This article titled “Gay rights must be criterion for US aid allocations, instructs Obama” was written by Karen McVeigh in New York, for The Guardian on Wednesday 7th December 2011 00.03 UTC

President Barack Obama has instructed officials to consider how countries treat their gay and lesbian populations when making decisions about allocating foreign aid.

In the first US government strategy to deal with human rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens abroad, a presidential memorandum issued on Tuesday instructs agencies to use foreign aid to promote such rights.

Gay and lesbian lobby groups have reported an increase in human rights abuses across Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Obama is among international leaders who have condemned a bill proposed in Uganda that would make some homosexual acts a crime punishable by death. The Ugandan parliament recently reopened debate on the bill, which had been abandoned after an international outcry.

In a speech in Geneva to mark international human rights day, secretary of state Hillary Clinton backed the presidential directive. “I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes,” she said. “They can and they do. Just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable. But it should never be a crime to be gay.”

Clinton has called for greater protection of sexual minorities and the safety of those seeking asylum. In June, she welcomed a UN resolution on equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Clinton compared the struggle for gay equality to difficult passages toward women’s rights and racial equality, and said a country’s cultural or religious traditions are no excuse for discrimination. “Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” she said.

Among US measures, the state department will lead a group to direct agencies to provide a “swift and meaningful” response to serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBT people abroad, Obama said. Agencies are directed to combat the criminalisation of LGBT status or conduct abroad, protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, and engage international organisations in the fight against such discrimination. Agencies are instructed to report on progress within 180 days.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney argued gay rights should not be a test for US engagement abroad. “I will be looking at foreign aid, whether it meets our national security interests and, number two, whether these nations are friends of ours and are willing to be friendly with us in ways when it matters the most,” he said on Fox News.

The Texas governor, Rick Perry, went further. “Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money,” a Perry campaign statement said.

It was unclear whether those countries that target and discriminate against gay and lesbians would have their funding cut.

The latest state department report cites countries including US allies such as Saudi Arabia as having human rights issues over treatment of homosexuals.

The UN Human Rights Council passed the resolution on equal rights for all by a narrow margin, despite strong objections from African and Muslim countries.

While the US, the EU and Brazil backed the effort, the move drew strong criticism from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, among others.

In October this year, USAID made an announcement that it “strongly encourages” businesses contracted with USAID to go beyond mandatory non-discrimination protections, to prohibit job bias for LGBT employees and other workers.

Among the top 10 countries granted economic and military assistance from the US, according to USAID, are Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Egypt Pakistan, Sudan, West Bank/Gaza, Ethiopia, Kenya and Columbia.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Israel approves new settler homes in East Jerusalem” was written by Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem, for The Guardian on Tuesday 27th September 2011 19.27 UTC

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, joined a wave of condemnation of Israel’s approval of the construction of 1,100 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement on Tuesday, which puts at risk international efforts to persuade Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to return to talks.

The move was “counter-productive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties”, Clinton said. “As you know, we have long urged both sides to avoid any kind of action which could undermine trust, including, and perhaps most particularly, in Jerusalem, any action that could be viewed as provocative by either side.”

Lady Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, called for the plan to be reversed, saying settlement expansion “threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution”.

The expansion of Gilo, a settlement built across the Green Line, was authorised by a Jerusalem planning committee and would be subject to public consultation before final approval.

The Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called the move a “slap in the face to all international efforts to protect the fading prospects of peace in the region”. Referring to criticism of its “unilateral” act in seeking recognition of its state, the Palestinian Authority (PA) said “there could be nothing more unilateral than a huge, new round of settlement building on Palestinian land”.

Following the PA’s submission of its request to be admitted to the UN as a full member state, the Middle East Quartet – the US, UN, Russia and the EU – called for both parties to return to the negotiating table. In a statement setting out a timetable for talks, the quartet urged the parties “to refrain from provocative actions”, which was interpreted as a coded call for Israel to hold back from settlement expansion. Neither party has formally responded to the quartet’s statement, but the Palestinians have made clear they want a further settlement freeze before more talks.

The UN announced it was concerned about the decision to build further in Gilo. “Today’s decision … ignores the quartet’s appeal of last Friday to the parties to refrain from provocative actions,” said a spokesman for Robert Serry, the UN special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process. “This sends the wrong signal at this sensitive time. Settlement activity is contrary to the road map and to international law, and undermines the prospect of resuming negotiations and reaching a two-state solution to the conflict.”

The expansion of Gilo, a huge settlement built on land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem that was captured by Israel in 1967 and later annexed, has been on the table for more than two years. The settlement is illegal under international law. The Israeli government asserts it has the right to build Jewish settlements anywhere in the city.

