Pre-Election Polls Confirm Russian Election Results
Moon of Alabama | December 6, 2011
“Western” organizations and media are alleging irregularities in Sunday’s elections in Russia.
Western observers reported Monday that the results of Russia’s parliamentary elections were seriously distorted by ballot stuffing and a lack of transparency, which suggests that the ruling United Russia party did even worse than the official count showed.
The election leading and currently governing United Russia Party gets accused of manipulating the votes in its favor. These allegations seem to be based on some dubious youtube videos, anecdotal stories and a small demonstration by some opposition members in Moscow.
There is always a good test when such allegations come up. Do the results of the election fit with the prediction of independent pollsters issued before the election?
Before Sunday’s vote the Associated Press wrote:
A poll released Friday predicts that Vladimir Putin’s party will receive 53 percent of the vote in Russia’s parliamentary election, now a little over a week away.While still a majority, this would be a significant drop for United Russia and deprive it of the two-thirds majority that has allowed it to amend the constitution without seeking the support of the three other parties in parliament.
Russia TV reported:
The All-Russian Public Opinion Centre polls predicts United Russia is set to get between 55-58% of votes, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation 16-19%, the Liberal Democratic Party 11-14% and Fair Russia 6.5-9.5%
AFP added:
Two polls published ahead of the elections showed United Russia is expected to keep its current majority but win no more than 262 seats in the 450-member Duma.
Now let’s look at the election results:
According to preliminary results released by the Central Elections Commission on Tuesday, the United Russia Party got almost 50 percent of the vote which translated into 238 of 450 seats in the Duma. The Communist Party came second with about 20 percent of the votes and a total of 92 parliamentary seats. A Just Russia Party is in the third place with more than 13 percent and 64 seats. The Liberal Democratic Party got 56 seats, while three parties – Yabloko, Right Cause and Patriots of Russia – failed to make it to the Duma.
United Russia’s share of the vote was slightly worse than all the independent polls predicted. If the party or the government it leads really manipulated the election, why would that be the case?
Russia is a big country. It is likely that there were some irregularities in this or that polling station. But given the total result it is not plausible that such were organized or in favor of United Russia.
Stoking up rumors and creating unrest in Moscow is still a wet dream for “western” cold-war warriors, neocons and their “liberal” allies in Russia. They wish back the days of Yelzin when they robbed Russia blind. But as the election showed those times are over and Russians will no longer fall for their false promises.
Israel lawmaker wants to force Palestinians to swear “Zionist” oath
By Ali Abunimah – The Electronic Intifada – 12/06/2011
Danny Danon, a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is proposing that all Israeli citizens – especially the 1.4 million Palestinian citizens of Israel – should be forced to declare an oath of loyalty to the political ideology of Zionism as a condition for obtaining an ID card.
Danon, a member of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, posted this message on his Facebook page:
I thought about the wording for the loyalty declaration bill: “I hereby declare my loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish Zionist and democratic state, and solemnly swear to maintain it values and not to engage in illegal acts against it or against any of its institutions.” I would love to hear your opinions.
Adherence to Zionist ideology a condition for obtaining an ID card
Meanwhile the right-wing website IsraelNationalNews.com quoted Danon explaining the purpose of his bill:
Loyalty to the State is something which should be obvious, but I’m afraid that in the current situation in the Arab sector loyalty has become rare, and in order to preserve this important value we’ll have to make it a condition that ID cards will be given in exchange for a declaration of loyalty to Israel.
The “Arab sector” refers to 1.4 million Palestinians who are survivors and descendants of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, who are nominally citizens of Israel but face extreme discrimination and diminished rights because they are non-Jews.
Danon’s bill is a thinly-veiled attempt to strip indigenous Palestinians forced to live under a state imposed on them by war and conquest of citizenship, quite possibly as a prelude to expelling them to ensure that Israel remains “Jewish.” After all, what kind of “democracy” can Israel be if it forces citizens to swear allegiance to a particular political ideology – Zionism – which negates the rights of those citizens and expresses the state’s racial hatred toward them and intolerance of their very existence?
