The Israeli military says its troops have taken “operational control” of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

Rafah has been a key entry point for aid and the only exit for people able to flee since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas in October.

The United Nations and aid agencies have slammed the Israeli army for cutting off an essential aid route by seizing the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and southern Gaza, warning that already scarce supplies will be further depleted in the enclave that is on the brink of famine.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres demanded that Israel reopen two key land crossings to enable desperately needed aid supplies to reach Palestinians in Gaza.

“The closure of both the Rafah and Kerem Shalom [Karem Abu Salem] crossings is especially damaging to an already dire humanitarian situation. They must be reopened immediately,” he said on Tuesday.

Israel seized the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing earlier on Tuesday, as ceasefire talks with the Palestinian group Hamas remain precarious.

Hamas said late on Monday that it had accepted a Gaza ceasefire proposal put forward by Qatari and Egyptian mediators. Israel said the proposal fell short of Israeli requirements and that it would send a delegation to meet the mediators.

Guterres warned an assault on Rafah, where more than 1.4 million displaced Palestinians are sheltering, would “be a strategic mistake, a political calamity and a humanitarian nightmare”.

Amnesty International called on the international community to pressure Israel to immediately halt its ground operations in Rafah and ensure unfettered access for humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Hamas said Israel’s incursion and seizure of the Rafah crossing was aimed at undermining attempts by regional mediators to secure a new ceasefire deal.

The Palestinian armed group said on Monday that it had accepted a proposal from Egypt and Qatar, the basis of which is a weeks-long pause in the fighting and the release of several dozen hostages still held in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that Hamas’s announcement was “very far from Israel’s necessary requirements” and that it was a failed attempt to “disrupt the entry of our forces into Rafah” .

He said he had instructed the mid-level Israeli delegation sent to Cairo on Tuesday to “stand firm” on the conditions required for the return of the hostages and on “vital requirements for ensuring Israel’s security”..

World Opinions – Agencies

L’article UN, aid urgencies urge Israel to halt Rafah assault after crossing seized.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The UN Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, after the US did not veto the measure in a shift from its previous position.

In favour: 14
Against: 0
Abstention: 1

The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the immediate, unconditional release of all hostages.https://t.co/nOBuQOkxnj pic.twitter.com/QkZ7J7wHgi

— United Nations (@UN) March 25, 2024

It also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.

It is the first time the council has called for a ceasefire since the war began in October after several failed attempts.

"The Security Council just approved a long-awaited resolution on Gaza, demanding an immediate ceasefire, and the immediate & unconditional release of all hostages.

This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable."

— @antonioguterreshttps://t.co/nOBuQOkxnj pic.twitter.com/68306FOR31

— United Nations (@UN) March 25, 2024

The move by the US signals growing divergence between it and its ally Israel over Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

Many world leaders have welcomed a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza.

While the United States abstained from the vote on Monday, the remaining 14 council members voted for the resolution.

I'm on my annual Ramadan solidarity mission, where I visit & fast with Muslim communities in distress.

Jordan’s spirit of solidarity is what brings me here today, to meet Palestine refugees being served by @UNRWA.

It’s a heart-warming visit in heart-breaking times. pic.twitter.com/IjxELFPrIF

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) March 25, 2024

The resolution, which the US said it did not agree with in its entirety, calls for an “immediate ceasefire” for the duration of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which ends in two weeks. It calls for the ceasefire to lead to a “lasting” truce, for the release of all hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, and for respect for international law from each party when it comes to detainments.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

The UN official said the resolution “must be implemented”, adding that failure to do so would be “unforgivable”.

The Security Council just approved a long-awaited resolution on Gaza, demanding an immediate ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.

This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable.

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) March 25, 2024

Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The ministry said that adopting the resolution is a step in the right direction to end the five-month war, to allow the entry of aid, and to begin the return of those displaced.

The ministry also called on UNSC member states to fulfill their legal responsibilities to implement the resolution immediately. The ministry stressed the importance of achieving a permanent ceasefire that extends beyond Ramadan – along with securing the entry of aid, working to release prisoners, and preventing forced displacement.

In an unusually strong rebuke, a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the US had “abandoned” its previous position which had directly linked a ceasefire to a hostage release.

“Regrettably, the United States did not veto the new resolution,” it said.

The statement said this harmed efforts to release hostages by giving Hamas hope it could use international pressure on Israel to achieve a ceasefire without freeing the captives.

