PIRACY - Israeli navy boards activist ship en route to Gaza

Israel’s defense forces have boarded a ship attempting to break through the Gaza blockade in “a peaceful operation.” The vessel was carrying Palestinian activists, parliamentarians and humanitarian cargo, said a mission spokesperson.

­Six Israeli naval boats surrounded the SV Estelle’ 38 nautical miles from Gaza while it was still in international waters.

A spokesperson from the Israeli Department of Defense said that they were forced to intervene after the vessel ignored numerous warnings to change course and cooperate with the Israeli authorities.

"After the passengers ignored calls to change course, the decision was made to board the vessel and lead it to the port of Ashdod,” said the spokesperson, adding that no one was injured when the marines seized control of the ship.

The organizers of the activist mission to Gaza announced over the radio that their vessel had come under attack shortly after it was approached by Israeli ships.

There were about 30 people from eight countries on board, including Israeli citizens, lawmakers from Norway, Sweden, Greece and Spain and a 79-year-old former legislator from Canada.

The activists are being transferred to Ashdod port where they will be handed over to police custody and then on to the immigration authorities. Previously, activists caught trying to break through the blockade have been deported from Israel immediately.

The Swedish-owned, Finnish-flagged vessel was reportedly carrying 41 tonnes of cement, books, toys, medical equipment and two olive trees.

A senior Defense Ministry official said that Israel was well within its rights to “operate at sea to prevent the smuggling of arms to terror organizations," reported Ynet. He denounced the activists as "provocateurs who are drive by hatred for Israel" and dismissed the “humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” maintaining “more than 1,500 trucks carrying tons of goods enter Gaza each week through the land crossings.”

In 2010, Israeli forces boarded a Turkish ship attempting to force its way through the blockade. Soldiers killed nine activists, sparking international outcry and condemnation from the UN for use of “excessive force.”

The UN has called for the six-year blockade on Gaza to be lifted on numerous occasions on the grounds that it represents “a denial of basic human rights in contravention of international law.”

Victoria Strand, one of the organizers of the mission, calls the Israeli blockade of Gaza “illegal and unfair.”

“We have to challenge this siege as long as the international community does not do so. WHO, the UN, the EU, everyone is saying that the siege is counterproductive, but nobody is doing anything about it, so we have to take civil action against it,” she told RT.

Strand stressed that Israel needs to realize “the blockade is not helping anyone.”

“It does not help people in Israel, it does not help Palestinians and it has nothing to do with the security of Israel, because weapons are floating in through the tunnels,” she explained, adding that Israel also blockades any export from Gaza, meaning the Palestinians can`t produce anything.

Medal of dishonor: UK bars WWII vets from receiving Russian award

British North Atlantic Convoy veterans

London has denied Moscow permission to honor UK veterans of the WWII Arctic Convoys by presenting them with the prestigious Ushakov Medal.

Between 1941 and 1945, the convoys formed a crucial supply route from the UK and North America to the northern Soviet ports of Murmansk and Archangelsk. Merchant vessels were escorted by British Royal Naval ships and aircraft carriers.

In April of this year, then-President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree awarding the Ushakov Medal – named after the seasoned Russian Admiral Fyodor Ushakov – to foreign veterans for exceptional contributions to Allied war efforts during WWII.

Under UK law, citizens are allowed to receive foreign medals and awards only if the British government gives them permission, and only if the award relates to the recipient’s activities within past five years.

In May 2012, Moscow officially asked London for permission. The Russian Embassy in the UK forwarded 813 letters from the veterans to Britain’s Foreign Office that detailed their public activities over the last five years.

The Foreign Office turned down the request, saying that the information provided ‘does not describe any relevant service specific to Russia within the last five years,’ the embassy’s press release said. The decision may be revisited if the Russian diplomatic service provides details of veterans who satisfy to the five year criteria.

“It is, however, difficult to imagine the persons in their late eighties and early nineties to do things similar to what they did at the time of the war 70 years ago,” the Russian embassy wrote in its statement.

“It does not diminish in any way our gratitude to them for their fighting for the common cause of defeating Nazism and delivering Europe and the whole of mankind from this existential threat,” the embassy said.

Moscow also vowed to contact each British veteran slated to receive the award.