Bombing Towards A Sectarian War?
Moon of Alabama | December 6, 2011
A bomb went off in Kabul today during a Shia Ashura mourning gathering. Some 55 people wwre killed and over 160 were wounded (video, graphic pictures). This happened near the Abdul Fazl shrine in Murad Khani, Kabul’s old city, and right in front of the Ministry of Defense and the palace. That area should be secure.
Another bomb went off at a Shiite gathering in Mazar-e-Sharif that killed four and injured 16 others today. Another blast took place in Kandahar city in southern Afghanistan, wounding 6 people, though it is not yet known if that one is related.
One source said the Pakistani militant group Sepah-e-Sahaba (also called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi) claimed responsibility for the Kabul blast. The group is known for sectarian killings in Pakistan but has up to now not been active in Afghanistan.
Indeed during the last years sectarian killings like this have been quite rare in Afghanistan. The attacks today seem intentionally designed to incite sectarian violence.
After the attack mourners chanted anti-US and anti-Pakistan slogans. In Mazar-e-Sharif a scuffle between Shia and Sunni students at the Mazar University turned violent. Five people were injured before the police intervened.
In an email to the media, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujaheed strongly condemned the bombing of Shiites in Kabul and Mazar and called them an act of their enemies. He blamed the “invaders” for the bombing and claimed they were designed to foment insecurity to extend the foreign presence.
These incidents remind me of the bombing of the al-Askari mosque in Samara, Iraq, in 2006. That bombing, done by people in Iraqi Special Forces uniforms, ignited a brutal sectarian civil war. Then the officials blamed Al-Qaeda in Iraq for that atrocity but others claimed that the U.S. was behind it.
As always the question that needs to be asked is: “Cui bono?”
Into who’s plans does this fit and who might believe they would benefit from an additional sectarian aspect in war in Afghanistan? Whoever it is is playing with fire.
Jerusalem lawmaker to be deported to Ramallah
Ma’an – 06/12/2011
Photographs depicting Palestinian lawmakers jailed by Israel are displayed
in the parliament building that was destroyed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza
City, January 29, 2009. (MaanImages/Wissam Nassar)
JERUSALEM – An Israeli military court on Tuesday ordered the deportation of a Palestinian lawmaker from Jerusalem to Ramallah, a statement from the Palestinian Legislative Council said.
Ahmad Attoun, a Jerusalemite, was detained in front of the offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem in September.
He had taken shelter in the ICRC building along with another Hamas legislator, Muhammad Abu Teir, and former PA minister Khalid Abu Arafa, after Israeli authorities revoked their Jerusalem residency permits.
In a statement issued in June 2010, after Israel ordered the men to leave Jerusalem, the three Hamas men wrote: “We as sons of Jerusalem have never left it before … we emphasize that we will remain here and never leave it.”
Hamas-affiliated Attoun was released from an Israeli jail in 2009, along with five other Palestinian lawmakers. He had been held for three years.
The ICRC has said it told Israeli authorities that international humanitarian law prohibited the forcible transfer of Palestinian residents from their homes.
Settler “professor” top attraction at EU-Israel science show
By David Cronin – The Electronic Intifada – 12/06/2011
A weapons inventor representing an illegal Israeli settlement will participate in an EU-sponsored conference on scientific research later this week.
Yitzhak Ben-Israel, a retired major-general, is among the speakers listed on the programme for Thursday’s event on “technology terrorism” in Brussels. He is a member of the board of trustees in Ariel University, which is located on occupied land in the West Bank. His resumé also states that he has headed the research divisions of both the Israeli military and its Ministry of Defense.
Although Israel is an active participant in the EU’s science programme, the Union says that firms and universities based in the settlements are not eligible for the programme’s research grants. So I asked the European Commission if it had any difficulties with Ben-Israel’s role in this week’s event, considering his links to Ariel. “To the best of our knowledge, Mr Ben-Israel does not have any direct role in the [‘technology terrorism’] project, apart from being a speaker at the workshop,” Carlo Corazza, a Commission spokesman, replied.