It also said Mr Netanyahu had decided to cancel meetings between an Israeli delegation and US officials in Washington that were scheduled for this week.

Israel’s defence minister said Israel would not stop the war in Gaza while hostages were still being held there.

The Palestinian representative to the UN, Riyad Mansour, welcomed the resolution but said it was overdue.

“It has taken six months, over 100,000 Palestinians killed and maimed, two million displaced, and famine, for this council to finally demand an immediate ceasefire,” Mr Mansour said.

Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group which governs Gaza and which triggered the war with an unprecedented attack on Israel on 7 October, also welcomed the resolution. It said it was ready “to engage in an immediate prisoner exchange process that leads to the release of prisoners on both sides”.

The group has made any hostage release conditional on the release by Israel of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article World reacts to UNSC resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

More than 45,000 people have been killed in the earthquake that struck Turkey and Syria, and the toll is expected to soar with some 264,000 apartments in Turkey destroyed and many still missing in the country’s worst modern disaster. 

Twelve days after the quake hit, three people, including a child, were rescued alive from the rubble of a building in Antakya city of southern Turkey on Saturday, state news agency Anadolu said.

A journalist for Turkish television channel NTV later reported that one of those found had died after being taken to hospital.

NTV broadcast images of rescuers placing the rescued people onto stretchers after they had spent 296 hours trapped in the rubble. 

The death toll in Turkey stands at 39,672, while neighbouring Syria has reported more than 5,800 deaths. Syria’s toll has not changed for days.

While many international rescue teams have left the vast quake zone, domestic teams continued to search through flattened buildings on Saturday hoping to find more survivors who defied the odds. Experts say most rescues occur in the 24 hours following an earthquake.

Hakan Yasinoglu, in his 40s, was rescued in the southern province of Hatay, 278 hours after the 7.8-magnitude earthquake struck in the dead of night on February 6, the Istanbul Fire Brigade said.

Earlier, Osman Halebiye, 14, and Mustafa Avci, 34, were saved in Turkey’s historic city of Antakya, known in ancient times as Antioch. As Avci was carried away, he was put on a video call with his parents, who showed him his newborn baby.

“I had completely lost all hope. This is a true miracle. They gave me my son back. I saw the wreckage and I thought nobody could be saved alive from there,” his father said.

Aid organisations say the survivors will need help for months to come with so much crucial infrastructure destroyed.

In neighbouring Syria, already shattered by more than a decade of civil war, the bulk of fatalities have been in the northwest, an area controlled by insurgents who are at war with President Bashar al-Assad – a conflict that has complicated efforts to aid people affected by the earthquake.

Thousands of Syrians who had sought refuge in Turkey from their country’s civil war have returned to their homes in the war zone, at least for now.

Anger grows 

Neither Turkey nor Syria have said how many people are still missing following the quake.

For families still waiting to retrieve relatives in Turkey, there is growing anger over what they see as corrupt building practices and deeply flawed urban development that resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses.

One such building was the Ronesans Rezidans (Renaissance Residence), which keeled over in Antakya, killing hundreds.

“It was said to be earthquake-safe, but you can see the result,” said Hamza Alpaslan, 47, whose brother had lived in the apartment block. “It’s in horrible condition. There is neither cement nor proper iron in it. It’s a real hell.”

Turkey has promised to investigate anyone suspected of responsibility for the collapse of buildings and has ordered the detention of more than 100 suspects, including developers.

The United Nations on Thursday appealed for more than $1 billion in funds for the Turkish relief operation, and has launched a $400 million appeal for Syrians.

World Opinions – FRANCE 24 – AFP and Reuters

L’article Turkey-Syria death toll tops 45,000; three found alive 13 days after quakes est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

n every conflict over the living world, something is being protected. And most of the time, it’s the wrong thing.

The world’s most destructive industries are fiercely protected by governments. The three sectors that appear to be most responsible for the collapse of ecosystems and erasure of wildlife are fossil fuels, fisheries and farming. In 2021, governments directly subsidised oil and gas production to the tune of $64bn (£53bn), and spent a further $531bn (£443bn) on keeping fossil fuel prices low. The latest figures for fisheries, from 2018, suggest that global subsidies for the sector amount to $35bn a year, over 80% of which go to large-scale industrial fishing. Most are paid to “enhance capacity”: in other words to help the industry, as marine ecosystems collapse, catch more fish.

