Saudi Arabia top buyer of UK arms in 5 years: Report
Press TV – January 7, 2016
The UK has licensed the sales of over eight billion dollars of military hardware to Saudi Arabia since British Prime Minister David Cameron took office in May 2010.
According to the latest figures released by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) NGO, since Cameron was elected almost six years ago, Britain has also sold arms to 24 of the 27 states on its own list of “countries of humanitarian concern,” The Independent reported on Wednesday.
Apart from Riyadh’s ongoing purchase of the 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, which are worth over six billion dollars at completion, major licenses worth over two billion dollars including Hawk fighter jets, bombs, guns and tear gas were sold to Saudi Arabia during the said period.
Based on the figures released by CAAT, the Saudis have access to twice the number of British-made warplanes than the Royal Air force has.
CAAT spokesperson Andrew Smith noted that the amount of arms sales to countries on the list, especially Saudi Arabia, shows that “human rights are playing second fiddle to company profits.”
He went on to say that the income from arms sales “is being put over the rights of people being executed and tortured. It’s completely inconsistent to condemn these regimes while signing off on billion-pound arms deals.”
“Two-thirds of UK arms exports go to the Middle East, and that’s unlikely to change. We know that Saudi Arabia is arming a number of groups in and around Syria, but we’ve no idea what weapons are being sent there. Once a weapon enters a war zone there’s no such thing as arms control,” Smith added.
Cameron has been under pressure to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia which faces massive criticism from the international community for launching an unabated war against impoverished Yemen, its growing number of beheading and other forms of execution, cracking down on political dissidents and the most recent atrocity of the mass execution of Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and 46 other people.
In October last year, during an interview with the UK’s Channel 4, Cameron suggested that London’s “relationship” with the Saudi Arabia supersedes its human rights record.
The Disingenuous Apologies for Israel’s Assault on Palestinian Education
By Matt Peppe | Just the Facts | January 6, 2016
As the American Historical Association (AHA) prepares to vote this week on a symbolic resolution that affirms support for the right to education in the occupied Palestinian territories, apologists for the Israeli regime’s policies against Palestinians are putting forward nonsensical rationalizations for their opposition to the measure. Writing in History News Network, University of Maryland History Professor Jeffrey Herf essentially argues that his profession has no practical value: “as historians we have neither the knowledge nor expertise to evaluate conflicting factual assertions about events in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.”
If historians should not evaluate the veracity of factual assertions about an issue then what exactly is the use of historical studies? To merely compile and organize documents? Surely a historian’s job involves analytical — in addition to technical — skills. And surely their methods include empirical analysis – no different than a scientist testing a theory. If someone says the earth is round but another person says the earth is flat, that doesn’t mean the scientist should throw his hands up in the air and say “as scientists we have neither the knowledge nor expertise to evaluate conflicting factual assertions.”
Historians analyzing political questions use the same principles as scientists testing a theory. Take, for example, conflicting accounts of the actions of the Belgians under King Leopold in the Congo near the end of the 19th century. Leopold claimed he treated the Congolese people benevolently as part of his “Christian duty” to help the poor. Others claimed Leopold’s forces were engaged in the systematic plunder of resources carried out through massive violence. They described women held hostage by Belgian forces to force Congolese men to engage in involuntary labor, with the hands of those who did not produce enough rubber for the colonists cut off and kept as trophies.
According to Herf’s axiom, historians would not have the ability to distinguish between these competing claims. It would be outside the scope of the historical vocation to evaluate the available evidence and reach a conclusion about the truth.
In the Congo, the African American historian George Washington Williams worked tirelessly to document the true condition of the local population under Belgian rule. As Adam Hochschild explains in his book King Leopold’s Ghost, Williams’s insistence on questioning the official narrative enabled him to uncover and expose the brazen lies meant to cover up the genocidal destruction of an entire society for the material enrichment of a tyrant.
“Williams was a pioneer among American historians in the use of nontraditional sources. He sensed what most academics only began to acknowledge nearly a hundred years later: that in writing the history of powerless people, drawing on conventional, published sources is far from enough,” Hochschild writes.
Much like the Belgian regime in the Congo more than a century ago, the state of Israel today covers up its crimes against Palestinians by denial, deflection and counter-accusations. They rely on the support of apologists in media, government, civil society, and academia to side with authority by accepting their justifications at face value.
