The requirement for military entry permits reportedly began at the beginning of 2013. However, not everyone is required to obtain the special pass – and no information has been published surrounding the selection process. Clerics from the US reportedly had to sign a declaration at Ben-Gurion International Airport recently, promising not to enter Area A without permits from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT). Area A includes all Palestinian cities and their surrounding areas, with no Israeli settlements. The area is fully controlled by the Palestinian Authority. COGAT is a military office which coordinates civilian issues between the Israeli government, the Israel Defense Forces, international organizations, diplomats, and the Palestinian Authority. “I understand that in the event that I enter any area under the control of the Palestinian Authority without the appropriate authorization all relevant legal actions will be taken against me, including deportation and denial of entry into Israel for a period of up to ten years,” the English-language version of the declaration reads. The clerics signed the document, but were not told how they could obtain the special permission. The clerics told Haaretz that they had been sent from their church to work with Christian communities in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. But their mission ended before it ever began because they were not told how to obtain the military entry permit. One of the clerics sought help from the US Consulate in Jerusalem – but none of the employees were aware of the restictions. The spokesman for the US consulate declined to answer whether Israel had informed the American authorities about the obligation to sign a statement, and did not explain the viewpoint of the US Department of State. According to Sabine Haddad, a spokeswoman for Israel’s Population, Immigration and Borders Authority, the Entry into Israel Law authorizes the interior minister to decide on the entry of foreigners to the State of Israel. In the case of Judea and Samaria, the Israel Defense Forces chief of general staff makes the determination with a permit from the coordinator’s office. “When a tourist or foreign national arrives at the international border crossings and it is believed that he wants to enter Judea and Samaria, he should be informed [of the procedure] and asked for his promise to receive a permit from the coordinator’s office before his entry – a permit that constitutes an essential condition [of entry to the Palestinian Authority controlled areas],” she said. But there is no mention of the existence of such a procedure on COGAT’s English website. The spokesman for the coordinator’s office said the matter of the procedure and the form is being examined. Meanwhile, lawyers are questioning the legality of the declaration. According to the Oslo Accords, citizens of countries which have diplomatic ties with Israel need only an entry permit for Israel and a valid passport to enter Palestinian Authority territories, Attorney Adi Lustigman said. The declaration “is not legal because it was formulated for an improper purpose – isolating the occupied territories – and in an improper manner. It makes the assumption that people who arrive in Israel as tourists, as clerics and for other purposes want to act in contradiction to the law, which may not have been explained to them clearly,” Lustigman said.“If there really is such a procedure, it should be publicized in a simple, clear and accessible manner…it seems there is no operative procedure, nor any procedure for submitting a request. We are left only with a prohibition, which, as we have mentioned, is invalid,” she added. The practice of requiring tourists to sign such declarations was first reported seven years ago, but was reportedly discontinued and renewed only at the beginning of this year. Several years ago, the Interior Ministry also began to limit the freedom of movement of tourists with work and family ties in the West Bank, in order to prevent their entry into Israel by means of a permit with the stamp “For the territories of Judea and Samaria only.” … Read More
Britain to double aid to Syrian opposition in 2014 – Cameron
Cameron has vowed an extra £10 million for non-lethal equipment and £30 million more for humanitarian assistance for Syrian people as the two politicians outlined further steps to “bring to an end the killing” of Syrian people.“We will double non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition in the coming year. Armored vehicles, body armor and power generators are about to be shipped,” Cameron said at the press conference after an Oval Office meeting with US president Barack Obama. Britain’s actions in Syria completely coincide with the US plans that the Obama administration voiced last week. Speaking after a meeting of the Syrian opposition, US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States would double its non-lethal aid to opposition forces in Syria in the coming year bringing the total sum to $250 million. As for arming the Syrian opposition, Britain claims it has not “made decision to arm opposition groups in Syria”, however, Cameron said that it “is pushing for more flexibility in the EU arms embargo”.“What we have done is we have amended the EU arms embargo in order that we can give technical assistance and technical advice,” he said. He also said that UK will continue to examine the embargo to “see if we need to make further changes”.The current sanctions recently amended in April allow the supply of certain non-lethal equipment as well as technical and financing assistance related to it. However, a recently leaked six-page long draft proposal revealed the UK proposed two options to EU diplomats to amend the current embargo: the first, full exemption of Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary forces from the arms embargo and the second, to remove ‘non-lethal’ language to allow shipment lethal equipment to Syria. Cameron said Assad had to realize there could be no military victory for his forces. President Obama has backed Cameron’s words. From his side, he said that the “work to establish the use of chemical weapon in Syria” will continue and the findings “will help guide” the next steps. Obama said the US would be “very persistent” in pursuing a peaceful political transition that leads to Assad’s exit but leaves Syria “intact”.”I’m not promising it is going to be successful. Frankly, sometimes once the furies have been unleashed in a situation like we are seeing in Syria, it’s very hard to put things back together,” Obama said. Both Cameron and Obama welcomed “successful” talks the Prime Minister had with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, at which the two leaders sought to hammer out a common approach to ending Syrian conflict. “There is now common ground between the US, UK, Russia and many others that whatever our differences we have the same aim, a stable, inclusive and peaceful Syria free from the scourge of extremists,” Cameron said. … Read More
Benghazi Puzzle: Is This The Missing Piece?