Arab monarchies: Muslim Brotherhood 'source of all problems in Islamic world'

The rulers of several major Arab nations have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of ambitions to seize power illegitimately. Several governments branded the organization a major threat to stability as the party’s influence grows steadily.

­After the Muslim Brotherhood legally took power in Egypt’s elections, with Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi becoming President, several Arab Gulf states expressed concern. Monarchies that narrowly escaped the Arab Spring were taken aback when a popular Islamist party suddenly became a key player in the region.

United Arab Emirate Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah urged Gulf states to deal with an alleged Muslim Brotherhood plot to undermine regional governments. "The Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in the nation-state. It does not believe in the sovereignty of the state," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said at a press conference.

The Brotherhood is banned in the United Arab Emirates, and Abdullah claimed his country’s security forces had arrested some 60 people this year belonging to the local group Al Islah (‘Reform and Social Guidance Association’), a nonviolent political association advocating greater adherence to Islamic precepts.

The Sheikh claimed that Islamists – some of whom are connected with the Muslim Brotherhood – were planning to stage a coup in the UAE.

Al Islah shares a similar ideology with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, though it does not have direct links to the organization. The group claimed that it only supports nonviolent reform.

The accusation came the same day Kuwaiti lawmaker Saleh al-Mulla said that the Muslim Brotherhood is putting pressure on his country’s rulers by taking part in demonstrations “after losing their typical alliance with the government.”

Earlier, Saudi Arabian Interior Minister Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz denounced the Brotherhood, saying the organization is guilty of “betrayal of pledges and ingratitude” and is “the source of all problems in the Islamic world,” the Washington Post reported.

That followed Dubai's outspoken police chief Dhahi Khalfan’s claim in July that the Brotherhood was carting out an "international plot" against Gulf Arab states.

The UAE Foreign Minister’s statement came one day after thousands took to the streets of Jordan's capital of Amman over King Abdullah II’s decision to dissolve the country’s parliament. The move was seen as an attempt to compromise with the country’s Muslim Brotherhood branch, Jordan’s main opposition party.

The Jordanian wing of the Brotherhood urged the country’s leadership to undertake reforms that would result in the monarchy losing political power. Abdullah II conceded, allowing changes to the procedure by which the country forms a government, with more privileges granted to the electoral winners. The Brotherhood criticized the move as insufficient, and called on their supporters to protest.

Egypt – where the Muslim Brotherhood took power after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak last year – sought to reassure Gulf Arab states that it will not push for political change outside of the country. President Morsi said that the country has no desire to "export the revolution."

Most Arab Gulf states are hereditary monarchies with limited political representation, with only Bahrain and Kuwait having popularly elected legislatures. Their main sources of revenue come from oil and gas exports, which exist in abundance in their territory. Strong social welfare systems have largely shielded the monarchies from the Arab Spring unrest that has ousted rulers in other majority Muslim countries.

“The Muslim Brotherhood's primary goals have been expressed through welfare programs, and it’s a reason for its continuing popularity in places like Egypt, Jordan, Syria,” author and journalist Eric Margolis told RT.

The Arab Spring revolutions, most of which started as political rather than economic protests, demonstrated to the Gulf’s monarchic regimes what political Islam can do when it is supported by a mass popular uprising.

“Certainly the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt has made people nervous there,” Margolis said. In his opinion, the Brotherhood is little threat to the status quo in the Gulf, since the organization became very conservative over its long history.

The bloody civil war in Libya and overthrow of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi served as an example to the Gulf monarchies that sponsored the uprising, who now see that “terrorist activity has drastically increased after the Gaddafi regime was removed by terrorist groups,” Ekaterina Kuznetsova of the Center for Post-Industrial Studies told RT.

“This is often the case with totalitarian regimes and the vacuum that remains after they’ve been eliminated,” Kuznetsova said.

Egypt’s new constitution – drafted by the Islamists who now dominate the parliamentary assembly – is expected to be finished in November.

However, the current draft does not meet basic human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said on Monday. The key problem areas mentioned by the New York-based group are the lack of full bans on torture, the trafficking of women and children and discrimination on the grounds of sex.

‘Suppliers of arms to opposition want to destroy the Syrian people’ – Iraqi PM

States that send arms to Syria face upheavals and unrest due to sectarian violence, their stability will be in jeopardy and the state of affairs will be no better than in Syria, warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in an interview to SW.