That lame response cannot be allowed to conceal how the EU is ingratiating itself with Israel’s military and political elite. Ben-Israel is regarded as an important strategist on “defense” issues and has received several awards for his work. He has been credited with developing a “C4 system” (to help commanders manage a range of operations) for the Israeli military, as well as Nautilus, a laser system designed to counteract the crude rockets that Hamas and other resistance groups have fired from Gaza and that Hezbollah have fired from Lebanon. Furthermore, he has served on the board of directors for Israel Aerospace Industries, a maker of warplanes used to slaughter Gaza civilians during Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009. And I almost forgot to add that he has been a member of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, for Kadima, the party set up by that mass murderer Ariel Sharon.
Selective focus on violence
Thursday’s event marks the culmination of a €1 million ($1.3 million) project called FESTOS (Foresight of Evolving Security Threats Posed by Emerging Technologies). While most of the money for FESTOS comes from the EU taxpayer, the project is being coordinated by Yair Sharan from Tel Aviv University.
In a newsletter published in February, Sharan said the aim of the project is to assess how “terrorists” are availing of technology and to recommend what policy measures should be taken in response. “New technological horizons are opened to individuals and groups who are ready to abuse technology to accomplish their evil purposes,” he wrote.
It is probably superfluous to add that the project is highly selective. It only examines violence perpetrated in response to oppression and not the routine violence of oppressor states like Israel.
Corazzo tried to justify the project by saying that “FESTOS is not about developing weapons.” He added that developing weapons is not allowed by the EU’s scientific research activities as they belong to a “civilian programme.”
Don’t be fooled by that assurance. No matter what EU officials say, the Union is helping to nurture a “security” industry in Israel that is inseparable from that country’s military and its crimes against humanity.
Last week The Financial Times published a feature about Israel’s technology prowess. It was a piece of thinly-veiled propaganda by the paper’s correspondent Tobias Buck, yet it nonetheless underscored how many of the big shots in Israel’s technology sector were trained in Unit 8200, an electronic espionage division of the Israeli military.
Israel is taking part in 800 EU research projects at the moment, with a total value of €4.3 billion. As a European taxpayer, I don’t recall ever being asked for permission to fund a war machine that is an affront to everything I believe in.
UNRWA: Israel’s displacement of Palestinians ‘doubles’
Ma’an – 06/12/2011
BETHLEHEM – The number of Palestinians displaced by Israeli demolitions this year has already more than doubled that of 2010, UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness said Monday.
Research by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees found that 990 people — including 507 children — have lost their homes so far this year, Gunness told Ma’an. In 2010, 445 people — including 235 children — were displaced by Israeli demolitions.
He said 515 Palestinian structures have been demolished in the West Bank this year, of which 22 were in East Jerusalem.
“The loss of a home in normal times is highly destabilizing, but in the context of occupation and annexation it often becomes lastingly traumatic, especially for children,” Gunness said.
“The United Nations calls on the Israeli authorities to abide by their obligations under international law, of which these displacements and demolitions are a clear violation.”
A report by the Diakonia resource center for international humanitarian law says Israel’s civil administration systematically destroys Palestinian structures built without Israeli permission in the 62 percent of the West Bank designated Area C under the Oslo Accords.
The destruction of any civilian object during occupation is prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations” and even then, only if the structure is used solely by militants, Diakonia says.
Dubious Dealings: Syria and the Arab League
By Sharmine Narwani | Al-Akhbar | December 5, 2011
The ongoing diplomatic tug of war between Syria and the Arab League took an unexpected turn Monday with rumors of a potential breakthrough. A positive outcome would signal a major political – not procedural – change of heart at the Arab League, whose earlier dealings with Syria showed little room for compromise.