Every year, governments spend $500bn on farm subsidies, the great majority of which pay no regard to environmental protection. Even the payments that claim to do so often inflict more harm than good. For example, many of the European Union’s pillar two “green” subsidies sustain livestock farming on land that would be better used for ecological restoration. Over half the European farm budget is spent on propping up animal farming, which is arguably the world’s most ecologically destructive industry.

Pasture-fed meat production destroys five times as much forest as palm oil does. It now threatens some of the richest habitats on Earth, among which are forests in Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Australia and Myanmar. Meat production could swallow 3m square kilometres of the world’s most biodiverse places in 35 years. That’s almost the size of India. In Australia, 94% of the deforestation in the catchment area of the Great Barrier Reef – a major cause of coral loss – is associated with beef production. Yet most of these catastrophes are delivered with the help of public money.

The more destructive the business, the more likely it is to enjoy political protection. A study published this month claims that chicken factories being built in Herefordshire and Shropshire are likely to destroy far more jobs than they create, wrecking tourism through the river pollution, air pollution, smell and scenic blight they cause. But none of the planning applications for these factories has been obliged to provide an economic impact analysis. Planning officers, the paper found, are highly dismissive of the hospitality industry, treating it as “non-serious and trivial”. By comparison, the paper found, “attitudes to farming were very different; described as serious, ‘proper’ (male) work”. The “tough”, “masculine” industries driving Earth systems towards collapse are pampered and protected by governments, while less destructive sectors must fend for themselves.

While there is no shortage of public money for the destruction of life on Earth, budgets for its protection always fall short. According to the UN, $536bn a year will be needed to protect the living world – far less than the amount being paid to destroy it – yet almost all this funding is missing. Some has been promised, scarcely any has materialised. So much for public money for public goods.

The political protection of destructive industries is woven into the fabric of politics, not least because of the pollution paradox (“the more damaging the commercial enterprise, the more money it must spend on politics to ensure it’s not regulated out of existence. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the most damaging commercial enterprises.”) Earth systems, by contrast, are treated as an afterthought, an ornament: nice to have, but dispensable when their protection conflicts with the necessity of extraction. In reality, the irreducible essential is a habitable planet.

In 2010, at a biodiversity summit in Nagoya, Japan, governments set themselves 20 goals, to be met by 2020. None has been achieved. As they prepare for the biodiversity Cop15 summit in Montreal next week, governments are investing not in the defence of the living world but in greenwash.

The headline objective is to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030. But what governments mean by protection often bears little resemblance to what ecologists mean.

Take the UK, for example. On paper, it has one of the highest proportions of protected land in the rich world, at 28%. It could easily raise this proportion to 30% and claim to have fulfilled its obligations. But it is also one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. How can this be? Because most of our “protected” areas are nothing of the kind.

One analysis suggests that only 5% of our land meets the international definition of a protected area. Even these scraps are at risk, as scarcely anyone is left to enforce the law: the regulators have been stripped to the bone and beyond. At sea, most of our marine protected areas are nothing but lines on the map: trawlers still rip them apart.

All this is likely to become much worse. If the retained EU law bill goes ahead, the entire basis of legal protection in the UK could be torn down. Even by the standards of this government, the mindless vandalism involved is gobsmacking. To prove that Brexit means Brexit, 570 environmental laws must be deleted or replaced by the end of next year. There will be no public consultation, no scope for presenting evidence and, in all likelihood, no opportunity for parliamentary debate. It is logistically impossible to replace so much legislation in such a short period, so the most likely outcome is deletion. If so, it’s game over for rivers, soil, air quality, groundwater, wildlife and habitats in the UK, and game on for cheats and con artists. The whole country will, in effect, become a freeport.

Never underestimate the destructive instincts of the Conservative party, prepared to ruin everything for the sake of an idea. Never underestimate its appetite for chaos and dysfunction.

The protected industries driving us towards destruction will take everything if they are not checked. We face a brutal contest for control over land and sea: between those who seek to convert our life support systems into profit, and those who seek to defend, restore and, where possible, return them to the indigenous people dispossessed by capitalism’s fire front. These are never just technical or scientific issues. They cannot be resolved by management alone. They are deeply political. We can protect the living world or we can protect the companies destroying it. We cannot do both.

