Yahoo News
Soldaten schockieren mit Aussagen über Gaza-Krieg
Donnerstag, 19. März, 12:50 Uhr
DPA
Tel Aviv (dpa) - Israelische Soldaten haben die Öffentlichkeit mit Aussagen über wahlloses Töten von Zivilisten und mutwillige Zerstörung während des jüngsten Gaza-Kriegs schockiert.
Israelische Medien berichteten, die Soldaten hätten entsprechende Zeugenaussagen vergangenen Monat während einer Versammlung an einer Militärakademie gemacht. Sie erzählten von sehr lockeren Dienstvorschriften, was das Schießen auf Zivilisten betraf. Die Aussagen wurden in dieser Woche in einem Informationsblatt für Absolventen der Akademie veröffentlicht.
Yahoo News
Soldaten schockieren mit Aussagen über Gaza-Krieg
Donnerstag, 19. März, 12:50 Uhr
DPA
Tel Aviv (dpa) - Israelische Soldaten haben die Öffentlichkeit mit Aussagen über wahlloses Töten von Zivilisten und mutwillige Zerstörung während des jüngsten Gaza-Kriegs schockiert.
Israelische Medien berichteten, die Soldaten hätten entsprechende Zeugenaussagen vergangenen Monat während einer Versammlung an einer Militärakademie gemacht. Sie erzählten von sehr lockeren Dienstvorschriften, was das Schießen auf Zivilisten betraf. Die Aussagen wurden in dieser Woche in einem Informationsblatt für Absolventen der Akademie veröffentlicht.
Einer der Kommandeure erzählte etwa von einer Anweisung, eine ältere Palästinenserin zu erschießen, die in etwa 100 Meter Entfernung von einer israelischen Stellung auf der Straße ging. Er sprach dabei von «kaltblütigem Mord». Ein anderer Kommandeur erzählte, wie ein Scharfschütze eine Mutter und ihre zwei Kinder erschoss, weil sie versehentlich eine falsche Straßenabbiegung nahmen. «Ich glaube nicht, dass er sich besonders schlecht fühlte, weil er aus seiner Sicht nur nach seinen Vorschriften handelte.»
Insgesamt habe der Eindruck vorgeherrscht, «dass das Leben von Palästinensern sehr, sehr viel weniger wichtig ist als das Leben unserer Soldaten», sagte er. Beim Stürmen von Häusern, in denen sich Zivilisten aufhielten, hätten Soldaten häufig wahllos und ohne Vorwarnung um sich geschossen. «Die Vorgesetzten sagten uns, dies sei in Ordnung, weil jeder, der dageblieben ist, ein Terrorist ist», erzählte einer der Soldaten. «Ich habe das nicht verstanden - wohin hätten sie denn fliehen sollen?» Andere Soldaten hätten ihm gesagt, man müsste alle töten, «weil jeder Mensch in Gaza ein Terrorist ist».
Viele Soldaten hätten auch mutwillig den Besitz palästinensischer Familien zerstört, «weil es ihnen Spaß macht». «Wir können sagen, sooft wir wollen, dass die israelische Armee moralisch überlegen ist, aber im Feld ist das einfach nicht so.»
Der Leiter der Akademie, Danny Samir, sagte über die Aussagen während der Versammlung: «Für uns war das ein totaler Schock.» Die israelische Organisation Rabbiner für Menschenrechte nannte die Vorfälle einen «moralischen Tsunami» und rief zur nationalen Trauer und Buße auf.
Während der drei Wochen langen israelischen Militäroffensive im Gazastreifen zum Jahreswechsel wurden nach Angaben der palästinensischen Menschenrechtsorganisation PCHR insgesamt 1434 Palästinenser getötet und weitere 5303 verletzt. Unter den Todesopfern seien 960 Zivilisten, teilte die Organisation vor einer Woche zum Abschluss einer Untersuchung in Gaza mit. Israel wollte mit dem Einsatz den Raketenbeschuss israelischer Ortschaften durch militante Palästinenser aus dem Gazastreifen unterbinden. Die Angriffe gehen jedoch weiter.
Posts mit dem Label UN werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label UN werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Samstag, März 21, 2009
Dienstag, Januar 13, 2009
Norman Finkelstein: Israel, Hamas et al.
