Motor Racing And Gallery Motor

This gem from Victor Grossman in Berlin, appears in today's Morning Star:

News flash: The descendants of Long John Silver and Captain Flint have put in claims for damages.

As they pointed out, it was the passengers and crew of the ships captured who were the criminals since it was they who had beaten the men with knives and iron bars. It was necessary for the men to shoot and kill some of the attackers, acting in self-defence. To determine the facts they were willing to let a commission of impartial buccaneers decide.

Have I been dreaming after seeing a Johnny Depp film, or perhaps just watching the news?


Meanwhile, the UN Security Council prepares to vote on a US-backed plan for imposing swingeing new sanctions, not on serial international law breaking, nuclear-armed Israel, but on a Middle Eastern country which hasn’t attacked anyone and has no nuclear weapons. You really couldn’t make it up could you?

UDATE: Shamefully, the UN Security Council has just imposed fresh sanctions on Iran on account of its non-existent nuclear weapons programme. Bravo to Turkey and Brazil for voting against this nonsense.

0 comments

This article of mine appears in The First Post.

In an attack which shocked Tel Aviv by the harshness of its tone, Switzerland has accused Israel of wantonly destroying Palestinian homes in east Jerusalem and near Ramallah in violation of the Geneva Convention's rules on military occupation.

It's arguably the strongest condemnation of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians to come from any western European country since Charles de Gaulle famously attacked the "oppression, repression and expulsions" of Palestinians by Israel over 40 years ago. And it's come from a country that's not exactly famous for making strong condemnations.

The statement last Thursday from the Swiss Foreign Ministry said that Switzerland - the guardian of the Geneva Convention - regards the "recent incidents", under which scores of Palestinian homes have been destroyed by Israeli bulldozers, as "violations of international humanitarian law" and claimed there was "no military need to justify the destruction of these houses". In addition, the Swiss called east Jerusalem an "integral part of the occupied Palestinian territory" - a statement sure to inflame hard-line Zionists who regard the entire city as belonging to Israel.

The Swiss attack on Israeli actions might surprise some, but it is only the latest incident in a rising 'cold war' between the Alpine republic and the Jewish state. Earlier this year, Israel summoned Swiss Ambassador Walter Haffner to its Foreign Ministry offices in Jerusalem to protest against Switzerland's signing of a multi-billion dollar energy deal with Iran.

So incensed were Zionists when Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey wore a headscarf and was pictured smiling and joking with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, that the Anti-Defamation League placed a series of advertisements in various national newspapers - including Swiss ones - which claimed that Switzerland's energy deal with Iran made Switzerland the "world's newest sponsor of terrorism". Calmy-Rey reacted angrily to Israel's criticism, saying that Switzerland was "an independent country that has its own strategic interests to defend".

It's possible to trace the deterioration of Swiss-Israeli relations to 1998, when Israel was compelled to write a formal letter of apology to Switzerland after five Mossad agents were caught trying to install surveillance equipment in an apartment in Berne in order to bug a Swiss citizen whom Mossad believed was linked to Hezbollah.

In the intervening period Switzerland has become an increasingly vocal champion of the Palestinian cause. As the Middle East conflict escalated, the country even halted all arms sales and military co-operation with Israel for three years in 2002. Earlier this year, Switzerland was among the 30 countries who voted in support of the UN Human Rights Council resolution that condemned Israel for "grave violations of the human and humanitarian rights of the Palestinian civilians living in Gaza".

It wasn't always like this. The Swiss-Israeli war of words is ironic given the fact that the world's very first Zionist congress was held in Basle in 1897 - and that 15 of the first 22 Zionist Congresses were held in Switzerland.

The Swiss condemnation of Israel today may be dismissed by some as having little global importance, but there are good reasons why Israel ought to be concerned. As guarantor of the Geneva Convention, Switzerland has the power to call meetings of the treaty's signatories if it finds problems with its implementation - something which would be very embarrassing for Israel.

And while it's one thing for Israel to be condemned by countries with a poor human rights record such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia - it's quite another for it to be criticised by a country whose record is beyond reproach. The fact that Switzerland - the home of the Red Cross - has not been involved in a military conflict for 200 years, gives the country a moral authority that many others lack.

Switzerland's independent line on Middle East issues also shows the advantage of maintaining national sovereignty in an age where most countries in Europe have surrendered important decision making powers to the EU. While other countries in Europe have been cajoled, under US and British influence, to moderate their criticisms of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and to agree to swingeing sanctions on Iran - non-EU Switzerland is free to make its own decisions and to say what it thinks about Israeli actions.

It helps, too, that Switzerland is rich enough to follow its own path, without fear of retribution. On this issue, Israel has come up against a state which truly is beholden to nobody.

0 comments

The Guardian reports:

One of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante".

Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general's defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed.

Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief".

Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, Bingham said: "If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.

Of course Lord Bingham is right. The Iraq war was blatantly illegal, as I have always maintained. But it's not good enough, five years on, to merely state that the war was unlawful.

We need to make sure that the perpetrators of the war- namely George W. Bush and Tony Bliar- a man who is millions of pounds richer because of the conflict-and the neocon men and women who planned it, are bought to justice. The Nuremburg judgements held that to launch a war of aggression is the 'supreme international crime'- and it is obscene that five years on, those responsible for this outrageous crime- which has led to the deaths of up to 1m people, are still at liberty.

Furthermore, it's also important too that those journalists and writers, who propagandised for an attack on Iraq- in contravention of international law- are also are held accountable for their actions. The trial of Julius Streicher after WW2 sets the precedent.

0 comments

They're at it again. You know: the country that thinks it's above international law and believes it has the right to bomb, threaten and bully anyone who doesn't tow the line.

Yesterday, four US aircraft travelled eight miles inside Syrian airspace from Iraq and killed eight unarmed civilians on a farm.

The Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said those who died were a father and his three children, a farm guard and his wife, and a fisherman.

"We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government," Muallem told reporters following talks with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband. "All of them [the victims] are civilians, Syrian, unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories. Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression."

Killing civilians in international law certainly does mean a 'terrorist aggression'.

But what have Britain and America's neocon writers- normally so quick to denounce 'terrorist' acts when they are committed by swarthy people with beards and moustaches, have to say about this blatant act of state-terrorism?

Absolutely nothing. Their silence is matched by that of the US Government.
And Britain's puppet government too.

The BBC reports:

Mr Muallem and Mr Miliband were scheduled to hold a joint press conference, but Mr Miliband withdrew. The UK government has declined to comment on the raid.

Next time you hear a neocon talk of 'terrorism', and the threat it poses, just remind him or her of yesterday's events in Syria, and ask them why they failed to condemn it.

Meanwhile in Syria, anger is growing at the US aggression and at the Syrian government's lack of a military response.

"The people who were killed were harmless, they should have been protected. It is a very saddening experience. People talk about patriotism, but when it comes to action - nothing happens"

says one Syrian eyewitness to yesterday's terrorist action, as reported on the BBC's website.

Many are of the opinion that the US administration gave the go-ahead for yesterday's attack hoping it would draw a Syrian military response, which in turn would lead to a major Middle Eastern war: something which we know the warmongering neocon faction would love to bring about. We undoubtedly live in dangerous times and, as I've said before on numerous occasions, we will continue to do so unless the advocates of perpetual war are removed from anywhere near the corridors of power.

0 comments