Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

maandag 6 juli 2015

Fracking Secrets

Secrecy over fracking chemicals clouds environmental risks, advocates say

Despite a report that links practice to contaminated drinking water, list of more than 1,076 chemicals used during fracking process remains unknown to public
Fracking
 What’s in the water being pumped into the ground? Some of it falls under the auspices of confidential business information and therefore is not subject to public release. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The fracking industry must be compelled to provide far more detailed information to regulators if the public is to be accurately informed of any risks to the environment, advocacy groups say.
A report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month found that hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas can lead, and has led, to the contamination of drinking water. It was the first time the federal government had admitted such a link.
The study, based on “data sources available to the agency”, found levels of any contamination to be small compared to the number of wells across the country, the EPA said.
But Gretchen Goldman, a lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, told the Guardian that the EPA’s study – which is now open for comment – was nothing “more than a literature review” and called for the industry to be required to divulge greater data.
Goldman says the EPA backed down from its initial promise to undertake prospective studies, which would have involved following a well site and testing its waters before, during and after fracking activities had begun. Such a study would have shed objective light on the fracking process and pushed scientific knowledge forward, she says.
Information shared by the industry for the report was very often done on a voluntary basis, the authors reveal, and even when companies were forced to share information through state regulations, they were still allowed to withhold details deemed crucial to their business.
One of the most notable elements of fracking that continues to be shrouded in secrecy, for instance, is the identity and mixture of chemicals that are injected into the ground through wells, together with water, at high intensity to fracture underground rocks and release oil or gas.
Advertisement
The chemical composition of such injections appears to vary from company to company and well to well.
Even if the EPA was able to compile a list of 1,076 chemicals used in the fracking process, the list is incomplete, with businesses involved in fracking able to cite some components as amounting to confidential business information, and therefore not subject to release to the public, the report indicates.
This means that the report is not void of influence from the oil and gas industry, Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said.
In the 998-page draft, the word “limitation” is used 76 times, “uncertainty” 43 times and “insufficient” – as it relates to insufficient information, data or evidence – is used seven times.
The EPA declined requests for interview about the fracking report. 
Despite opposition from some groups, fracking is largely supported by the Obama administration. President Barack Obama has repeatedly described fracking as a transitional fuel, bridging a path away from fossil fuels and towards a clean energy future – something environmentalists say is both inaccurate and naive.
In 2005 lobbying efforts by the oil and gas industry proved successful, with hydraulic fracturing activities exempted from certain sections of the Safe Drinking Water Act, including permit application. 
Last week another federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, was temporarily blocked by a US district judge from putting into effect a new set of rules for fracking on federal public land.
The rules, which would have come into effect on 24 June, would have required oil and gas companies to reveal the chemicals they inject into the ground for fracking purposes, to meet construction standards when drilling wells, and to dispose of contaminated water safely.
But on Tuesday, judge Scott Skavdahl granted a stay to the new rules until 22 July, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which said the judge’s decision on a preliminary injunction sought by IPAA and other opponents of the rules was now expected in mid-August, Reuters reported. 
IPAA and the Western Energy Alliance were joined by Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota and Utah in seeking to stop the new rules from taking effect.

U.S. Neoliberalism

Can the 2016 Election Be About Making It Work for US Families?