The approval came as the chairmen of several rightwing parties in Israel wrote to Netanyahu to urge him to annex all West Bank settlements and accelerate settlement construction in response to the Palestinian bid for statehood. They also called for financial sanctions and curbs on Palestinian construction in areas of the West Bank controlled by Israel.

Tensions in the West Bank between settlers and Palestinians have risen sharply this September with the demand for Palestinian statehood at the UN.

An Israeli police investigation concluded that a settler and his infant son, who were killed when their car overturned last Friday, had been struck by a rock thrown by Palestinians. At their funeral on Sunday night, a rabbi called for “collective punishment” of Palestinians, saying “there are no innocents in a war”.

The Israeli security service, Shin Bet, confirmed it had urged the education ministry to halt funding to a religious school in the settlement of Yitzhar. According to a report in the news service Haaretz, security services said senior rabbis were inciting students to attack Palestinian villagers.

A Palestinian man was shot dead by Israeli soldiers during a protest last Friday against settlers in the West Bank village of Qusra.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Palestinians ready to put statehood on backburner in favour of peace talks” was written by Chris McGreal in New York and Harriet Sherwood in Ramallah, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 22nd September 2011 01.21 UTC

The Palestinian leadership remains prepared to put statehood on the backburner at the UN security council in order to leave room for the revival of peace talks, according to senior Palestinian sources.

The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is said to have told Barack Obama at a meeting on Wednesday evening that he would agree to delaying a security council vote by several weeks, although the Palestinians are maintaining the line in public that any delays will be “procedural not political”.

The Palestinian offer comes despite Obama angering them by defending the US threat to veto the bid for statehood while praising revolutions in other parts of the Arab world.

Obama told the opening of the UN general assembly in New York that negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, not a security council resolution, was the way to ensure a lasting peace. But he was challenged by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who said US leadership on the issue had failed and called for a new initiative involving Europe and Arab states to create a Palestinian state within a year.

Sarkozy’s intervention fits with a plan being mapped out by the Quartet of the UN, US, EU and Russia to restart negotiations and avoid a showdown in the security council. The French president said there should be talks without preconditions. But the Quartet plan faces a major obstacle from a Palestinian insistence that it require Israel to halt all settlement construction during talks.

Obama said “the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own” and that vision had been delayed for too long. But he offered no new initiatives and, tellingly, did not repeat earlier calls – for which he has come under fire – for negotiations to be based on the borders at the time of the 1967 war, with agreed land swaps. He also made no mention of settlements.

Obama went from his speech to a meeting with the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. The US president was dismissive of Abbas’s plan to ask the security council to recognise Palestine as a state.

“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN – if it were that easy it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately it is Israelis and Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security, on refugees and Jerusalem,” he said as Abbas shook his head.

The Palestinians responded by saying they would not be deterred from pursuing their request to the security council for full membership of the UN, and that if he US used its veto they would seek a vote in the general assembly, which has the power to grant observer status.

However, the Palestinians appeared to be pulling back from an immediate confrontation, having come under intense pressure from the Europeans as well as the Americans. Although Sarkozy staked out a position sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in his UN speech, he has advised Abbas to hold off from the security council move.

Another senior Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath, said the Palestinians had an assurance from the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, that a vote in the security council would not be delayed for political reasons, but only by procedure. He said that if there was no request for the vote, or the US exercised its veto, then the Palestinians would go to the general assembly. But he declined to put a timescale on such a move.

In a speech that was widely seen as his most supportive of Israel as president, Obama spoke about the US’s “unshakeable” commitment to the Jewish state’s security, and said that any lasting peace must recognise Israel’s “very real security concerns”. He spoke at length about Israeli suffering, but to the consternation of the Palestinians made no mention of the difficulties of life under occupation or the impact of expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Obama said: “Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbours that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them.

“Israel, a small country of less than 8 million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.

“Friends of the Palestinians do them no favours by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognise the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.”

Obama’s failure to offer any new hope of progress toward a Palestinian state stood in sharp contrast to his praise of the quest for freedom in parts of the Arab world and beyond. “Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open,” he said.

Sarkozy said the “miracle” of the Arab spring was a reminder of the moral and political obligation to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But without naming the US, he implied that its oversight of years of failed negotiations meant a new approach was required. “We can wait no longer. The method is no longer working? Change the method. Cease believing that a single country or a small group of countries can solve a problem of such complexity.”

Sarkozy called for a fresh set of negotiations, with wider involvement of European and Arab nations, based on a timetable that would see the borders of a Palestinian state agreed within six months and a final deal within a year. “We should not look for the perfect solution. Choose the path of compromise,” he said.