Herf writes that “(i)t is fair to insist that where there is an indictment, we must pay attention to the case for the defense.” Absolutely true. But we must pay attention to the evidence for the case itself, not merely conclude that the existence of a defense means there is no way to draw a conclusion about the facts.
Herf requested a response from the Israeli Embassy on accusations presented in the AHA resolution. Among their claims are that the movement of faculty, staff and visitors in the West Bank are not limited except occasionally because “Palestinian universities periodically serve as sites of violence and incitement.”
The evidence is overwhelming that movement in the West Bank is severely limited and adversely impacts education. A UN report found that checkpoints, settler violence, and long commutes present risks to West Bank students. Another UN report documented 542 obstacles to movement in the West Bank. Students from Gaza are denied permission to study in the West Bank, a policy that has been criticized by Amnesty International. The policy has been endorsed by Israel’s High Court. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have raided West Bank universities. Visiting academics are denied entry to the West Bank. After arbitrarily being denied entry to deliver several lectures there, world-renowned scholar Noam Chomsky compared his treatment by Israeli authorities to that of Stalinist regimes.
There is no evidence presented, however, to support the claim that Palestinian universities serve as sites of violence and incitement.
Herf also quotes the Israeli Embassy defending their bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza (IUG) in 2014 during Operation Protective Edge “not because it was a university but because it was used by the terrorist organization Hamas to manufacture and fire rockets at Israeli civilians.”
First, it should be noted that Hamas is not recognized as a terrorist organization by the United Nations. The description carries exactly as much weight as Hamas calling the Israeli regime a terrorist organization. But that is beside the point. The accusation is that Hamas used the university to make and fire rockets.
The source provided for this claim is “Israeli military intelligence officials.” After the bombing, the IDF claimed to target a “weapons development center” within the university. This is a predictable accusation. The IDF made similar accusations after bombing the same university in 2008. A UN report on that conflict “did not find any information about their use as a military facility or their contribution to a military effort that might have made them a legitimate target.”
Rami Almeghari, who teaches journalism at IUG, noted in the Electronic Intifada that the university is not run by Hamas or any other political party. Students and faculty, like those at any higher educational institutional, have varied political affiliations. Many others, like himself, belong to no party.
“Contrary to what Israel claims,” Almeghari writes, “Gaza universities do not have departments dedicated to military research or training. This is in contrast to Israeli universities which play an integral role in the military occupation and weapons development and have actively promoted the onslaught in Gaza.”
None of the Israeli government’s accusations are substantiated by anything other than its own word – which should be treated with the same skepticism as any criminal defendant pleading his innocence. On the other hand, a mountain of evidence from independent sources (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UNESCO, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Institute for Middle East Understanding, B’Tselem, etc.) supports the accusations in the AHA resolution.
The idea that evaluating contrasting factual assertions and reaching a judgment is outside the scope of a historian’s profession is asinine. This notion is beneficial for the propagation of state propaganda, but devastating for the advancement of human rights, including the right to education.
Saudis Pursuing Deliberate Policy of Provoking Crisis With Iran
Sputnik – 07.01.2016
WASHINGTON — On January 2, Riyadh executed top Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, inciting a response in Tehran, where the Saudi embassy was stormed by protestors. On Monday, Saudi Arabia formerly severed diplomatic ties with Iran.
“After the execution of Nimr al-Nimr one would have expected Iran to suspend diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia,” New York-based foreign affairs analyst Joe Lauria told Sputnik. “The fact that it was the other way around indicates this was a well-thought-out provocation by Riyadh.”
US author and Middle East historian Gareth Porter agreed that Riyadh appeared to be following one provocation to Tehran after another.
“I would simply underline the fact that the Saudis are deliberately precipitating a crisis in the hope that it will force the United States to be more anti-Iran. I doubt that it will work,” Porter told Sputnik.
Lauria argued that Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz and his son, 30-year-old Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman, had led the country into a series of stinging foreign policy humiliations and failures and were seeking to distract public attention by provoking a crisis with Iran.
“It appears that the failure of the Saudis to win in Yemen, the reversal of the fortunes of the extremists it backs in Syria after the Russian intervention, and above all the Iranian nuclear deal have put the Saudi leadership, particularly the young defense minister, under extreme pressure.”