Last week, the Arab League broke with its own charter for the second time this year, voting to impose far-reaching economic sanctions on member-state Syria, eight months after backing a no-fly zone over member-state Libya.
The charter, which was written in the early post-colonial period, placed great stock in the inviolability of “a state’s independence, sovereignty, or territorial integrity.”
Article V of the League’s charter clearly stipulates: “Any resort to force in order to resolve disputes between two or more member-states of the League is prohibited. If there should arise among them a difference which does not concern a state’s independence, sovereignty, or territorial integrity [my italics], and if the parties to the dispute have recourse to the Council for the settlement of this difference, the decision of the Council shall then be enforceable and obligatory.”
A recently-departed senior Arab League official told me: “We have taken strong measures before only in relation to foreign policy issues or disputes between Arab countries. But on these last two occasions, this is a historic departure in relation to the practice of the Arab League. For the first time measures were taken against an Arab country because of its internal situation – the way a government is treating its own people.”
He continued, “When people are dying I don’t care about reconciling this with the charter – that’s my priority. If there are legal issues that contravene, I’m happy to bend them.”
But what about the tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered in member-state Somalia this year alone, with nary a peep from the Arab League? Or of the League’s non-intervention policy in Yemen and Bahrain, where protests continue to this day?
So why did the League single out Syria for sanctions?
Ostensibly, it is because Damascus refused an Arab League observer mission to Syria, but that is not exactly true. The Syrians counter-proposed a series of amendments to the mission “Protocol” to accommodate their sovereignty concerns. It was the League that rejected these outright on November 27, although they appear to have reopened negotiations quietly in the past few days.
Consider this: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – now effectively at the helm of Syrian issues in the Arab League – spent seven months negotiating an exit for the despotic Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Saleh.
When asked about double-standards in the treatment of Syria versus other Arab member-states, the recently-departed senior League official admitted, “I think the position taken by the Arab countries in relation with Bahrain is a very sad one – we should have been more firm.”
On Yemen however, his response was curious, “Yemen – it is being handled by the GCC, and doesn’t need the Arab League’s help right now.”
But the same players refused to spend even seven days on Syria. The League dropped the sanctions gauntlet a mere three days after Syria offered its amended proposal, claiming these would “affect the core of the document and would radically change the nature of the mission.”
But is that true? Would Syria’s amendments sink the project as some League members alleged?
Much ado has been made about Syria’s amendments in Arab League statements, but other than a brief reference to a couple of provisions in Al-Hayat newspaper, these have not been made public.
Below is a much more comprehensive outline of Syria’s counter-proposal obtained from a well-connected, non-Syrian source. There is little in the document that could not have been negotiated to accommodate both Syria’s desire to maintain sovereignty in this process and the Arab League’s determination to carry out its mission:
Syria’s Amendments to the Arab League Monitoring Mission (November 2011)
Clause I
“An independent mission is to be formed, composed of Arab military and civilian personnel nominated by Arab states and organizations involved in human rights and the provision of protection to civilians, to be sent to the Syrian Arab Republic. It will be known as the Arab League Monitoring Mission and operate within its framework. It is assigned with monitoring implementation of the Arab plan for resolving the Syrian crisis and providing protection to Syrian civilians.”Syrian amendment:
“An independent Mission is to be formed, composed of Arab military and civilian personnel nominated by Arab states, to be sent to the Syrian Arab Republic. It will be known as the Arab League Monitoring Mission and operate within its framework. It is assigned with monitoring implementation of the clauses of the Arab plan for resolving the current crisis in Syria. The Syrian side will be provided with a list comprising the names, status, ranks and nationalities of the Mission’s members.”
Clause II
“The Mission will start work immediately after Syria signs this Protocol. It will initially dispatch a delegation consisting of the Head of the Mission and an adequate number of monitors (between 30 and 50), supported by an appropriate number of administrative staff and sufficient security personnel to provide personal protection to members of the Mission.”