Sunday, 05 July 2015 00:00 By Elaine Weiss, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed 
As election season heats up, it’s encouraging to see not only education policy in general, but early childhood education, in particular, getting serious attention. With New York City leading the way, and cities from Boston to Seattle and San Antonio working toward universal pre-k, it’s becoming clear that it is, indeed, possible to scale up quality prekindergarten programs fairly quickly. We must anticipate bumps in the road, and pay close attention to ensure sustained quality. But the bottom line is that these public investments are both wise and workable.
Given the rapid changes in our country’s demographics in recent years, however, and shockingly high rates of child and community poverty, conversations about early childhood investments need to be ratcheted up a few notches.
Millions of parents in states across the country work jobs that provide no time off at all to take care of their new babies. It is hard to fathom how this lays the foundation for healthy child development, let alone stable family life. Others who are searching for jobs at a time when there are five, ten, or even fifty people applying for an open position are hampered by their inability to pay for the child care that makes job hunting feasible. And if they do get the job, it is unlikely to pay enough to cover the cost of that care, which in some states now exceeds in-state college tuition rates. Not to mention the trade-offs among such basics as food, clothing, and rent that those families will be forced to make because wages are so far behind the cost of living.
In other words, as President Obama and Hillary Clinton hint, and Bernie Sanders loudly proclaims, the United States has spent the past few decades gradually becoming the least family- and child-friendly nation in the Western world. Indeed, findings from a study of a recent cohort of kindergarten entrants – children who began school in 2010-2011, and who spent their formative early years in the throes of the Great Recession – provide stark evidence of that sobering reality. When children step foot into their kindergarten classrooms for the first time, gaps in both reading and math skills between those in the highest and lowest social class quintiles are already a full standard deviation in size. To get a sense of how enormous those gaps are, the What Works Clearinghouse estimates that it would take at least four independent, highly effective interventions to close them. Before school even starts.
This election must be about changing that reality and giving our children and their families a real future.
One initiative that is out to do just that is the Make it Work Campaign. Recognizing the depth and breadth of the day-to-day struggles millions of working American families face, Make it Work developed a three-pronged, evidence-based policy agenda to help put our country back on the right public policy footing, laying the foundations to rebuild the middle class we’ve been systematically chipping away at since the early 1980s.
Together, the campaign’s three policy buckets – Equal Pay, Caregiving, and Work and Family – would provide a web of supports that enable parents to live dignified, productive lives, including caring for their children well. In particular, Make it Work’s ambitious goals of affordable child care and accessible high-quality pre-kindergarten for all children, bolstered by living wages for the providers and educators who work with them, alleviate critical stressors for working parents and ensure that all kids get the help they need to arrive at kindergarten ready to learn.
While the main focus of this election must be on raising the floor for everyone, however, we can make smart, targeted investments that start to boost those with the greatest needs today. Educare Schools, which now number 18 across 14 states and Washington, DC, offer valuable lessons on how to build comprehensive birth-to-five systems of care and supports for children and their families. From Omaha, where it got its start, to Silicon Valley, where the newest Center opens later this year, Educare “[e]mpowers some of our poorest, most vulnerable children and families to succeedthrough a coordinated system of home visits, high-quality care and pre-kindergarten, health and nutrition supports, and parent engagement, all centered within those families’ communities.”
And these investments pay off in a big way. Research shows that children who experience Educare for a full five-year course enter elementary school with far more extensive vocabularies and stronger social skills, including self-confidence, persistence, and self-regulation, than their peers. Less touted but also critical are the benefits for parents. As one couple in Omaha described Educare to the filmmakers who produced Ready for Kindergarten, “This place is not just day care. It’s an educational palace. … They are providing a glimpse of hope for us to stand on our own. And one day, we will provide that same help.”
These ingredients – a strong early start for children, sensitive and well-targeted supports for struggling parents, and new hope, with reason to believe in it — are key to reviving the middle class that is the basis for a thriving democracy. As we enter this election season, we must stand with candidates who call out the policies and policymakers that have devastated that middle class for too long. We must urge them to Make it Work for all of us. And we must insist on more investments in programs like Educare. Anything less would constitute a loss before the first vote is cast.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. 