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is also second in line to the throne as deputy crown prince, threw his own prestige into the war in Yemen and is now gambling with even higher stakes in taking acts calculated to enrage the Iranians, Lauria noted.
“He cannot afford to lose ‘his’ war in Yemen. So Sunnis are being riled up against Iran and Iranian-back Shia in what looks like a reckless gambit to maintain its regional influence,” the analyst said.
Saudi Arabia’s growing economic crisis caused by the global slump in oil prices was also a factor in motivating the policy of confrontation, Lauria suggested.
“Some analysts are saying that this is about a faltering economy and a need to distract the population from a reduction of pay outs that have kept them in line over the decades.”
The entire Middle East was likely to suffer from Riyadh’s rejection of efforts to build diplomatic bridges to Tehran, Lauria warned.
“This is all the more disturbing because last month high-level talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia were announced-now no doubt canceled. Without a Saudi-Iranian accommodation crises across the region from Lebanon to Yemen will remain on the boil.”
Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan joined Saudi Arabia in cutting all their diplomatic ties with Iran on Monday.
“Commercial ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran are nowhere near what they are between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If you see the Emirates suspend [its ties] to Iran, then we know this is a major provocation by the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC),” Lauria added.
Porter predicted that because of Washington’s inability to rein in the Saudis, the crisis was likely to get steadily worse.
“After these Saudi provocations, [relations] will become no doubt worse. How much worse is anyone’s guess… but I also have little hope that [US President Barack] Obama is capable of forcing the issue of irresponsible and destructive Saudi behavior with Riyadh.”
In December, Riyadh and Tehran announced they would hold high-level talks to try and improve relations, but those negotiations would probably become a casualty of the new escalating tensions, Porter advised.
Iran censures ‘deliberate’ Saudi raid on mission in Sana’a
Press TV – January 7, 2016
Iran has roundly condemned a “deliberate” air raid by Saudi warplanes on its embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, which injured a number of security forces guarding the diplomatic mission.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari said Thursday the Saudi attack on Tehran’s embassy is a “violation of all conventions and international regulations” in protecting diplomatic missions under all circumstances.
Late on Wednesday, Saudi fighter jets, which have been engaged in a bombing campaign against Yemen since March 2015, targeted Iran’s embassy in Sana’a, damaging the mission’s building and wounding the security forces guarding the place.
The Saudi military has said it will launch an investigation into the issue.
Jaberi Ansari further said the Islamic Republic holds the Saudi regime responsible for the damage caused by the airstrike, emphasizing, “It is clear that Tehran reserves the right to follow up on this issue.”
This is not the first time that Saudi warplanes target the Iranian mission in the Yemeni capital.
Last June, Iran sent a letter to the UN Security Council to inform the 15-nation body that Riyadh’s air forces had pounded areas near Tehran’s embassy in the Yemeni capital twice during a period of two months.
The Iranian diplomatic mission’s compound suffered severe damage during the bombings on May 25, 2015, which was followed a similar attack on April 20 the same year.
The latest developments come as tensions have been running high between Tehran and Riyadh after Saudi Arabia decided to break off diplomatic relations with Iran, which strongly criticized the kingdom’s execution on January 2 of prominent opposition cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr.
Sheikh Nimr’s killing came despite international calls on Riyadh to revoke the death sentence handed down in 2014 to the prominent religious figure, sparking angry anti-Saudi protest rallies in several countries around the world, including Iran.
When the news of Sheikh Nimr’s death broke out, angry Iranian protesters held demonstrations in front of the Saudi embassy in Tehran and its consulate in the northeastern city of Mashhad on January 2, censuring the Al Saud regime for the crime.
During the demonstrations, some people mounted the walls of the consulate in Mashhad, while incendiary devices were hurled at the embassy in Tehran.
Some 50 people were detained over the transgression, with senior Iranian officials, including President Hassan Rouhani, criticizing the violence and vowing a firm response to any violations of law.
However, Riyadh severed diplomatic relations with Tehran after the incident.
President Rouhani has said Riyadh’s move to cut diplomatic relations with Tehran was aimed at covering up the failure of its regional policies and undermining peace in the region.
CrossTalk: Saudi’s World
January 6, 2016
Saudi Arabia’s foreign and domestic policies are becoming much more aggressive, even deadly.
What is driving Riyadh’s agendas? The Saudis appear to desire a greater and more independent role in the Middle East. Where does the Kingdom’s most powerful backer – Washington – stand? And what about fighting the Islamic State?