Counterpunch 13.01.2009
The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
Counterpunch 13.01.2009
The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.
As was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.
The issue is can it rule in Gaza if Israel maintains a blockade and prevents economic activity among the Palestinians. The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesn’t even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.
The problem all along has been that Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict, both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it’s unambiguously clear.
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.
We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.
Well, the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade. Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza as a destruction of a civilization. This was during the ceasefire period.
What does the record show? The record shows for the past twenty or more years, the entire international community has sought to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border with a just resolution of the refugee question. Are all 164 nations of the United Nations the rejectionists? And are the only people in favor of peace the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Australia? Who are the rejectionists? Who’s opposing a peace?
The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.
The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.
Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions.
I think it’s fairly clear what needs to happen. Number one, the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law. I don’t think international law should be trivialized. I think it’s a serious issue. If Israel is in defiance of international law, it should be called into account, just like any other state in the world.
Mr. Obama has to level with the American people. He has to be honest about what is the main obstacle to resolving the conflict. It’s not Palestinian rejectionism. It’s the refusal of Israel, backed by the United States government, to abide by international law, to abide by the opinion of the international community.
And the main challenge for all of us as Americans is to see through the lies.
Norman Finkelstein is author of five books, including Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Beyond Chutzpah and The Holocaust Industry, which have been translated into more than 40 foreign editions. He is the son of Holocaust survivors. This article is an edited extract of the views of Finkelstein given at DemocracyNow.org. His website is www.NormanFinkelstein.com
The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
Counterpunch 13.01.2009
The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.
As was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.
The issue is can it rule in Gaza if Israel maintains a blockade and prevents economic activity among the Palestinians. The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesn’t even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.
The problem all along has been that Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict, both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it’s unambiguously clear.
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.
We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.
Well, the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade. Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza as a destruction of a civilization. This was during the ceasefire period.
What does the record show? The record shows for the past twenty or more years, the entire international community has sought to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border with a just resolution of the refugee question. Are all 164 nations of the United Nations the rejectionists? And are the only people in favor of peace the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Australia? Who are the rejectionists? Who’s opposing a peace?
The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.
The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.
Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions.
I think it’s fairly clear what needs to happen. Number one, the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law. I don’t think international law should be trivialized. I think it’s a serious issue. If Israel is in defiance of international law, it should be called into account, just like any other state in the world.
Mr. Obama has to level with the American people. He has to be honest about what is the main obstacle to resolving the conflict. It’s not Palestinian rejectionism. It’s the refusal of Israel, backed by the United States government, to abide by international law, to abide by the opinion of the international community.
And the main challenge for all of us as Americans is to see through the lies.
Norman Finkelstein is author of five books, including Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Beyond Chutzpah and The Holocaust Industry, which have been translated into more than 40 foreign editions. He is the son of Holocaust survivors. This article is an edited extract of the views of Finkelstein given at DemocracyNow.org. His website is www.NormanFinkelstein.com
Freitag, Februar 09, 2007
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction
MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction
With Iran now threatening America with new missiles and the United States hunting down agents of the mullahs in Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East is again threatening to escalate. Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview: "The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen."
SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 9, 2007, 11:03 AM
MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction
With Iran now threatening America with new missiles and the United States hunting down agents of the mullahs in Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East is again threatening to escalate. Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview: "The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen."
Mohamed ElBaradei: "A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only."
AP
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The United States government is threatening to capture or kill Iranian agents in Iraq and Tehran has announced it will install thousands of centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium in Natanz. Are we witnessing a dramatic escalation of the conflict?
ElBaradei: If we continue on the same course, we could see a spiral of escalation. There is an urgent need for creative diplomacy and leadership. Diplomacy is pressure and engagement, and I very much hope that we can find the right balance. A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only. It will ultimately come at the negotiating table.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't sound very optimistic.
ElBaradei: The United Nations resolution itself recognizes the importance of finding a negotiated solution that will allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran. Clearly the sanctions were the expression of concern by the international community. I think the message was heard loud and clear in Iran.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So why not simply wait until Iran gives in and stops its nuclear program?
ElBaradei: My concern is that if we only focus on sanctions, that might lead to confrontation on both sides, ending in an uncontrolled chain reaction. My worry right now is that each side is sticking to their guns: The international community is saying "sanctions or bust," and Iran is saying "nuclear enrichment capability or bust." Ultimately sanctions are useful to send a message, but they have to be followed by an effort to create conditions for negotiations.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So how could this happen?