There is a piece of information that has not been focused on and that is the alleged illicit activities transpiring inside the U.S. facilities that were attacked and it is in the midst of a report put out by five committees of the Republican led House of Representatives. … Read More
Britain and France claim ‘evidence’ of Syria using chemical weapons
The message came in the form of a letter, claiming that soil samples, witness interviews and statements from opposition sources support the idea that nerve agents had been used in and around Aleppo, Homs and supposedly the capital, Damascus. The officials chose to speak on condition of anonymity.The case revolves around the supposed find of an agent “similar to sarin” in a soil sample, though it has not been revealed where the sample came from or what kind of chemical it is exactly.President Assad’s administration has repeatedly denied the allegations, insisting that the rebels were behind the Aleppo attack on March 19, which took the lives of 26 people, including Syrian soldiers.The European diplomats are hoping to prove that any damage inflicted upon the Syrian army was a case of friendly fire, in which a government shell supposedly missed its target.A day after the alleged attack, Syrian envoy to the UN Bashar Jaafari called for an “impartial” probe to confirm the use of chemical weapons by the opposition, an idea backed by the Russian government. The UN chief agreed to the request, but the effort has since been marred by a disagreement over the scope of the probe, with Britain, France and the US insisting on a wider investigation throughout Syria. The UN inspectors have still not been given access.The international body has asked Britain, France and Syria to give more detailed information and additional cooperation on the matter. UN officials say an inspection team will probably be sent to Britain to examine the sample in question, and that refugee testimonies from around the camps outside Syria will be gathered.Following the Aleppo incident, President Obama warned that any use of chemical attacks by the Assad government would constitute crossing a “red line” and added that he had “instructed [his] teams to work closely with all other countries in the region and international organizations and institutions to find out precisely whether this red line was crossed.”The director of US national intelligence, James Clapper Jr. added that all allegations are being evaluated. “We receive many claims of chemical warfare use in Syria each day, and we take them all seriously, and we do all we can to investigate them.”France and Britain, however, took extra steps in a bid to disprove the Syrian government claims, according to one Western diplomat. “There was a strong effort to foil the Syrian government narrative and urge the secretary general not to fall into that trap,” he said. Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday that the investigation will continue despite any obstacles, even without access to Syria itself. “I have been urging the Syrian government to show flexibility in accepting the proposed modalities,” said the UN chief. “While awaiting consent from the Syrian government, the mission will proceed with its fact-finding activities. To this end, specific information has been requested from the governments concerned.” Meanwhile, the UN has approved a plan for the delivery of humanitarian aid to affected regions in the country via “humanitarian corridors” from Syria’s neighbors. Previously aid had been distributed only to Damascus, from where it was distributed to the rest of the country. … Read More
Magnitsky Act the result of ‘know-nothing Congress and lack of leadership from White House’
The ‘Magnitsky Act’ is a serious blow to US-Russia relations, according to Stephen F. Cohen, a professor of Russian studies and history at New York University. In an interview with RT, he described the recent ‘war of lists’ as the start of a new Cold War, and expects that relations between Washington and Moscow will further deteriorate.RT: This tit-for-tat blacklisting is reminiscent of the mutual expulsion of diplomats during the Cold War. To what extent is this going to affect relations between Moscow and Washington?Stephen Cohen: It’s already affected relations. It’s created a very bad political atmosphere in Washington. With the Magnitsky Act, we now have institutionalized by an act of Congress a kind of a prejudicial approach to Russia, that’s going to continue. It won’t be possible to end the Magnitsky Act.In Moscow, it’s made the Russian political class in which president Putin operates even more anti-American, even more resentful toward American policy. And the lists that have been published this week are only the beginning. Some people here say, ‘Well, they are very moderate, not many names on them.’ But we don’t know whose names are on the secret lists in both countries. Even though the tit-for-tat began in the United States with the Magnitsky bill, both sides are now going to use this law for their own political purposes.There’ll be groups in the United States – very anti-Russian, anti-Putin groups – who will want many names on this list, will lobby Congress for that, even Putin’s name himself. And there are anti-American forces in the Russian political class that will match them person for person. So, for anyone who cares for American-Russian relations, thinks that a cooperative relationship is necessary for the American national security and Russian national security, this is a very bad development. RT: The Magnitsky Act was inserted into the bill to repeal the Jackson-Vanik trade amendment. Why was it not enough for Congress to just normalize relations with Russia? Did it really have to add the Magnitsky List, which Moscow calls russophobic?SC: I think that the Magnitsky Act and Moscow’s reaction, which was predictable, are evidence that we are already in a new Cold War, or are on the verge of it. The act by Congress was of course provoked by russophobic forces in the United States. Congress itself is not russophobic, it’s just uninformed. It knows almost nothing about Russia. Most members of Congress have no understanding of international affairs or national security.And when lobbyists bring pressure on the majority members of Congress, and this was a bipartisan act. So-called Democrats, progressive people supported the Magnitsky Act, as much as did the reactionary Republicans, you end up with a bill like that. It’s not about russophobia, it’s about lack of knowledge. It’s a bad thing when legislators pass laws on subjects they know almost nothing about. Now it’s true that the Obama White House did not want the Magnitsky Act, but it did not use its power and its leadership to stop it. And so that’s what you call a combination of a know-nothing Congress and the lack of leadership from the White House.RT: Prime Minister Medvedev says that despite the latest spat, there is still room for cooperation with Washington. Does that mean this exchange is something of a sideshow, or is it really a stumbling block?SC: It changed and poisoned the atmosphere. It’s going to make it harder, for example, for President Obama to make concessions on let’s say missile defense to President Putin. Because there’s this attitude that Russia does not deserve any concessions. And I’m guessing that if President Putin would like to modify his position on European missile defense – and I mention that because it’s on the table at the moment, it’s an important issue – that there will be forces in the Russian political class, that will oppose these compromises to the United States. So, it’s not a sideshow.RT: Russian-US relations seemed to improve greatly during the ‘reset’ period. What went wrong? Why has it once again come to mutual distrust?SC: Obama did not want the Magnitsky Act, it was imposed on him by the American Congress, by the Congress that included his own political party, the Democratic party. The situation about President Putin is I think more nuanced, and I’m less certain about it, but in the run-up for example to the ban by the Duma, the Russian parliament, of American adoptions of Russian orphans, there was no evidence until that thing got political life in the Duma that Putin favored it.Now it’s true he didn’t oppose it, he didn’t veto it, but remember that long before the Magnitsky Act, there were deep misgivings in Russia about American adoptions. There were too many abused Russian kids in America, too many deaths of Russian orphans adopted by Americans, but there was something else. Remember the Kremlin signed with the White House an agreement, I think it was in November 2012, that Russia would be given inspection rights, visitation rights to the homes of the adopted Russian kids in the United States. They were not given that right.And Obama’s answer was, ‘I’m very sorry I can’t enforce the treaty I signed with you, because orphans are matter of states’ rights, the fifty American States, not the federal government regulating this.’ Well, the Kremlin was very angry. Why didn’t Obama tell them that before they signed this treaty? Which might also ask, Since Russia has a lot of international lawyers, why they didn’t study American laws? They would have known.But Russia’s anger about what seemed to be the Obama administration’s unwillingness to honor the treaty giving Russian officials the right to check that Russian orphans adopted are OK, that fed that Duma bill. And that was independent of the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act was a pretext to adopt that bill. But you see how an event like the Magnitsky act will make other things worse. Things that are already half there, that might not get worse, now they will get worse. … Read More
North Korea allegedly preparing fourth nuke test
Pyongyang appeared to be making preparations for the test, according to a South Korean government source speaking to the country’s Joong Ang Daily newpaper.This comes on the heels of the South’s defense ministry reports that Pyongyang could perform a mid-range missile test-launch by Wednesday – also the deadline it has given to foreign diplomats to evacuate, as their safety would reportedly no longer be guaranteed by the government.“We have detected increased activity of labor forces and vehicles at the southern tunnel of the test site in Punggye-ri, where the regime has worked on maintenance for facilities since its third nuclear test in February”, one of South’s top government officials said. He added that “the activities appear to be similar to those before the third test, so we are closely monitoring the site.”The official went on to say that the South Korean government “were also tipped off that Pyongyang would soon carry out an additional nuclear test…but we are analyzing if it is indeed preparation for an additional test of it is just to pressure Seoul and Washington.” … Read More
Tourists say situation ‘normal’ in North Korea
The situation on the ground in North Korea appears normal and calm, tourists and guides say, despite high international tensions and Pyongyang warning diplomats to consider leaving. With the Korean peninsula in crisis and Pyongyang threatening a nuclear strike against the US, North Korean…