"He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end,” Al-Maliki stated, predicting that sponsorship of the Syrian opposition will backfire on supporting states.

SW: What do Iraq and Russia have in common in terms of their approach to the Syrian crisis; and do you think the two countries can come up with a joint proposal on how to settle it?

Nouri Al-Maliki: Of course, the crisis is a matter of serious concern both for the countries in the region and for the world’s major powers. And it’s not only countries – this issue has been on the agenda of many international organizations. We have repeatedly said that we take the Syrian crisis as our own problem. It is a very important country, with its own political position. We did warn everyone earlier – and keep reminding – that the fire that started in Syria will spill over the borders to engulf other countries of the region and, in the end, it will have a global impact. The Middle East is one of the major energy producers of the world.

Just like Russia, we believe that the use of force cannot be a solution to the crisis. Many other countries now share this approach, even those that used to think that supplying arms to the opposition would be sufficient to generate regime change. They now recognize that it is impossible to settle the Syrian crisis through the use of force. This is also Russia’s position.

Russia, Iraq and many other countries are united in their conviction that force will not end the crisis in Syria – we need to look for a peaceful solution through political dialogue. It is our joint task – I mean Iraq, Russia and the whole international community – to help both sides find common ground, to agree on a mutually-acceptable form of government.

This new government must be based on the principles of freedom and democracy. The Syrians must have the right to vote, they must have a Constitution. These are the things that the Syrian people demanded when they started the revolution. But of course, not everybody in Syria agrees with these demands, some groups don’t think that reforms are needed. We’ve heard different statements and demands. Of course dialogue will continue, because we are very much concerned about what’s going on in Syria. We have been seriously affected by the situation in Syria. We have experienced some spillover effects of the Syrian crisis here in Iraq.

We will discuss this issue with our Russian counterparts; we will talk about possible ways to make existing initiatives effective, including the original peace plan put forward by the Arab League, as opposed to the flawed proposals made during the sessions of the ministerial committee and the Geneva agreements. According to them, there is no military solution to the conflict. The agreements call for an end to arms supplies both to the opposition and the regime. Unfortunately, a number of states ignore these initiatives and continue to send arms to Syria, which only makes the situation worse.

This is where Russia, Iraq, China, and many Muslim and Arab countries in the region agree. It is our duty to address this issue and try to find ways out of this turmoil which, we are afraid, might turn into a fully-fledged regional war.

SW: How would you assess the calls by some countries, especially Arab countries that have the support of the West, for military intervention in order to resolve the crisis in Syria?

NM: I’d give them a piece of brotherly advice: “Forget it! He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end.” Those who want Syria to follow this path have to understand that it will destroy the Syrian people. This is what’s happening in Syria right now. Cities lie in ruins, the war rages on and is likely to spill over involving new actors – international, regional, religious and political ones. If they care about themselves and their people, if they seek stability and security, if they care about Syria and its people, they have to stop sowing the seeds of discord by supplying arms. They also have to stop thinking it will be them who will shape Syria’s future.

I met with several representatives of the Syrian opposition and I felt they understand the threat that is coming from the Arab forces that provide them with weapons. These forces openly declare that they want to interfere in Syria’s affairs. But the Syrian nation is against it.

SW: Do you share the view that it’s foreign interference in Syria’s affairs that’s made the situation in the country so dangerous?

NM: Absolutely. And they will keep driving it to an even more dangerous degree until eventually it will backfire on the states that are now sponsoring the Syrian opposition. All these states will face upheavals and unrest due to sectarian violence, foreign interference, the spillover effect and expansion. They’re already feeling it. If these countries keep sending arms and using force for a regime change, their stability will be in jeopardy, and the situation inside these countries will be no better than in Syria.

SW: What do you think about the “national partnership government”? Is this the best form of governance to help to move Iraq forward or are there any negative aspects that make that government less effective? What do you think of “the majority government”, something many other countries rely on?

NM: A partnership government has exhausted both its capacity and agenda. It was necessary during previous stages, but not any longer. Right now everyone, even the people of Iraq, feel that the regime of national partnership keeps our hands tied, hinders our development, stands in the way of the breakthrough that Iraq could make in the development of infrastructure, the services sector and economic recovery.