But Sarkozy also said the Palestinians were mistaken to seek full recognition as a state at the security council. He warned there could be violence if the bid went ahead and was vetoed by the US. The French president said the Palestinians should instead ask to be admitted as an observer state to the general assembly, which would give them hope.

Shaath criticised Obama’s speech for failing to address what he said was the primary obstacle to peace negotiations: the continued construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. “The serious gap in the speech had to do with the absolute minimum for the peace process … settlement policies, de-Arabisation of Jerusalem, the siege of Gaza,” he said.

Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian former negotiator who is part of Abbas’s delegation to the UN, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz he was angered by Obama’s speech.

“I did not believe what I heard, it sounded as if the Palestinians were occupying Israel.  There was no empathy for the Palestinians, he only spoke of the Israeli problems,” she said. “He told us that it isn’t easy to achieve peace – thanks, we know this.  He spoke about universal rights – good, those same rights apply to Palestinians.

“[The Americans] are applying enormous pressure on everybody at the UN, they are using threats and coercion. I wish they would invest the same energy in an attempt to promote peace, not threats.”

Obama’s speech was greeted with despair in the West Bank. Mustafa Barghouti, an independent politician and former Palestinian presidential candidate, said he was disappointed. “It clearly shows the double standards of the US when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Obama spoke about freedom, human rights, justice in South Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt – but not for the Palestinians,” he said.

“His version of reality is wrong. He claims that Israel is the victim in this conflict and that’s not true. He doesn’t see that this is not a struggle between two equal sides, but between an oppressor and the oppressed, and occupier and the occupied.”

A Ramallah shop owner, Marwan Jubeh, said: “Israel and the US are one and the same: the US is Israel, and Israel is the US. Israel doesn’t want to give the Palestinians anything and Obama can’t do anything without Israel because Congress is pro-Israel.”

In contrast, Netanyahu praised Obama when the two met after the US president’s speech. The Israeli prime minister described Obama’s pledge to block the Palestinian move at the UN security council as a “badge of honour”.

Netanyahu said he was ready for talks with the Palestinians but was sceptical about what they could achieve. “I think the Palestinians want to achieve a state but they’re not prepared yet to make peace with Israel,” he said.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Palestinian statehood: plan emerges to avoid UN showdown” was written by Chris McGreal in New York, for guardian.co.uk on Tuesday 20th September 2011 23.04 UTC

International efforts to forestall a showdown in the UN security council over the declaration of a Palestinian state are solidifying around a plan for the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to submit a request for recognition but for a vote on the issue to be put on hold while a new round of peace talks is launched.

The deal is being pushed by the Middle East “Quartet” of the UN, EU, US and Russia, which is attempting to persuade Abbas to back away from a diplomatic confrontation with Washington, which says it will veto the Palestinian bid.

The US president Barack Obama is expected to meet the Palestinian leader at the UN on Wednesday as Abbas comes under intense pressure from the US and Europe to compromise.

Diplomats said the proposed compromise would see Abbas submit his letter to the security council, which would then defer action. In parallel, the Quartet would issue the framework for renewed negotiations that would include a timeline for the birth of a Palestinian state.

The deal is intended to permit Abbas to follow through on his commitment to Palestinians to seek recognition for an independent state at the security council, a pledge he could not abandon entirely without considerable damage to his already battered leadership.

If the proposals under discussion come to fruition, Abbas could claim a victory for the Palestinians by saying he has achieved his principal goal in going to the UN of breaking the deadlock that has seen no serious movement towards a Palestinian state in years.

However, diplomats warned that a number of issues remain unresolved, including a Palestinian demand that the statement include a requirement that Israel halt construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Israel’s position is unclear. Its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, arrives in New York on Wednesday and has appealed for immediate talks with Abbas but without preconditions.

Diplomats said negotiations were likely to come down to the wire as Abbas plans to submit the request on Friday.

“The Palestinians are open to a way out of this,” said a diplomat with knowledge of the negotiations. “But they can’t abandon the security council vote without something to show. The question is how to turn this to their advantage. If the result is that there is a serious push to make peace talks work, then that’s a win for the Palestinians. I think everyone involved in this – the Americans, the Europeans – would like to see that happen.”

Husam Zomlot, a Palestinian spokesman, said Abbas remains committed to submitting the Palestinian request to the security council but he noted that the intention behind the move was to break the deadlock in the peace process, which may now be happening.

“There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever between our quest for United Nations full membership and any possible negotiations. In fact, we see them as very very complementary. We are seeking this to provide any future bilateral process with sufficient multilateral cover where we don’t waste another 20 years,” he said.

The proposals under discussion would have the Quartet statement say, at the Palestinians’ behest, that the goal is a Palestinian state based on the borders at the time of the 1967 war that led to the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. It will also meet an Israeli demand by saying that talks will result in two countries with Israel as a Jewish state.