ElBaradei: I hope now we can put our heads together. I have been calling for a simultaneous time-out: That means Iran would take a break from all its enrichment-related work and at the same time, the UN Security Council would put a hold on implementing sanctions. We could agree through dialogue on the basic objectives and principles to govern the negotiations and then have a three-month time-out in the hope of achieving a comprehensive settlement which would not only cover nuclear issues, but security, economic and political concerns as well.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you see any signs that Iran would consider stopping its enrichment activities even for a short period?
ElBaradei: Iran is very keen to see an affirmation of its right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nobody is questioning this right, what is at stake is confidence building. Until confidence is restored, Iran should put a hold on enrichment-related activities, and to restore this confidence Iran needs to commit to being fully transparent and to start giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the full access we need for verification. This includes inspections under the Additional Protocol.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there general support for the idea of a time-out?
ElBaradei: I hope the dialogue will start this weekend in the margins of the Security Conference in Munich. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be there, Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian National Security Council. I encourage everybody to seize the opportunity.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But it seems to be very clear that the US government is convinced that the only thing that can help is to apply more pressure on Tehran.
ElBaradei: There are differences of opinion about tactics, how to find the right balance between pressure and incentives. It's not an easy issue, it's a question of policy judgement. I personally believe that in a situation like the one you have in the Middle East today, where it's like a ball of fire, you have to be very cautious. We cannot afford to add oil to that fire. The more we have confrontation, the more the Middle East will become militant and angry. The earlier we move into a conciliatory mood the better for everybody.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So you're hoping for less hostile rhetoric from each side?
Baradei: Absolutely. We should not ride a train wreck. The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen. I have just seen reports that North Korea is moving to start a process of nuclear disarmament. That only came about through negotiations -- direct talks -- that included the United States. So why not engage Iran in the same way?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iran just announced that some inspectors are no longer allowed to enter the country: This includes specialists from countries who pushed for sanctions, Germany for example. How long will you be able to track what they are really doing in Natanz?
ElBaradei: It's regrettable that Iran restricted the number of inspectors and we wrote to them and asked them to reconsider. It restricts our flexibility. I hope the Iranians will understand that the more transparency there, the better it will be for them. But I can also say that there are over 100 designated inspectors accepted by the Iranians. So we have enough people to do the job. We were just in Natanz and will soon go again.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Iran seeking to start enriching uranium on an industrial scale?
ElBaradei: The Iranians themselves said that they want to install 3,000 centrifuges and are now moving forward in installing them. They call it the second phase. How long it will take to install and operate them will be part of my report to the IAEA Board of Governors on Feb. 21. So the window of opportunity for a time-out is very narrow. If my report is negative in the absence of any movement on the part of Iran then the Security Council will work for more sanctions. That would mean a further escalation that will become more and more difficult to scale back.
Interview conducted by Georg Mascolo.
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction
With Iran now threatening America with new missiles and the United States hunting down agents of the mullahs in Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East is again threatening to escalate. Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview: "The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen."
SPIEGEL ONLINE - February 9, 2007, 11:03 AM
MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE
ElBaradei Warns US and Iran against an Unstoppable Chain Reaction
With Iran now threatening America with new missiles and the United States hunting down agents of the mullahs in Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East is again threatening to escalate. Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei warns in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview: "The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen."
Mohamed ElBaradei: "A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only."
AP
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The United States government is threatening to capture or kill Iranian agents in Iraq and Tehran has announced it will install thousands of centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium in Natanz. Are we witnessing a dramatic escalation of the conflict?
ElBaradei: If we continue on the same course, we could see a spiral of escalation. There is an urgent need for creative diplomacy and leadership. Diplomacy is pressure and engagement, and I very much hope that we can find the right balance. A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only. It will ultimately come at the negotiating table.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't sound very optimistic.
ElBaradei: The United Nations resolution itself recognizes the importance of finding a negotiated solution that will allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran. Clearly the sanctions were the expression of concern by the international community. I think the message was heard loud and clear in Iran.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So why not simply wait until Iran gives in and stops its nuclear program?
