UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Another UN move that is meaningless because no one will enforce it when it is being violated. No surprise that the USA, Canada, Austalia and New Zealand initially refused to sign it. Now, it is accepted by the UN that they have their own interpretation?!! The USA is EVIL and the UN is GUTLESS and [politically] USELESS.

Indigenous rights declaration universally endorsed

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has received universal backing from the international community, with the United States being the last UN Member State to endorse it.

By adopting the Declaration, States have committed to recognizing indigenous peoples rights under international law, with the right to be respected as distinct peoples and the right to determine their own development according to their culture, priorities, and customary laws.

The Declaration further affirms that Governments shall consult indigenous peoples with a view to obtaining their free, prior and informed consent prior to approval of any project affecting their lands, any potential displacement and relocation of populations, and adoption or implementation of administrative or legislative measures which may affect them.

The United States was one of the only four countries which had voted against the Declaration when it was submitted for adoption at the General Assembly in 2007 - Australia, Canada and New Zealand were the other three opponents. Since then, these three countries have endorsed the Declaration and expressed their own understanding on certain aspects of the text.

While endorsing the Declaration, the United States has expressed its own understanding of the right to self determination, and on free, prior and informed consent.

The endorsement has sparked many reactions among indigenous rights circles globally. Tonya Gonnella Frichner, North American Regional Representative to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), expressed her satisfaction at the United States’ official support of the Declaration.

“It is now coming on board with the community of nations that adopted it at the General Assembly in 2007”, she said. “We are counting on the good will of the United States which would mean that the U.S. would move forward, without restrictions, in a positive way implementing the Declaration as it was adopted, by the United Nations.”

Myrna Cunningham, from the Miskitu people of Waspam in Nicaragua, and a newly appointed UNPFII member is hopeful the endorsement would strengthen respect for indigenous peoples. “The Declaration not only constitutes an international standard with regards to indigenous peoples’ issues, but it also sets an agenda. Thus, if duly taken into consideration, US endorsement of the Declaration would result in a stronger respect for indigenous peoples and in the implementation of specific measures to ensure their full participation in projects that may affect them.”

Jannie Lasimbang, from the Sabah community of Malaysia said that for indigenous peoples of Asia, the endorsement by the US would be an added reason for governments to recognise indigenous peoples in their respective countries.

“It will also emphasize the need to put the Declaration into action, in particular, aspects that will assert the rights of indigenous peoples”, she added.  “President Obama in his remarks accords Native Americans the recognition they deserve and the need to learn from history in order to move forward and addressed many aspects related to indigenous peoples' self-determination.”

The Declaration is now among the most widely accepted UN human rights instruments.  It is the most comprehensive statement addressing the human rights of indigenous peoples to date, establishing collective rights and minimum standards on survival, dignity, and wellbeing to a greater extent than any other international text.

While such recognition exists in some national laws, some of the Declaration’s provisions have yet to be respected. This is a particular concern for Mr. Kanyinke Sena, an indigenous Ogiek from Kenya.

“Given the USA global presence and influence, this new policy shift gives indigenous peoples globally a new ally, with the much needed political, social and economic muscle, with whom they will together hold hands in the onward march towards the recognition, respect and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples on the basis of the Declaration.”

23 December 2010

---

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Fighting Occupation in Palestine

The following is reprinted from War On Want. Access the site  HERE.

Fighting occupation in Palestine

The UN reports that 70% of Palestinians are now living in poverty. Four out of five people in Gaza are now dependent on food aid to survive.

Palestinians are not victims of a natural disaster. The poverty they face is an acknowledged product of the Israeli occupation, a fact recognised by the UK Department for International Development, which has stated that "Poverty in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a product of occupation and conflict." Only by ending the Occupation can the root causes of poverty be addressed.

In 1967 Israel invaded the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights and has been illegally occupying them ever since in defiance of UN resolutions and global outrage.

