Snippet 6 -- U.N. Names Complicit Companies

The U.N. human rights office on Wednesday released a list of more than 100 companies it said are complicit in violating Palestinian human rights by operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank -- a first-ever international attempt to name and shame businesses that has drawn fierce Israeli condemnation

The list’s publication after repeated delays escalated a looming showdown between Israel and the international community over its more than half-century policy of building settlements in the West Bank.  Emboldened by a new U.S. Mideast initiative, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to annex Israel’s more than 100 settlements, while the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague has indicated she will soon launch a war-crimes investigation into settlement policies.

The list included well known global companies, among them consumer food maker General Mills and supermarkets, tech and communications giants Motorola Solutions and Altice Europe, and infrastructure companies like France’s Egis and Alstom, and British company JC Bamford Excavators.  112 firms involved in practices that raised human rights concerns, such as settlement construction, security services, banking and equipment that was used to demolish Palestinian property.

In a statement, Netanyahu called the rights council “unimportant.”

But there are other international companies, including travel firms like Airbnb, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Booking.com and Opodo. Many offer vacation rentals in the settlements.

Associated Press

Politics 14 - A 'Nightmare' Nuclear Deal

The recent nuclear framework agreement between powerful world leaders and Iran, regarding the lifting of sanctions, has the U.S. Senate stating that they will do everything that they can think of to change it, and Israel’s Netanyahu clearly displays his thoughts with the one-word, “nightmare”.

It seems that no one understands why Iran needs enrichment facilities when less expensive reactor fuel is available on the international market.  Therefore, it is said that there can be only one reason ... to produce enough enrichment for a bomb.

Therefore, it is really necessary to pause and study Iran’s history.

Chris Lawrence, a nuclear scientist at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation says, “This detached calculus is made possible only by a radical ahistoricism that seems to pervade nearly all discussion of the Iranian nuclear program.”

He continues, “Nuclear power reactors represent towering investments. Most are designed to last 40 years, and their lives are often extended to 50 or 60. Meanwhile, the price of fuel makes up less than 30 percent of their operating cost”.

Starting with the revolution in 1979, when construction on the Bushehr reactor had reached 80%, the German construction company was encouraged to back out, and U.S. pressure in the 80’s caused France, China, and Argentina to back out of being suppliers of nuclear fuel.

Therefore, this history shows that Iran cannot rely on the international availability of fuel, fifty years from now ... certainly not from Russia, and is a good reason to be self reliant. 

It should not be surprising, considering years of sanctions, that they continued with a secret procurement process, it being their only option.

“As fellow nonproliferation analyst Ivanka Barzashka and others have pointed out, the existence of the Fordow plant [Constructed beneath a mountain. Ed.] removes this option since it would be invulnerable to an airstrike. In fact, if Iran can simply continue enriching at Fordow, then destroying Natanz [Iran’s largest enrichment plant. Ed.] is even worse than pointless, since it would likely change Iran's calculus in favor of weaponization.” Lawrence continued.

It may seem strange that Iran would agree to reduce its’ enrichment process and, it is suspected, this will enable them to maintain their centrifuge capability, should there be a failure of future agreements and, thus, avoid shutting down their reactors as they did in the 80’s.

We must not be too pleased with ourselves that severe sanctions have caused this latest agreement, because as Lawrence also says, “Iran came to the table in 2003, before sanctions were escalated, with a better deal than we could possibly imagine today. We eloquently responded, "You're evil, go away." Since then, they have done the rational thing and become excellent enrichers of uranium so they will never again be without fuel for their reactors”.

I hope that a final agreement is reached in June, and that the U.S. Senate keeps its’ pointed nose out of harms way ... the less that I say about Netanyahu the better.

Politics 13 - Je Accuse

It seems that today is about ‘Free Speech’.  Therefore, I wish to take the opportunity to say something controversial but, in my opinion, very true.

Fundamental Islamic extremism is the result of the Israel/Palestine hostility.

It is as simple as that.

Politics 6 - Israel/Canada

When I initially began this Blog site, it was not my intention to write about any one subject, e.g., Politics, more than once each month.  But reading the Canadian media this morning has annoyed me so much that my patience has disappeared.

I am referring to the behaviour of Mr. Baird, Canada’s Foreign Minister, at a committee meeting of the U.N.’s General Assembly yesterday, where he voted, No, together with only six other countries;  Israel, the United States and four small South Pacific island nations – Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, for resolutions against Israel.

I doubt if anyone reading this could point to these islands on a map and, thus, we can be excused for any suspicious thoughts we may have for their behaviour.

It is especially annoying as we know that Canada’s, so-called, majority government only received one-third of the popular vote at the last election, and it seems to me, as I read the newspapers today, that many who did vote for this government are also expressing great disappointment today.

It amazed me that Mr. Baird could state, “This series of resolutions against Israel is generally one-sided, and unbalanced ...”  Does he not realize that the resolutions are “one-sided and unbalanced” because the rest of the world does not accept Israel’s terrorism.  Additionally, if both Russia and China would not abstain or veto against these resolutions, we should see a very different Middle East.

Mr. Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, Egypt and Jordan, said that it will affect the role Canada can play in the Middle East.  In the past, Israel asked Canada to intervene with Arab governments to moderate criticism. “I don’t think that would be possible today,” he said.  I agree.

Politics 4A — An Addendum

Open Note To The Prime Minister

Sir, as you know, the Canadian biassed system of government elections gave your party a majority of representation in the House of Commons.  Nevertheless, you should never forget that the majority of Canadians did not vote for you.

Therefore, your recent pro-Zionist stance at the U.N., something that was not evident in your election manifesto, although not surprising considering your record, comes as a huge annoyance to those pro-Palestine voters among us who believe that we are in the majority.

Many of us belief that the Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a huge international problem that will only worsen if Israel continues to build on occupied land and ignore the U.N. General Assembly resolutions against it.  For example, would you be prepared to send the Canadian Forces to assist in the future defense of Israel, or accept their use of nuclear weapons?

Therefore, considering the global consequences of your action, I demand that you institute a Canadian Referendum on the subject for or against Israel’s unacceptable behavior ... or even an abstention.

P.S., I realize that you are unlikely to read this, but I feel much better for having written it.

Comments please.

Politics 4 - A Palestinian State

I do not think that there is one subject to be discussed that avoids politics.  Even religion cannot be discussed without involving politics.  One of my posts discussed tipping in restaurants in which I avoided the possibility of a government ban on the subject.  Could we discuss organic foods without the Ministry of Food applying some regulations?  Could I spank my child’s bottom without the police knocking on my door?  Could I walk my dog in the park without a regulatory-designed leash ... well, probably, that will be next.

Could a tiger nurse orphaned piglets?  Could a polar bear play harmlessly with tethered husky dogs?  Could a lion hug and lick a woman who had cared for it earlier?  I am sure that some of you have seen these videos, but I digress ... could humans live together in peace?

Time and time again the U.N. has asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, constantly, they refuse.  Iran has signed, has permitted inspections, yet we demand that only Iran provide discrete details, because Israel says that it “knows” that Iran poses a nuclear threat.  Israel bombed a nuclear power station in Iraq where, later, international experts could find no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the ruins.  Later, the U.N. released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accused Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish).  Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

Finally, let us diligently read UN General Assembly Resolution 3376 (one of many) that states:  "Reiterates all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem"

Now, today, a slight, usually quiet man, President Mahmoud Abbas, stood in front of the U.N. General Assembly to cheers and almost tumultuous applause, to say that he believed that it was time for Palestinian statehood ... and I am one person who believes that this day has been a long time coming.

I wonder if you agree with me?