Syrian amendment:
“The Mission will start work immediately after Syria signs this Protocol. It will initially dispatch a delegation consisting of the Head of the Mission and an adequate number of monitors, supported by an appropriate number of administrative staff.”
Clause II – Subclause
“The number of monitors will be determined by the Head of the Mission, in consultation with the Secretary-General, in accordance with his assessment of the Mission’s requirements to perform its task of monitoring the Syrian government’s compliance with its commitments to protecting civilians in the fullest manner. The Secretary-General may call on technical assistance and observers from Arab, Islamic and friendly states in carrying out the tasks assigned to the Mission.”
Syrian amendment:
“The number of monitors will be determined by the Head of the Mission, in consultation with the Secretary-General and in coordination with Syria, in accordance with his assessment of the Mission’s requirements in performing its task of monitoring the Syrian government’s compliance with its commitments in the fullest manner. The Secretary-General may call on technical assistance and observers from Arab states in carrying out the tasks assigned to the Mission.”
Clause III, Subclause 3
“To verify the release of those detained due to the current events.”
Syrian amendment:
“To verify the phased release of those detained due to the current events who were not involved in crimes of murder or acts of sabotage.”
Clause III, Subclause 4
“To confirm the withdrawal and evacuation of military and armed forces from cities and residential areas which witnessed, or are witnessing, demonstrations and protests.”
Syrian amendment:
“To confirm the withdrawal and evacuation of military and armed forces from cities and residential areas.”
Clause III, Subclause 7
“The Mission will have full freedom of movement, and the freedom to make whatever visits or contacts it considers appropriate, in relation to matters pertaining to its tasks and modus operandi with regard to the provision of protection for civilians.”
Syrian amendment:
“The Mission will have full freedom of movement, and the freedom to make whatever visits or contacts it considers appropriate, in relation to matters pertaining to its tasks and modus operandi, in coordination with the Syrian side.”
Clause IV, Subclause 2
“Access and freedom of movement will be granted to all members of the Mission to all parts of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic at the times specified by the Mission.”
Syrian amendment:
“Access and freedom of movement will be granted to all members of the Mission in coordination with the Syrian side.”
Clause IV, Subclause 5
“To guarantee that no person, or member of their family, will be punished, harassed or compromised — in any form whatsoever — as a result of having contact with the Mission or providing it with testimony or information.”
Syrian amendment:
“To guarantee that no person will be punished or subjected to pressure — in any form whatsoever — as a result of having contact with the Mission or providing it with testimony or information.”
In addition, the Syrian government wanted the following two points added to the Protocol:
1.“This protocol is valid for two months from the date of signature, renewable with the consent of both sides”
2. “The Syrian government will not incur any financial costs as a result of the Mission performing its task.”
If some of these provisions were problematic, the Syrian authorities seemed willing to find a possible compromise. When Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem contacted Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby a few months back, it was “to try to gain some time to find a way out of this crisis,” according to a Syrian source.
A senior Arab League official who would not speak on the record, claims that the Syria initiative was steered away from its original form by “some of the ministers who didn’t like the direction and started dictating certain ideas that they knew Syria would not accept.”
Qatar, whose Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani chairs the Arab League’s committee on Syria, could have produced a more constructive outcome, if it wished.
Instead, says the official, the “Protocol” to create a League observer delegation was forwarded with an “ultimatum” in a short time, which we have never experienced in the history of diplomacy at the Arab League.
Why not do this right? This is needed not only for Syria – why not a plan for everywhere in the region?”
“The whole process was meant to gain a refusal, to move to the second stage of this game,” warns the official.
What is this next stage? Al-Thani himself may have offered that answer when he hinted that the League could seek international intervention “if the Syrians do not take us seriously.”
Nobody is guiding the Arab League’s actions today more than this one-man Qatari show.
