power-sharing deal between Karzai and Abdullah.

 

The negotiations, led by UN chief Kai Eide and US ambassador Karl Eikenberry, appeared to have made a breakthrough with western diplomats saying Abdullah would concede defeat in return for being given a say in the appointment of key cabinet ministers.

 

Although the talks finally broke down, Abdullah did not call for a boycott of the election as some had feared, instead saying he would merely "not participate" in the process.

 

He also said he had told his supporters to remain calm and not to protest, or even to come together in large gatherings.