U.S. Imperialism

US Policy Driving Militarization in Guatemala

Sunday, 05 July 2015 00:00 By Jeff Abbott, Truthout | News Analysis 
A patrol of soldiers passes through the community of Pajoques in San Juan Sacatepéquez in October 2014. (Photo: Jeff Abbott)A patrol of soldiers passes through the community of Pajoques in San Juan Sacatepéquez in October 2014. (Photo: Jeff Abbott)
Residents of Guatemala City are angry with the United States Marines. Early in June, a Marine CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter flew low over Zone 9 of Guatemala city, causing damage to buildings in the area.
The United States Embassy confirmed to the Guatemalan press that the helicopter did indeed belong to the United States Marine Corps Southern Command. The embassy explained that, "due to high winds, the helicopter could not maintain altitude after takeoff. It regained its altitude, but apparently the airstream caused by the rotors damaged buildings."
At the end of May, 280 Marines from the United States Southern Command arrived in Central America on a six-month deployment based north of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Reportedly, they're here to perform humanitarian response in the event of a disaster, train local militaries, and combat drug trafficking.
The forces add to the permanent presence of US soldiers in the region; the United States maintains bases in Honduras and El Salvador, and has a mobile unit in Guatemala.
US Southern Command has stated that the soldiers' purpose is to "establish security cooperation" in the region, but security observers argue that these policies are contributing to the militarization that has already occurred.
"This is part of the remilitarization that has occurred in Guatemala in the years since the signing of the peace accords [in 1996]," Sandino Asturias, a security expert and director of the Center for Guatemalan Studies, told Truthout. "The United States has financed the creation of forces to control the borders. They have a strategic objective to control the borders of Guatemala."
Plan for the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle
The presence of US Marines in the region has added to the already tense atmosphere, as Guatemala faces one of the greatest political crises since the end of the internal armed conflict in 1996.
The US Embassy has expressed its dedication to maintaining a close relationship with embattled president Otto Pérez Molina, who faces mounting pressure to resign in the face of a corruption scandal that has already unseated the former vice president, Roxana Baldetti. On June 2, US Ambassador Todd D. Robinson appeared next to Pérez Molina in the presidential palace to announce the US government's decision to "help" oversee reforms of Guatemala's tax collection agency and reiterated the US's continued support for the administration. But many activists have seen this as further US meddling in the region.
Observers state that the US's unflinching support for Pérez Molina during this crisis reflects its economic interests in the region. In particular, they allege that the US is working to ensure the success of the Plan for the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle, an agreement between the US and the countries of the "northern triangle" of Central America, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, which was launched in early 2015, after the crisis of unaccompanied minors during the summer of 2014.
The Plan for the Alliance for Prosperity entails the provision of an additional $1 billion from the US on top of previously existing aid programs to the three Central American governments, in hopes of stimulating investment in the region. The plan also continues and expands the economic policies enacted through the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
"The security is not for the people of Guatemala," Edgar Rene Celada Quezada, a professor of security at the University of San Carlos, told Truthout. "The security is for the multinational companies and for the United States."
A key part of the plan is promoting security in the northern triangle, which has high levels of violence. The militaries of Central America, which in the last few years have gained renewed presences in security operations, have taken on another role: guaranteeing the free market.
The United States' Guatemalan Task Forces
The expansion of the Guatemalan military under the new aid package includes the formation of two new interagency task forces along the borders with Honduras and Mexico. Both forces are made up of military and police, as well as members of the public ministry and the justice department.
The first interagency task force, Tecún Unám, was established in June 2013. It is meant to secure the border with Mexico, and according to Government Agreement 277-2013, its mission is "to conduct combined security operations throughout the Republic to prevent, combat, dismantle and eradicate criminal actions."
Two years later, the Guatemalan government formed another task force along the border with Honduras. Task Force Maya Chortí is made up of police and soldiers from Guatemala and Honduras. The 700-member force is the first binational task force in the region, meant to combat trafficking of arms, drugs and people along the border.
"The United States financed the creation of these forces," Asturias told Truthout. "They were formed with the strategic objective to control the two borders of Guatemala."