Through the continuing occupation, Israel has engaged in excessive and disproportionate force, including targeted assassination, and also demolished homes, detained minors, held people without trial, destroyed water supplies, razed schools and hospitals, denied people access to food and attacked medical personnel and equipment. The Occupation has destroyed any semblance of a Palestinian economy.

In addition, millions of Palestinians live in refugee camps, where they face human rights abuses and crushing poverty.

The international community has largely ignored international law with respect to Israel's crimes. Instead the British government amongst others has rewarded Israeli aggression with financial, military and diplomatic support.

Palestine is in crisis. We must put pressure on our government to play its part and end the injustice.

White phosphorus: Israeli and American War Crimes

Below is an article on the effects of White Phosphorus on human victims.  White phosphorus has been used on civilian populations by both the US and Israel.  The people of Fallujah, Iraq are experiencing major health problems including an alarming increase in cancer cases and their children are being born with horrific deformities and defects due in part to white phosphorus and other chemicals America used on the city during the Gulf War.  It is now said that the population there is suffering as much as the population of Hiroshima, Japan after the atomic bomb was dropped.  

This article features the story of a man from Gaza, Palestine.  During a 23 day period in 2008-09, Israel attacked the Gaza Strip (Operation Cast Lead) in response to sporadic [homemade] rocket attacks from within its borders.  Over 9 years, approximately 30 Israelis were killed by such rockets; In 23 days, Israel killed about 1,400 Palestinians, over 300 of whom were children. In the attack, Israel used white phosphorus, it says, to light the battlefield.  The evidence suggests differently.  As for a "battlefield," the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on Earth with more than 1.5 million people packed into 139 square miles.  The "battlefield" is actually an urban area.  With closed borders and a sea blockade, civilians had no where to run.  The picture in the article below is of an occupied school with white phosphorus raining down upon it.  It was one of 280 schools destroyed by the Israeli terrorist state.  In addition, Israel destroyed 11,000+ homes, 200 factories, 15 of 27 hospitals, well the list goes on.  All war crimes.  

The use of white phosphorus on civilian populations is a WAR CRIME!

The following article is reprinted in its entirety from the Middle East Monitor.  The original post can be accessed HERE.

White phosphorus burns

Wednesday, 28 July 2010 16:00

(The Lancet) In January, 2009, an 18-year-old man presented to the emergency department after suffering an attack with an incendiary shell. He had many painful patches of full-thickness burns, which were surrounded by sloughed tissue. His wounds covered 30% of his body surface area, and were distributed on both upper and lower limbs, and his right shoulder.

There were no signs of inhalation burns. After a clinical diagnosis of white phosphorus burns was made, the airway was secured, resuscitation fluid was initiated, and wounds were irrigated with diluted sodium bicarbonate solution before wet dressing.

¹day after admission to the burns unit, white smoke was noticed emanating from the wounds, which now contained extensive necrotic tissue and had extended into the underlying tissue.

He was urgently transferred to the operating room for debridement and excision of necrotic tissue, and removal of white phosphorus particles. During debridement, a white phosphorus particle was accidentally dislodged resulting in a superficial burn on a nurse's neck.

We transferred our patient to the intensive care unit for monitoring of vital signs, electrolyte disturbance (in particular hypocalcaemia), and electrocardiogram (ECG) changes.

After 8 days in hospital, our patient was relatively well, and was discharged without any systemic complications.

At 16-month follow-up, our patient was well; however, hypertrophic, mildly tender scars remained on his chest, arm, and thigh.

White phosphorus is a smoke-producing, waxy, yellow transparent combustible solid,¹ which is used mainly in military and industrial settings. In the presence of oxygen, it spontaneously ignites with a yellow flame and produces dense smoke; it extinguishes only when deprived of oxygen or totally consumed.²

On contact with exposed skin, white phosphorus produces painful chemical burns;3 these typically appear as yellowish, necrotic, full-thickness lesions due to both chemical and thermal components. Because white phosphorus has high lipid solubility, the injuries often extend deep into underlying tissues with resultant delayed wound healing.