CrossTalking with Alex Vatanka, Pete Hoekstra, and Mohammad Marandi.
Newly expanded Shuhada checkpoint is even more difficult to traverse
International Solidarity Movement | January 6, 2015
Al-Khalil, Occupied Palestine – At the end of December Israeli forces re-opened the newly expanded Shuhada checkpoint in occupied al-Khalil (Hebron). The checkpoint had been closed since December 7th, when Israeli forces had declared they would be conducting “renovations” for a then-unknown period of time.
Officially known as Checkpoint 56, Shuhada checkpoint separates Bab al-Zawiye, a Palestinian neighborhood in the H1 (nominally Palestinian-controlled and administered) part of al-Khalil and Tel Rumeida, part of Israeli military-controlled H2 and currently covered in part by a closed military zone order first issued on November 1st.

Palestinian family leaving Tel Rumeida, crossing toward Bab al-Zawiye
The checkpoint was rebuilt with a high fence blocking the entire street and additional turnstiles and metal detectors. The turnstiles make it very difficult for anyone carrying heavy, bulky luggage or even several bags of groceries to pass. Israeli authorities also added a completely closed off room in the center of the checkpoint, where Palestinians are questioned and searched entirely out of site of any onlookers, media, or human rights monitors.
As in previous versions of the checkpoint, there is no possibility for any car or truck – even an ambulance responding to an emergency – to pass; any vehicle larger than a baby carriage must take a time-consuming detour in order to enter or leave Tel Rumeida.

Shuhada checkpoint as seen from a nearby window in Bab al-Zawiye, an imposing barrier Palestinian families living in Tel Rumeida must navigate
The new checkpoint has already become a flashpoint for Israeli military aggression against Palestinians, which includes the arrest of 38-year-old Wafa’ Sharabati on Monday afternoon by Israeli forces who first claimed she had a discrepancy in her ID then accused her of being a troublemaker and threatened to plant a knife on her. Wafa’s family and local activists staged a sit-in outside Shuhada checkpoint to protest her treatment and the continued humiliation and harassment faced by Palestinians forced to endure the checkpoint and the closed military zone.

Wafa Sharabati’s family staged a sit-in awaiting her release

A large group of local activists and residents gathered after Wafa’s arrest in front of the checkpoint, which has has been the site of countless demonstrations against the Israeli occupation of al-Khalil

He never fired, but this Israeli soldier spent much of Monday afternoon on the roof of Shuhada checkpoint, prepared to attack nonviolent Palestinian demonstrators with potentially deadly rubber-coated metal bullets
A sign on the H1 side of the checkpoint explains the protocols for passing through: metal detector, bag search, no animals allowed through, checkpoint closed if there are any clashes. The 4th instruction reads “wait until the soldier will allow you to pass.” Sometimes people can pass in six minutes; sometimes they must wait for over an hour, outside and exposed to any weather, before being allowed to pass the few meters of turnstiles, metal detectors, fences and walls between them and the streets leading to their homes.

Lines on Monday evening left many, including young children, waiting for nearly half an hour in the cold night. Only Palestinians who are registered in the closed military zone can ever pass through the checkpoint; family members of residents, journalists, human rights defenders and internationals have all been barred. Even Palestinians who are registered have reported being forced to wait for over an hour only to be harassed and threatened by the soldiers inside the checkpoint.

Activists have planned another protest for Thursday morning to continue the struggle against the closed military zone, the even harsher regime at the newly reopened checkpoint, and the continued closure and Israeli military occupation of al-Khalil.
Are ankle bracelets really an alternative to incarceration, or just another kind of prison?
PrivacySOS | January 4, 2015
Everyone is talking about how to end mass incarceration: the right, the left, presidential candidates, Black Lives Matter activists. But what comes after a prison-centric society? Some, including business interests that would profit from such a shift, think GPS bracelets are a sound alternative to locking people in physical cages. But is electronic monitoring really so different from prison?
Not according to the Center for Media Justice and James Kilgore, respectively publisher and author of a 2015 report: “Electronic Monitoring is Not the Answer: Critical Reflections on a Flawed Alternative.”