By George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist – theguardian.com

L’article Analysis. From the Amazon to Australia, why is your money funding Earth’s destruction est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

On global issues from climate change, to non-proliferation and human rights, the US under the Trump administration had literally gathered up its papers and pens and left the meeting room. Biden’s election victory and choice of committed internationalists to lead the foreign policy team, means that there will actually be someone sitting in what has been an empty chair.

“There’s a lot of relief that we’re going to have a much more normal US to deal with,” said Richard Gowan, the UN director at the International Crisis Group. “It has been symptomatic of US diplomacy in the last couple of years that other countries have really struggled to get a clear picture of what US policies are at times on issues like Libya or Yemen.”

Gowan said one of the many clear winners on the world stage from Biden’s win is the UN secretary general, António Guterres, who has spent four years straining to make nice with Donald Trump to prevent the outgoing president from pulling the plug altogether on US involvement in, and funding for, UN agencies.

“Now there’s a lot of talk that Guterres is preparing to put out lots of big ideas next year about fighting inequality, speeding up the fight against climate change, and really try to get the UN back into the centre of global conversation.”

How a slogan as all-encompassing as “America is Back” is received around the world will inevitably be a Rorschach test for what is perceived to be the “real America” that has been absent in the past four years.

In the liberal democracies in Europe, the general hope and expectation from Biden’s language and demeanour is that the America being restored includes all the best features from the past – with an added dose of humility.

“‘America is Back’ means something very different than if George W Bush had said it, or even if Obama had said it in the context,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a senior fellow at the centre on the US and Europe at the Brookings Institution. “And this means that this is a different kind of America – not a rapacious America First at whatever price, but one that makes a very sober assessment of its options and limitations of power.”

The clear lack of US popular support for adventurism in foreign support – which was effectively channeled by Trump – the failures in Libya, Yemen and Syria, and the loss of relative power and prestige of the past four years, suggest that the country returning to the world stage is a chastened America.

“I think that Obama was still able to assume that America had almost unlimited power, and therefore had sovereign choices to make about international engagement, and about the way it dealt with authoritarian rivals,” Stelzenmüller said. “I think the huge difference with this administration is going to be a distinct understanding of limitations – domestic and foreign. And that puts an entirely new value on allies, and also gives allies a great deal of power.”

Some leaders and governments were clearly quite happy with the America that has been evident in the Trump era – none more than the Gulf monarchs and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. They are now making common cause to try to block a US return to pre-Trump policies, particularly the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

“A lot of these regimes were extremely fond of the Trump administration, for a variety of reasons,” said Khaled Elgindy, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Obviously the posture towards Iran is one issue, but also the kind of laissez-faire attitude toward human rights and rule of law is another reason I think a lot of these authoritarians especially are going to really miss the Donald Trump era.”

It is not just the world’s autocracies who are apprehensive about the “America is Back” slogan. For some longstanding critics of US foreign policy, the very idea of a golden age to which the next administration can return, is a delusion.

For those sceptics, much will depend on whether the Biden foreign policy team, who are familiar faces from the Obama era, will aspire to a restoration or to a fundamental rethink.

“I think the big question – given that Biden is basically putting the Obama band back together – is did they learn anything from the previous eight years they had in power, which was not a stunning success in lots of respects?” asked Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

“Have they acquired a greater sense of realism about what American foreign policy can accomplish and what American power can do?”

By Julian Borger in Washington – theguardian.com

L’article Biden says ‘America is back’ at the head of the table – but is that a good thing? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Only a truly independent international investigation can renew the Lebanese people’s hopes for their country’s future.

The August 4 explosion at the Port of Beirut not only killed more than 170 people, injured thousands of others, and left at least 300,000 people homeless, but it also dashed the Lebanese people’s hopes for a better future for their country.

This is why, I, alongside 36 other United Nations Special Rapporteurs and independent experts, issued a statement earlier this month calling for an independent and transparent investigation into the explosion that underscores international human rights obligations, clarifies responsibilities related to the explosion, and leads to justice and accountability. I am also acutely aware of what is at stake since my immediate family was hit by the blast, sustaining life-threatening injuries and losing their livelihoods.

In our joint statement, my colleagues and I urged the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to hold a special debate on the Port of Beirut explosion when the council reconvenes in September so as to explore all avenues by which this leading international human rights body can support the people in Lebanon and help them meet their needs and demands.

There are several reasons why we believe the UNHRC should play a leading role in the efforts to ensure that effective, transparent and impartial justice is realised for the victims of the explosion, and people in Lebanon at large.