White phosphorus can also be absorbed systemically resulting in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome because of its effect on erythrocytes, kidneys, liver, and heart.²,⁴

First aid management of white phosphorus burns includes removal of the patient's clothes and application of saline or a water-soaked dressing.

1 On the basis of animal studies and case reports, in the emergency department, continuous irrigation with water is recommended to minimise the complications of the burn,¹, ², ⁴ and large easily identifiable particles of white phosphorus should be debrided. Wood lamp (ultraviolet light) or a solution of 0·5% copper sulphate can be used to facilitate the extinction of embedded particles.⁴

In critically ill patients, excision of the necrotic tissue and skin grafting, plus appropriate fluid replacement, and close monitoring of electrolytes and ECG are required to avoid predictable complications like hypocalcaemia, hyperphosphataemia, and cardiac arrhythmia. White phosphorus burns are associated with significant morbidity often necessitating lengthy hospital stays. Extreme cases can be fatal. We cannot give an estimate of the number of such cases in our burns unit because it is in a war situation in which no formal recording was done; these burns are rarely encountered in practice and literature describing cases is limited.

According to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons it is prohibited to make civilians the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

Contributors Patient management: NS, SS, LB; writing the report: LB, NB. Written consent to publish was obtained.

Source: Medical Aid for Palestinians


References
¹ Lisandro I. CBRNE-incendiary agents, white phosphorus. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833585-overview. (accessed May 21, 2010).
² Eldad A, Simon GA. The phosphorous burn-a preliminary comparative experimental study of various forms of treatment. Burns 1991; 17: 198-200. CrossRef | PubMed
³ Chou TD, Lee TW, Chen SL, et al. The management of white phosphorus burns. Burns 2001; 27: 492-497. CrossRef | PubMed
⁴ Davis KG. Acute management of white phosphorus burn. Mil Med 2002; 167: 83-84. PubMed a Faculty of Medicine, Al Quds University, Abu-Deis, Jerusalem, occupied Palestinian territory b Department of Surgery, Shifa Medical Centre, Gaza Strip, occupied Palestinian territory c Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns, Shifa Medical Centre, Gaza Strip, occupied Palestinian territory d Al Nasser Pediatric Hospital, Gaza Strip, occupied Palestinian territory Correspondence to: Loai Nabil Al Barqouni, Faculty of Medicine, Al Quds University, Abu-Deis, Jerusalem, 00970 occupied Palestinian territory.

---

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Israel Not Allowing U.N. To Complete Housing Projects In Gaza!

I had posted this on my ryspace blog in January, but thought it worth the repost here as, of course, nothing as changed.




Meanwhile Israel has no problem continuing to bulldoze Palestinian homes, to build new housing for Israeli Jews in their stead, expanding settlements despite declaring a 10- month ban on settlement building.


-ry

How the Nazi Israel took over Palestine

For those of you with short attention spans, here is a two minute video on the goings on in Palestine over the last 60 years.

Israeli PM, Netanyahu caught on video admitting he deceived US to destroy Oslo accord.

The Real and Deceitful Face of Netanyahu:


Reprinted from The National. Story by Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent, 18 June 2010:

NAZARETH // The contents of a secretly recorded video threaten to gravely embarrass not only Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister but also the US administration of Barack Obama.

The film was shot, apparently without Mr Netanyahu’s knowledge, nine years ago, when the government of Ariel Sharon had started reinvading the main cities of the West Bank to crush Palestinian resistance in the early stages of the second intifada.

At the time Mr Netanyahu had taken a short break from politics but was soon to join Mr Sharon’s government as finance minister.

On a visit to a home in the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank to pay condolences to the family of a man killed in a Palestinian shooting attack, he makes a series of unguarded admissions about his first period as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999.

Seated on a sofa in the house, he tells the family that he deceived the US president of the time, Bill Clinton, into believing he was helping implement the Oslo accords, the US-sponsored peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, by making minor withdrawals from the West Bank while actually entrenching the occupation. He boasts that he thereby destroyed the Oslo process.