In fact, the US government has invested $22 million in the formation of Task Force Tecún Unám, and $13.4 million to the initial formation of Task Force Maya Chortí. But the support goes well beyond financing. Both task forces have received significant training from United States Army Southern Command, Customs and Border Protection and the Texas National Guard in command and control, intelligence gathering and quick reaction tactics. The US has also provided radio equipment and both armored and unarmored J8 Jeeps, and Ambassador Robinson has spoken openly about the US's part in creating the task forces.
Questionable Success Rates
Despite the substantial funding and support they've received, evidence suggests that the task forces have had very little success combating drug trafficking.
"Tecún Unám has had two years, and Chortí has had six months, and what have they shown? Nothing," Asturias told Truthout. "These forces don't function, and they do not reduce the crisis."
Asturias' assessment of Tecún Unám is supported by a 2015 report issued by the RAND Corporation, a think tank originally formed to do policy research and analysis for the US Armed Forces. RAND found that in the year and a half since Tecún Unám's formation, it had only performed five unassisted operations and had deep divisions between the police and military elements.
"The operational success of Tecún Umán at this juncture is questionable," the RAND Corporation report concludes. "Although there is political will at the highest levels of the government for its sustainability, this is not mirrored at key positions further down the chain of command."
The report adds, "Senior leadership's bragging about all the 'successful' operations seems contrived and disingenuous to members of the (Interagency Task Force), who feel they are not being used to their full potential."
Yet despite the questionable success rate, the US Embassy has spoken openly about forming at least two other task forces: Task Force Xinca, along the border with El Salvador, and another in the Petén, along the borders with Mexico and Belize.
Militarization of the Migration Crisis
According to security analysts like Asturias, this US-led movement to secure the borders is not merely aimed at deterring trafficking, but was enacted in response to the influx of Central American migrants at the US-Mexico border during the summer of 2014.
"The United States sees the migrants as a threat," Asturias told Truthout. "They are treated as criminals; they are seen as an enemy. The governments of Central America are responding to the lead of the United States."
Human rights observers agree.
"Militarization isn't improving security and is in fact doing the opposite," Kelsey Alford-Jones, from the Washington-based Guatemalan Human Rights Commission, told Truthout. "While the United States continues to talk about strengthening the police, the biggest investments have been in militarized border security bases, 'joint task forces' that - in the aftermath of the surge in child migration last summer - are also being touted as a way to keep Central Americans from going north."
The Return of the Military and Corruption
Officially, the US Congress has set limits on aid to the Guatemalan military since 1978, and continues to do so today. But despite the congressional ban, US policy has contributed to the increased role of the Guatemalan military in domestic security.
The military began to return to prominence in internal security during the administration of Alfonso Portillo (2000-2004). But the greatest expansion has occurred during the administration of current president Pérez Molina, with six new task forces established under the narrative of promoting national security and combating drug trafficking.
Pérez Molina, a former commando, has overseen the rapid increase of military presence in public security. As troop presence has increased, so too has the amount of military aid provided to Guatemala by the US government, despite the limits placed by Congress. According to Asturias, US military aid has increased nearly 40 percent since 2012.
The military has returned to power under Pérez Molina, with over 30 public ministries now headed by former military. And with the return of the military has come a return of the strategy of counter-insurgency, and of corruption.
"The generation of military members that now control the country were the same actors that were active during the internal armed conflict during the 1980's," Asturias told Truthout. "There is a continuation in the mentality, the thinking - especially the counter-insurgency - and the corruption; the military was a good business for the military leaders."
"We are recycling these processes from the '80s," adds Asturias. "The military has returned to their businesses, to the strategy of the counter-insurgency, but they cannot return to the policy of massive repression and the dirty war of the '80s. We are now in a different context."
The policy of militarization "endangers those who are fleeing violence or persecution and has done almost nothing to address entrenched corruption, trafficking and deadly violence," Alford-Jones told Truthout. "These policies should not be viewed as the success story the US and Guatemala want to sell us."
The formation of the new task forces is a direct violation of the 1996 peace accords. Specifically, it violates the mandate for division of the police and military. And this has occurred with the direct complicity and support of the United States government.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission. 