ElBaradei: My concern is that if we only focus on sanctions, that might lead to confrontation on both sides, ending in an uncontrolled chain reaction. My worry right now is that each side is sticking to their guns: The international community is saying "sanctions or bust," and Iran is saying "nuclear enrichment capability or bust." Ultimately sanctions are useful to send a message, but they have to be followed by an effort to create conditions for negotiations.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So how could this happen?
ElBaradei: I hope now we can put our heads together. I have been calling for a simultaneous time-out: That means Iran would take a break from all its enrichment-related work and at the same time, the UN Security Council would put a hold on implementing sanctions. We could agree through dialogue on the basic objectives and principles to govern the negotiations and then have a three-month time-out in the hope of achieving a comprehensive settlement which would not only cover nuclear issues, but security, economic and political concerns as well.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you see any signs that Iran would consider stopping its enrichment activities even for a short period?
ElBaradei: Iran is very keen to see an affirmation of its right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nobody is questioning this right, what is at stake is confidence building. Until confidence is restored, Iran should put a hold on enrichment-related activities, and to restore this confidence Iran needs to commit to being fully transparent and to start giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the full access we need for verification. This includes inspections under the Additional Protocol.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there general support for the idea of a time-out?
ElBaradei: I hope the dialogue will start this weekend in the margins of the Security Conference in Munich. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be there, Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian National Security Council. I encourage everybody to seize the opportunity.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But it seems to be very clear that the US government is convinced that the only thing that can help is to apply more pressure on Tehran.
ElBaradei: There are differences of opinion about tactics, how to find the right balance between pressure and incentives. It's not an easy issue, it's a question of policy judgement. I personally believe that in a situation like the one you have in the Middle East today, where it's like a ball of fire, you have to be very cautious. We cannot afford to add oil to that fire. The more we have confrontation, the more the Middle East will become militant and angry. The earlier we move into a conciliatory mood the better for everybody.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So you're hoping for less hostile rhetoric from each side?
Baradei: Absolutely. We should not ride a train wreck. The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen. I have just seen reports that North Korea is moving to start a process of nuclear disarmament. That only came about through negotiations -- direct talks -- that included the United States. So why not engage Iran in the same way?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iran just announced that some inspectors are no longer allowed to enter the country: This includes specialists from countries who pushed for sanctions, Germany for example. How long will you be able to track what they are really doing in Natanz?
ElBaradei: It's regrettable that Iran restricted the number of inspectors and we wrote to them and asked them to reconsider. It restricts our flexibility. I hope the Iranians will understand that the more transparency there, the better it will be for them. But I can also say that there are over 100 designated inspectors accepted by the Iranians. So we have enough people to do the job. We were just in Natanz and will soon go again.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Iran seeking to start enriching uranium on an industrial scale?
ElBaradei: The Iranians themselves said that they want to install 3,000 centrifuges and are now moving forward in installing them. They call it the second phase. How long it will take to install and operate them will be part of my report to the IAEA Board of Governors on Feb. 21. So the window of opportunity for a time-out is very narrow. If my report is negative in the absence of any movement on the part of Iran then the Security Council will work for more sanctions. That would mean a further escalation that will become more and more difficult to scale back.
Interview conducted by Georg Mascolo.
Samstag, Oktober 07, 2006
"Progress" on the Road to peace? or the birth pangs?*
 | |
“They are confronted with regular military operations, shelling, house demolitions, checkpoints on their way to schools,” UNICEF Child Protection Officer Anne Grandjean said. “As a result we find high prevalence of signs of stress such as anxiety, eating and sleeping disorders, and difficulties concentrating in school.
“All of these signs need to be tackled as soon as possible to avoid a long-lasting impact on the child’s development,” she added.
UNICEF and the Humanitarian Aid Department of the European Commission have established teams of social workers and psychologists to respond to the children’s needs. Every month they reach some 3,000 children and their families, offering support and counselling after violent incidents.
The counselling sessions end every month with a festival and beach party organized by UNICEF and its partners, where thousands of children are given the chance to play and interact with each other away from the conflict.
“These festivals are important because they are about protecting childhood,” UNICEF Special Representative for Gaza and the West Bank Dan Rohrmann said. “It’s an opportunity for children to be children, which is rare here in Gaza, because they live in an environment of extraordinary fear and violence and insecurity.”
----------------------------
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)