He dismisses the US as “easily moved to the right direction” and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel “absurd”.

He also suggests that, far from being defensive, Israel’s harsh military repression of the Palestinian uprising was designed chiefly to crush the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat so that it could be made more pliable for Israeli diktats.

All of these claims have obvious parallels with the current situation, when Mr Netanyahu is again Israel’s prime minister facing off with a White House trying to draw him into a peace process that runs counter to his political agenda.


As before, he has ostensibly made public concessions to the US administration – chiefly by agreeing in principle to the creation of a Palestinian state, consenting to indirect talks with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, and implementing a temporary freeze on settlement building.

But he has also enlisted the powerful pro-Israel lobby to exert pressure on the White House, which appears to have relented on its most important stipulations.

The contemptuous view of Washington Mr Netanyahu demonstrates in the film will confirm the suspicions of many observers – including Palestinian leaders – that his current professions of good faith should not be taken seriously.

Critics have already pointed out that his gestures have been extracted only after heavy arm-twisting from the US administration.

More significantly, he has so far avoided engaging meaningfully in the limited talks the White House is promoting with the Palestinians while the pace of settlement building in the West Bank has been barely affected by the 10-month freeze, due to end in September.

In the meantime, planning officials have repeatedly approved large new housing projects in East Jerusalem and the West Bank that have undercut the negotiations and will make the establishment of a Palestinian state – viable or otherwise – far less likely.

Writing in the liberal Haaretz newspaper, the columnist Gideon Levy called the video “outrageous”. He said it proved that Mr Netanyahu was a “con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes”. He added that the prime minister had not reformed in the intervening period: “Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.”

In the film, Mr Netanyahu says Israel must inflict “blows [on the Palestinians] that are so painful the price will be too heavy to be borne … A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority, to bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing”.

When asked if the US will object, he responds: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction … They won’t get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

He then recounts how he dealt with President Clinton, whom he refers to as “extremely pro-Palestinian”. “I wasn’t afraid to manoeuvre there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton.”

His approach to White House demands to withdraw from Palestinian territory under the Oslo accords, he says, drew on his grandfather’s philosophy: “It would be better to give two per cent than to give 100 per cent.”

He therefore signed the 1997 agreement to pull the Israeli army back from much of Hebron, the last Palestinian city under direct occupation, as a way to avoid conceding more territory.

“The trick,” he says, “is not to be there [in the occupied territories] and be broken; the trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.”

The “trick” that stopped further withdrawals, Mr Netanyahu adds, was to redefine what parts of the occupied territories counted as a “specified military site” under the Oslo accords. He wanted the White House to approve in writing the classification of the Jordan Valley, a large area of the West Bank, as such a military site.

“Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give [them] the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came … did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.”

Last week, after meeting Mr Obama in Washington, the Israeli prime minister gave an interview to Fox News in which he appeared to be in no hurry to make concessions: “Can we have a negotiated peace? Yes. Can it be implemented by 2012? I think it’s going to take longer than that,” he said.

foreign.desk@thenational.ae

Transcript and commentary below reprinted from the blog Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make The World A Better Place, in an entry entitled, “BIBI THE BAMBOOZLER TO SETTLERS: ‘AMERICA WON’T GET IN OUR WAY…IT’S EASILY MOVED’”

Israel’s Channel 10 secured a video (Hebrew) recorded in 2001 during the height of a Palestinian terror campaign against Israel and the settlements. It records a condolence call Bibi Netanyahu, recently “retired” from politics after losing the prime ministership several years earlier, pays on a group of West Bank widows whose husbands had been killed by Palestinian attacks.

For those on the Israeli right who claim that the Oslo Accords broke down due to Palestinian terror or any such thing, watch this and you will see that Bibi brags that he destroyed Oslo. Even if you discount this by half as the braggadocio of a macho Israeli politician, it’s still eye-opening. Gideon Levy too has written about this footage in Haaretz.