JEFF ABBOTT

Jeff Abbott is an independent journalist currently based out of Guatemala. He has covered human rights, social movements and issues related to education, immigration and land in the United States, Mexico and Guatemala. His work has appeared at Waging Nonviolence, Upside Down World and North American Congress on Latin America. Follow him on Twitter @palabrasdeabajo.

zondag 5 juli 2015

Neoliberal Madness

Melting Arctic Ice Is a Warning, but Oil Companies See It as a Chance to Drill

Sunday, 05 July 2015 00:00 By Mark Karlin, Truthout | Interview 
Ben Stewart heads media relations for Greenpeace International and is author of a book about the Arctic 30. (Photo: The New Press)Ben Stewart heads media relations for Greenpeace International and is author of a book about the Arctic 30. (Photo: The New Press)
Truthout recently interviewed Ben Stewart, who heads media relations for Greenpeace International and is the author of Don't Trust Don't Fear Don't Beg.
Mark Karlin: What was the action that members of Greenpeace on the ship Arctic Sunrise undertook in 2013?
Ben Stewart: It was September, and the codename we gave this action was Azeroth. The plan was to sail the Arctic Sunrise towards the Prirazlomnaya oil platform, 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle, and do something to stop its drilling and simultaneously draw global attention to what was happening up there. At that point the Prirazlomnaya was the most controversial oil platform in the world; it was trying to be the first rig to pump oil from the icy waters of the Arctic. It was at the vanguard of the new Arctic oil rush.
There were 30 people on board our ship - 28 activists and two journalists. The plan was to scale the side of the rig and hang a one-ton survival pod off the side. Some protesters would live in the pod, tweeting and Skyping from it. It would stop the drilling and allow them to communicate why they were there.
Why was the activist effort to stop Arctic oil drilling by the giant Russian oil and natural gas company Gazprom so urgent?
We felt we had to take a stand against Arctic oil drilling. You can't clean up an Arctic oil spill - if a Deepwater Horizon-style disaster struck, it would be a calamity. It took 6,500 boats to "clean up" the Gulf of Mexico; that kind of deployment is not possible in the polar regions. And if there was a blowout, the return of winter ice could very quickly stop the drilling of a relief well. That would mean oil spilling for months, gathering under the ice and circulating around the pole.
Then there's the irony of drilling for oil there. It's only possible because climate change has caused the summer sea ice to retreat. We're drilling for the fuels that caused the ice to melt, and when we burn it we'll cause the ice to melt more, letting them drill for more oil. Most people see the melting ice as a warning for humanity. The oil companies see it as a chance to drill. It's insane.
What is the status of Gazprom's exploration for oil and natural gas in the Arctic as of June 2015?
Gazprom ended up pumping oil in 2014, and delivering it to Rotterdam. Sanctions against Russia have affected their ability to fully exploit the Arctic this season, but the company (and Putin) are determined to push deep into the Arctic region.
How did the Russian government respond to the protest?
Minutes after the protest was launched, these guys in masks tore in on speedboats. They waved knives then guns; they fired shots; an armed coastguard ship fired its cannon over the Arctic Sunrise. It was chaotic and terrifying for the people involved. Our teams retreated. Then the next day a helicopter took off from the coastguard ship. It hovered over the heli-deck on the Sunrise, then heavily armed, masked commandoes began abseiling down. They seized the ship at gunpoint then towed it towards the mainland. It took five days, and in that time the commandoes cleared out the Greenpeace crew's stash of Sailor Jerry rum, so the Russians were drunk, bouncing down the corridors in their masks, cradling their guns, stinking of booze.
When they arrived in Murmansk they were taken to court and told they were accused of piracy. It carries 10 to 15 years in jail, in a country where 99 percent of trials end in a verdict of guilty. Suddenly this was an international incident. Our guys were Putin's hostages.
How did you become involved in the international effort to release the Arctic 30?
I have worked for Greenpeace for many years, and led the first expedition to challenge Arctic oil drilling off Greenland in 2010. When the crew were seized I was asked to lead the global media campaign to free them. There were hundreds of us involved around the world, with seven or eight of us in the London hub headquarters. We existed on a diet of candy, coffee and fear. We felt we were playing geopolitical chess with Putin; it was a question of who would blink first.
Your book sheds a lot of detailed light on the Russian prison system. Can you describe a few of the degrading experiences of the Arctic 30?
To be honest, their experience wasn't as degrading as the conditions faced by the normal Russian prisoners. The Arctic 30 were in a sense protected. The mafia bosses who controlled the prison decided that the Arctic 30 had been the subject of a gross injustice, and they let some of the Greenpeace prisoners know they would be safe there.
The Greenpeace prisoners were given access to a remarkable prison communications system. It was called the doroga - the road. Every night the prisoners made ropes, then slung them through the windows - up, down, left and right. And prisoners at the other windows would catch them. So on the outside walls was this rope network - like a physical prison internet. They used it to share contraband and messages. So it was like email. You could write to your friends. This was a vital network that allowed the activists to get the provisions they needed and to stay sane.
The eight women were kept in solitary confinement, but they developed a code to communicate. They tapped spoons on the radiator pipe that connected their cells, and by this method they had long, involved conversations. It kept them from losing it.
The prison governor was a psychopath, and in the book there are lots of stories about his maltreatment. One time he told Dima from the Arctic 30 that his inspiration was the Gestapo. He said, "They stand at the very apex of penitentiary science. We learned everything from them." How Dima deals with this guy is one of the most interesting parts of this story.
Greenpeace was formed in 1971 and has frequently engaged in high-profile protests that have enraged oil companies and governments. In 1985, the French government was responsible, for example, for the sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, a bombing that killed one crew member.
What impact do you see the high seas engagement of Greenpeace having on the unchecked expansion of fossil fuel extraction?
Well, the bombing of the Warrior was a disaster. French commandos planted limpet mines to the hull of our ship. When they exploded they killed one of our colleagues. It was state-sponsored murder. The captain that day was Pete Willcox, who was also captain of the Arctic Sunrise when it was raided. He's an extremely interesting figure for me, committed and very sharp. He allowed me to quote extensively from his Russian prison diary.
I think the bombing of the Warrior had a huge impact. The French program of nuclear testing in the Pacific was ended, in part I think because of the huge pressure they suffered after their role in the bombing was exposed. I think something similar has happened after the Arctic 30. The saga focused global attention on Arctic oil drilling. Our opponents often overreach. Since the Arctic 30, it has been harder for oil companies to drill there without encountering huge opposition. Look at Shell in Seattle. There was a great coalition of groups taking action as the Shell rig waited to sail north.
Gazprom has an official relationship to the Russian Federation, including shares owned by the state and Vladimir Putin himself. However, is it much different in terms of the collaboration of the US government, for example, with oil companies?
I actually think there is. Gazprom is a state-owned company. Putin is Gazprom is Russia is Putin. It means when you're going up against Gazprom you're challenging Putin. In the States, the relationship between corporations and government is strong. It's a real challenge to democracy - sometimes (often) the government is acting on behalf of corporations. But we're not quite at the stage where they're the same thing - although it feels like it's going in that direction sometimes.
What is your reaction to the innovative and large protest against the Shell Arctic oil rig that had been temporarily anchored at the Port of Seattle just this past month?
Ah yes, that was remarkable. Inspiring. It gave me goosebumps. I was at the Cannes Film Festival when it happened (the book is being made into a film by David Puttnam and he was announcing it there). I went to the shop in Cannes and saw those kayaks on the front pages of European newspapers. It was exhilarating to see. Those people are heroes.
What do you say to individuals who, out of despair, have given up trying to challenge the earth-destroying profiteering of the fossil fuel giants and their government supporters?
Change happens quickly. Look at marriage equality. In 2004 it was a GOP wedge issue; now it's a killer for them. Something is happening out there on climate change. A movement is stirring. If we can beat them in the Arctic, if we can draw a line in the ice and say, "You come no further," then we can roll south and challenge their dominance across the globe. But it needs a movement. The Keystone XL campaign inspired people across the world. It showed that we can win this thing. Come back, sign up, join in, join up. You don't have to go to jail in Russia.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission. 