Qatar stands out as the one Arab nation to have formulated a proactive plan to deal with these revolts. It has thrown money, clout and military force behind ensuring desirable outcomes. So far its goal appears to be two-fold: backing Islamists to replace secular regimes, and thwarting the influence of all other competing regional power centers while it goes about its plans.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, its long-term rival in the Persian Gulf, the tiny Emirate kingdom is not trying to thwart change at all. Rather, it is proactively leading a selective strategy to remake the wider Middle East in its own image.
The Arabic-language press was agog with the tongue-lashing Al-Thani delivered his Algerian counterpart at a Syria-related Arab League meeting on November 12:
“Stop defending Syria because when your turn comes you may need us!” he allegedly roared at Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci when the latter registered an objection.
Yet the Qatari PM managed to feign regret in public when he announced last weekend, “Today, we are very sad to hold such a meeting as the Syrian government has not signed the observer mission.”
The League needs to start as it means to continue. Consistent, lawful and devoid of double standards.We are witnessing a dangerous willingness in the global political elite to circumvent rule of law, territorial integrity and sovereignty to jostle for positioning in the new emerging Middle East order.
Tolerating aerial bombardment of civilians by foreign forces and dragging the body of a deposed head of state through the streets are an indication of creeping lawlessness – much of which appears to be tacitly accepted by the “international community.”
This is unquestionably a new era in the Arab League. The organization is being thrust into a regional decision making role – without any history of competence or effectiveness – during a time when the Arab world is experiencing seismic shifts. Is the Arab League capable of rising to this challenge? Or will it remain an institution that rubber-stamps the policies of its most powerful members?
~
Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.
UN Watch statement on Syrian human rights situation reveals pro-Israel motivation
By Maidhc Ó Cathail | The Passionate Attachment | December 6, 2011
In a December 2 letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Watch wrote that
the Security Council must end its shocking silence on Syria’s atrocities. It must take urgent action to protect the civilian population before thousands more are beaten, tortured and killed.
A few lines later, the NGO undermined its purported concern for Syrian civilians when it condemned the UN Human Rights Council for
its policy of supporting Syria’s cynical and transparent ploy each year to condemn Israel for alleged violations of human rights, which should not be repeated this March.
The letter did not mention, however, that UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, a key component of the Israel lobby.
In February, the pro-Israel NGO organised 70 non-governmental organisations to send letters to President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
Clearly buoyed by that “humanitarian” success in North Africa, UN Watch is now determined to “protect” Israel’s nearer Arab neighbours.
Nuclear experts reject IAEA Iran report
Press TV – December 6, 2011
Several nuclear experts have repudiated the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program, saying it is misinformed, misleading and merely a hype created by the media, Press TV reports.
In its November 8 report, the IAEA accused Tehran of activities aimed at developing nuclear weapons before 2003 and speculated that these activities “may still be ongoing”.
Robert Kelley, former IAEA director and nuclear engineer, says he was “quite surprised” by the lack of new information in the report, further stressing that the report is “highly misleading.”
Kelley says the IAEA report draws its material from a single source, a laptop computer. The laptop, he says, was allegedly supplied to the IAEA by a Western intelligence agency, “whose provenance could not be established.”
Tehran has rejected the report as “unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure by mostly the United States.”
“There is nothing (in the IAEA report) that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb,” says Greg Thielmann, former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst.
“Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report,” Thielmann adds.
On Saturday, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said the IAEA report bore greater resemblance to a “PR exercise than a serious nuclear effort.”
Churkin cited the manner in which the report “was played up in the media and then leaked to the press, containing very little information,” about Iran’s nuclear program, as proof of this public relations maneuver.
In its November 18 resolution against the Islamic Republic, the IAEA Board of Governors voiced “deep and increasing concern” about Tehran’s nuclear program, and called on Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear energy program.
The resolution, however, stopped short of reporting Iran to the UN Security Council or setting Tehran a deadline to comply.
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program and have used this pretext to push for the imposition of sanctions as well as to call for an attack on the country.
Iran, however, refutes such allegations as “baseless” and maintains that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the IAEA, it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but has never found any evidence indicating that Iran’s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.