Like scores of Lebanese and international civil society organisations, we do not trust the Lebanese government’s ability to conduct an efficient and transparent investigation into its own failures. Therefore, we believe only an international and truly independent investigation can achieve the desired results. 

As we noted in our statement, the investigation into the explosion should not only be protected from any undue influence, but it should also have “a strong and broad mandate to effectively probe any systemic failures of the Lebanese authorities and institutions to protect human rights.” 

Unlike an investigation led by the Lebanese government, an international investigation mandated by the UNHRC could go beyond finding the individuals directly culpable for the explosion and address the systemic collapse of Lebanese governance that paved the way for the blast.

When faced with calls for an international investigation into the blast, Lebanese elites raised concerns about foreign powers meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs and using the blast to push their own agenda. 

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun, for example, rejected calls for an international investigation just a few days after the devastating blast, on the grounds that such an effort would “dilute the truth”. Lebanon’s caretaker Justice Minister Marie-Claude Najm also dismissed calls for an international probe, asserting that she does not want to “create a system where every time there is an important issue I go to the international”.

The Lebanese people’s lack of trust in local judicial authorities undoubtedly justifies the calls to involve international institutions and bodies in a probe into the explosion. However, the concerns about the possibility of foreign governments using an international probe to serve their own interests should not be dismissed as baseless either. 

The Lebanese people have previously witnessed how seemingly well-meaning international inquiries – such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established by the UN Security Council – could end up serving narrow geopolitical interests and ignoring wider calls for justice. 

So when French President Emmanuel Macron calls for an international inquiry into the explosion, the Lebanese people should be suspicious of his intentions. After all, France was the former colonial power that institutionalised the sectarian system that is at the root of Lebanon’s current problems. And it is still working to expand its influence over Lebanon today. Last year, for example, the French government was the main player behind the CEDRE proposal, in which a mix of international institutions and countries pledged to give Lebanon $11bn in loans and grants on the condition that it implement certain reforms. On the surface, the proposal seems to be aimed at helping the people of Lebanon. But under closer inspection, it becomes clear that its primary aim is to give international lenders, especially France and the World Bank, a significant amount of power over political and economic life in Lebanon. 

The international community has failed Lebanon too often. For too long it left the Lebanese people searching for justice and a better future with a choice between relying on faulty and corrupt local mechanisms and international efforts guided by vested interests. But this does not mean that the international system lacks the capacity to conduct a truly impartial probe into Lebanon’s August 4 explosion that is not shadowed by powerful governments’ hidden agendas and interests. To achieve this, countries with a vested interest in Lebanon – such as France, the United States, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and China – would need to step back, and allow a multilateral process guided by an impartial international body and based on human rights principles to take its course. 

As Special Rapporteurs, who work on a voluntary basis and are independent from any government or organisation, we believe the UNHRC is well placed to give the Lebanese people what they desperately need. 

While we know the Council has the capacity to mandate an international investigation that would meet the Lebanese people’s demands for transparency and impartiality, we are also aware of how political pressures can cloud such a process. 

Just a few months ago in June, amid the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US, a bloc of African countries pressed the Council to hold an urgent debate on racism, police brutality and violence against protesters. During the debate, some delegates called for an international probe to investigate racially motivated police brutality in the US. However, due to pressure from the US and its many allies, the Council failed to efficiently address the problem and merely adopted a vague resolution calling for a report on racially discriminatory and violent law enforcement practices used against Africans and people of African descent, without specifically naming the US. 

Only time will tell whether the UNHRC will be able to lead the way in the Lebanese people’s quest to bring justice to the victims of the explosion and hold the people responsible to account. 

To mandate an international investigation into the Port of Beirut explosion, the Council needs at least one country to officially put forward such a request. If a group of countries backs the proposal, it will send the message that the international community is ready and willing to help Lebanon in its time of need. 

Come September, the Lebanese people will see whether the messages of solidarity and concern issued by world governments in the aftermath of the devastating explosion were honest. If the UNHRC successfully mandates an independent investigation into the matter and ensures that the investigation is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, it will give the Lebanese people renewed hope for their country’s future. But if it buckles under political pressure and takes no action, or accepts a watered-down resolution, it will confirm the fears that the international community is incapable of furthering an impartial human rights agenda. 

Fakhri is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

L’article International justice for Lebanon? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.