MARK KARLIN

Mark Karlin is the editor of BuzzFlash at Truthout.  He served as editor and publisher of BuzzFlash for ten years before joining Truthout in 2010.  BuzzFlash has won four Project Censored Awards. Karlin writes a commentary five days a week for BuzzFlash, as well as articles (ranging from the failed "war on drugs" to reviews relating to political art) for Truthout. He also interviews authors and filmmakers whose works are featured in Truthout's Progressive Picks of the Week. Before linking with Truthout, Karlin conducted interviews with cultural figures, political progressives and innovative advocates on a weekly basis for ten years. He authored many columns about the lies propagated to launch the Iraq War.

End Zionist Fascism

UN Human Rights Council Resolution Calls for End to Israeli Occupation of Palestine

  
     
 
  
File photo of Palestinian homes and buildings destroyed by Israeli airstrikes.
Image: File photo of Palestinian homes and buildings destroyed by Israeli airstrikes.

The UN’s Human Rights Council on Friday stressed the urgency of ending the occupation of Palestinian territory and denounced Israel’s refusal to cooperate with an independent commission on last year’s Gaza conflict.

A resolution was voted for by 41 states with just the U.S. opposing the proposal in Geneva.
The resolution condemned the “non-cooperation by Israel with the independent commission of inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict and the refusal to grant access to or to cooperate with international human rights bodies seeking to investigate alleged violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

It also stressed the “urgency of achieving without delay an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967″ and denounced the 1,462 civilian deaths in Gaza in July and August, including 551 children and 299 women, as well as the deaths of six Israeli civilians.
Members said they were “gravely concerned by reports regarding serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes.”
Israeli pressure resulted in the council omitting reference to possible war crimes, committed in the occupied territory in 2008, 2009 and 2014.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/un-human-rights-council-resolution-calls-for-end-to-israeli-occupation-of-palestine/5460413

Propaganda Campagne van Joodse Staat

Onair58-2 @_Innocent_99 @AnisJadib zegt nooit zomaar iets. Dit is ronduit schokkend om te horen. @NOS Inderdaad. Dit heeft zóveel nieuwsw...