Note in the first passage how Bibi brags that he has America wrapped around his thumb. The cynicism is breathtaking. Here is Dena Shunra’s translation:

Bibi:…The Arabs are currently focusing on a war of terror and they think it will break us. The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne. The price is not too heavy to be borne, now. A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing…

Woman: Wait a moment, but then the world will say “how come you’re conquering again?”

Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.

Woman: Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?

Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction.

Child: They say they’re for us, but, it’s like…

Netanyahu: They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way.

Child: On the other hand, if we do some something, then they…

Netanyahu: So let’s say they say something. So they said it! They said it! 80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have that kind of support and we say “what will we do with the…” Look. That administration [Clinton] was extremely pro-Palestinian. I wasn’t afraid to maneuver there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton. I was not afraid to clash with the United Nations. I was paying the price anyway, I preferred to receive the value. Value for the price.

In the following segment, Bibi boasts about how he emptied the Oslo Accords of meaning by an interpretation that made a mockery of them:

Woman: The Oslo Accords are a disaster.

Netanyahu: Yes. You know that and I knew that…The people [nation] has to know…
What were the Oslo Accords? The Oslo Accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: “Will you act according to them?” and I answered: “yes, subject to mutuality and limiting the retreats.” “But how do you intend to limit the retreats?” “I’ll give such interpretation to the Accords that will make it possible for me to stop this galloping to the ’67 [armistice] lines. How did we do it?

Narrator: The Oslo Accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different pulses, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

Netanyahu: No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

Woman: Right [laughs]…The Beit She’an Valley.

Netanyahu: How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what Defined Military Sites were. I received a letter – to my and to Arafat, at the same time – which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to my and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Or rather, ratify it, it had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.

Woman: And despite that, one of our own people, excuse me, who knew it was a swindle, and that we were going to commit suicide with the Oslo Accord, gives them – for example – Hebron…

Netanyahu: Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It’s the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: “What would your father say?” I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father’s position?
…He’s not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent.” The trick is not to be there and be broken. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.
Here are a few of Levy’s choice characterizations of Bibi’s performance in this video:
…Israel has had many rightist leaders since Menachem Begin…but there has never been one like

Netanyahu, who wants to do it by deceit, to mock America, trick the Palestinians and lead us all astray. The man in the video betrays himself in his own words as a con artist, and now he is again prime minister of Israel. Don’t try to claim that he has changed since then. Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.
Forget the Bar-Ilan University speech…this is the real Netanyahu. No more claims that the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu exposed the naked truth to his hosts at Ofra: he destroyed the Oslo accords with his own hands and deeds, and he’s even proud of it. After years in which we were told that the Palestinians are to blame, the truth has emerged from the horse’s mouth.

…The government of Israel is led by a man who…thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes.

It should be noted that Bibi isn’t the only prime minister who boasted of such manipulation of the U.S. Dov Weisglass, Ariel Sharon’s Mephisto bragged of “putting the peace process in formaldehyde” via the Gaza withdrawal. He too claimed he had George Bush wrapped around his little finger (though he didn’t say which one).

This seems to be a fashion among right-wing Israel prime ministers. They come to believe their own press clippings. But really who is to blame for this but American presidents who allow Israeli leaders to outwit and outmaneuver them? When has an American president, except perhaps George Bush pere, ever stood up to Israel and won? And I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion it won’t ever happen with the current president.

---

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

U.S. Blocks Investigation of Flotilla by U.N.

I am extremely lucky to have been born in the USA. This does not mean i am always proud to call myself an American.
Let Israel investigate itself, Obama?!! REALLY?!! ARE YOU FVCKING KIDDING ME?!! You are truly a vile being! Obama, you fvcking pvssy scum! You make me sick! You care more about AIPAC & your party than humanitarianism & justice. When you laid that wreath at the cemetery yesterday, i hope you took time to bury your Nobel Peace Prize, because it truly means nothing now!

-my response to US policy as stated in an article from Frum Forum, 1 June 2010: U.S. Blocks Investigation of Flotilla by U.N.

x