We hear more and more voices now, in our society and in parliament, calling for a shift to a majority government, to make parliament united so that it can pass decisions and laws that would help to rule the state; because right now the government is paralyzed. It can’t do anything. The partnership originally built to pursue a major breakthrough has now degraded to a partnership that generates obstacles. Because of that we need a majority government, and I am working hard to make it a reality.

SW: Both the Iraqi government and its citizens still suffer from regular terror attacks. Who is behind this violence – international players interfering in your affairs or Al-Qaeda militants opposing the political process? Or are there any other reasons that the Iraqi people are not aware of? Why is it so hard to take out these armed groups that are still out there?

NM: Violence continues and it’s been down to all the factors you have mentioned. Foreign intervention is fully underway. What they want to do is to use these acts of violence to prepare for the next, post-Syrian stage. It’s the same states that are now interfering in Syria. They are sending arms and militants there, over and over again. Their goal is to change Syria, then Iraq, and ultimately the entire region. Also, Al-Qaeda is back, it came to life again – regrettably, as part of the Arab Spring. It flooded the streets in the capitals of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen. Its slogans, groups and terrorist attacks are clear signs of its revival, and Iraq couldn’t escape that. And those states that are interfering won’t escape it either.

But the really embarrassing thing is that the national partnership government cannot be effective in the fight against terrorism. That’s the problem. When your partner supports both security measures and terrorist acts, you get problems. I wouldn’t like to go into detail now. I am only saying that this is one of the downsides to the national partnership. How can we expect security agencies to control the situation when the government’s own money, arms, transport, and the nature of the government are used to support those seeking to carry out terrorist attacks?

SW: Mr. Maliki, when Iraq was about to buy F-16 fighter jets, Iraqi Kurds, along with some neighboring states, including the Gulf countries voiced their concerns over the future deal. Are these concerns justified? And can they be allayed?

NM: They are totally unsubstantiated. These people might still have old stereotypes of Iraq that go back to the times of dictatorship that were characterized by reckless operations, wars and invasions. Some regimes, both big and small, still have expansionist ambitions. Sadly, they have learned no lessons from Saddam Hussein’s experience. He had it all: troops and offensive capabilities, but the end of his career was a disaster. These people still believe that just like in the past, Iraq is still capable of invading its neighbors, concocting conspiracies, attacking other countries like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or slaughtering people in its southern or northern regions.

But today Iraq is a different country. It does not wage war on its own people. The Kurds who believe that Iraq is taking up arms to fight them are seriously deluded.

These talks are no more than political maneuvering used to make up for the mistakes and failures of the past. These countries are aware that present-day Iraq has nothing in common with the dictatorship of the past. It is a democratic country which is against the use of force, as set forth in the laws adopted by its parliament. Generally speaking, our main principle is non-interference in the affairs of other states. But we would like this to be a two-way street.

But the reality is that Iraq is located in an arms-infested region. All the neighboring states have impressive arsenals of modern weapons. Even the smaller states in the region have more weapons than Iraq, a large state with a rich history. Iraq is entitled to self-defense, so it has the right to use different armaments to protect its sovereignty. And so it can have the same weapons as other countries who claim they need the same weapons as Iraq to defend their sovereignty.

I would like to allay their concerns by saying that Iraq is not interested in offensive weapons, only defensive ones. Indeed, we would like to have very strong defensive weapons to repel any attack on Iraq’s sovereignty. But primitive weapons won’t be enough. What we need is something very strong and absolutely sophisticated to counter any possible aggression. This would make anyone who plans to breach our sovereignty to think twice before attacking Iraq.

SW: Mr Prime Minister, as commander-in-chief, when do you expect Iraq’s armed forces to reach combat readiness in terms of the size of personnel and materials?

SW: We already have the number of troops that we need, but we are still working on the list of weapons and hardware. We are receiving weapons supplies from the US, former Soviet nations and possibly from Russia, too, in line with the contracts that we signed earlier. However, we expect to ensure maximum defensive capabilities by 2020, according to the plans we have at the moment. By that time we expect to re-equip the armed forces with powerful weapons to protect Iraq on land and in the air. So currently we would still be able to defend the nation but our capabilities need to be maintained and further improved.