Kilgore told the Daily Beast that while wearing an ankle bracelet is better than being in prison, we shouldn’t look to GPS monitoring to solve the problems in our criminal punishment system. “You can be sent back to prison for getting back to your house five minutes late when the bus breaks down,” Kilgore said, naming just one of many strict release conditions that can make ankle bracelets seem like electronic recidivism devices.
Putting people on electronic leashes instead of in jails or prisons is problematic for many reasons. Electronic monitoring shifts the burden of paying for incarceration onto the individual and the family, away from the state. The conditions imposed on people wearing bracelets are often so strict that people soon go back to prison for violations that have nothing to do with whether someone is a danger to the community—or they never leave their homes because they are terrified of committing such a violation, even accidentally. Bracelets act as a sort of scarlet letter, signifying to people in the community that the wearer may not be a trustworthy employee or neighbor.
And because the terms and conditions of electronic monitoring punishments can be so severe, sentencing people to wear ankle bracelets in place of serving prison sentences may actually increase the number of people in prison. That’s because, for example, a judge may sentence someone to electronic monitoring that later, because of impossibly strict conditions, leads to incarceration, when community service would have been a viable alternative sentence in the first place.
Electronic monitoring also produces huge quantities of sensitive information about people required to wear the devices everywhere they go, and the market that governs the technology companies is nearly entirely unregulated. As the Intercept reported in late 2015, companies that profit off of the prison industrial complex are historically not the best at securing sensitive information about the incarcerated people who are required to use their services. We should not trust that the huge quantities of sensitive information generated about people subjected to state control will remain secure or won’t be abused.
Thinking of ankle bracelets or other electronic monitoring as “alternatives” to prison is dangerous because these methods are cheaper than caging people, meaning the government could very easily place many more people under these systems of control without feeling the fiscal pinch.
So what should we do?
Instead of creating virtual prisons, we must rethink our entire justice system—including what constitutes a crime, and whether we want to enact vengeance or seek rehabilitation for people who commit crimes. Ending the drug war is a great start. We can and must also end mandatory minimums, radically restructure our sentencing guidelines, and take a hard look at our criminal statutes.
Ultimately, we must decrease the number of people under carceral control in the United States. If that’s the goal, electronic surveillance schemes aren’t only false alternatives—they may very well create an entirely new problem that will grind on for decades until the country finally wakes up to realize its mistake. By that point, because GPS bracelets are so much cheaper for the state than prisons, we may all be wearing them.
DHS releases best practices for government drone use, says nothing about warrants
PrivacySOS | January 4, 2015
In late December 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its “Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Unmanned Aircraft Systems Working Group” best practices recommendations for government drone use. The 11 page document does not contain the word “warrant,” nor any recommendations to federal, state, or local law enforcement about getting judicial approval to use drones to monitor people.
The best practices DHS offers mostly concern basic data security issues, including recommendations to delete data when it’s not needed, to limit collection where possible, to be (a little—not too) transparent with the public about drone acquisitions and operations, to avoid mission creep, and to refrain from spying on people based on their political views or protected class alone.
Those are all good things, but these recommendations are just that—suggestions. The document isn’t legally binding. And it completely avoids tackling a very important issue: judicial oversight and approval of police drone use. There’s little chance that congress will pass legislation mandating that police get warrants to use drones any time soon, so the responsibility for filling in the gap falls to state legislatures and courts.
While at least 20 states have passed laws to regulate drones, many of them don’t put any restrictions on law enforcement. Maine and Virginia require police to acquire warrants before deploying drones in most circumstances. The Drone Privacy Act in Massachusetts would require that police get a warrant before spying on us with drones, and ban the use of weaponized drones among state and local law enforcement.
US Refuses to Accept Nuclear North Korea – State Department
Sputnik – 06.01.2016
WASHINGTON — According to the US Department of State, Washington refuses to accept North Korea as a nuclear state.
The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state and will respond to provocations, US Department of State spokesman John Kirby said in a statement as North Korea announced it had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb.
”North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006 and, until today, has done so twice since, but we have consistently made clear that we will not accept it as a nuclear state,” Kirby said.
”We will continue to protect and defend our allies in the region, including the Republic of Korea, and will respond appropriately to any and all North Korean provocations,” he added.
In 2003, Pyongyang withdrew from the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a deal meant to prevent the making and use of nuclear weapons.
On December 10, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said that North Korea had a hydrogen bomb and was ready to use it to protect its sovereignty.