A Palestinian official acknowledged the plan was a focus of discussion with the Quartet although he cautioned that the leadership is concerned to ensure there is real momentum and that Israel is not permitted to drag out negotiations.

Abbas has come under intense pressure from the US and European nations to avoid forcing Washington to wield its veto. The British foreign secretary, William Hague, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, met the Palestinian leader on Tuesday to press him to reopen talks.

Nabil Shaath, a senior member of Abbas’s delegation to the UN, said the US has attempted to dissuade the Palestinians from going to the security council with the threat of punitive measures. He did not say what they might be although there are demands in Congress for the $500m in US aid to the Palestinian Authority to be cut.

The Palestinians are also under pressure because it is far from certain they will win the necessary nine votes in the security council to win recognition. The US has been using its influence to get some security council members to abstain in the hope the Palestinians will lose the vote and that the US veto will not be required.

Nonetheless, Abbas can claim a diplomatic success in forcing the most serious effort to kickstart peace negotiations in years. The US insistence that it will veto the Palestinian bid for membership in the security council has strengthened the hand of European governments, which have generally be sidelined by Washington in the Middle East peace process.

Britain and France in particular, as permanent members of the security council, have attempted to use their votes as a bargaining chip in dealings with Abbas by suggesting that they could support a move to give the Palestinians greater recognition in the UN general assembly if a vote is not forced in the security council.

However, diplomats cautioned that the plan is far from complete and that obstacles remain.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “US steps up pressure on Palestinians to drop UN statehood bid” was written by Chris McGreal in Washington and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem, for The Guardian on Wednesday 14th September 2011 16.15 UTC

The US is attempting to fire up a fresh round of Middle East peace talks in an attempt to head off a major diplomatic embarrassment over a looming Palestinian request for recognition of statehood at the United Nations.

Washington has again dispatched negotiators to meet Palestinian and Israeli leaders as it scrambles to find ways to avoid carrying out a threat to veto a Palestinian request for full membership of the UN, which is expected to be made to the security council or the general assembly next week.

If the request is made to the security council, a US veto of Palestinian demands for statehood – on the grounds that two decades of negotiations has failed to end the occupation – is likely to further damage America’s already battered reputation in the Middle East, particularly when Washington has strongly backed the uprisings in Libya and Syria and broadly welcomed the Arab spring.

The US is working with Tony Blair, special envoy of the quartet of the UN, EU, US and Russia, to come up with a framework for talks that could lure the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. US envoys David Hale and Dennis Ross, the European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Blair are due to meet Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

But Washington is also seeking support from Britain in particular in its stand against the Palestinian resolution, if it does come to a vote at the UN. Two other security council members, Russia and China, have openly backed the Palestinian move. France is sympathetic to the Palestinian demand but is seeking a compromise resolution that could be supported by Germany, which is opposed to UN recognition of a Palestinian state, in the hope of forging a common EU position.

Britain has so far not declared how it would vote, but diplomatic sources say that it is torn between American pressure to support the US position in the security council and concerns about what such a move would do to the UK’s standing in a changing Middle East, particularly while it is still heavily involved in Libya.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has said he will take the request for full recognition as a state to the UN security council next week. But some Arab and European nations are pressuring him to downgrade the request to the general assembly, which can only offer observer status to the Palestinians, to save Washington the embarrassment of having to wield its veto.

Israel was also making last-minute efforts to persuade undeclared countries not to vote for a Palestinian resolution, amid threats to tear up previous agreements, impose financial penalties and annexe West Bank settlements if the Palestinians go ahead.

Obama confirmed the US would veto any request brought before the security council, describing the Palestinian push as “counterproductive”. But the White House wants to avoid such a step, knowing it will play badly among Arabs whose own moves for self-determination this year Obama has endorsed.

In Washington, the US House of Representatives foreign affairs committee opened a hearing on Wednesday into whether American aid to the Palestinian Authority should be discontinued. Some members of the overwhelmingly pro-Israel US Congress have been pressing for a cut off in aid if the Palestinians submit their request to the UN. However, there is concern among others that such a move would leave Israel to pick up a greater share of the cost of occupation.

The European Union is at the centre of the efforts to avoid diplomatic meltdown. Its belief that only a negotiated settlement can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is given added force by its desire to avoid a damaging split among its 27 members.

But efforts to secure a breakthrough are constrained by Palestinian demands of guarantees that any talks would be based on the pre-1967 borders, plus a total settlement freeze. Israel is unlikely to sign up to that.

The Palestinians insist their approach to the UN does not preclude a return to negotiations later. “We see no contradictions between doing both,” said Dr Mohammad Shtayyeh, a senior member of the team heading to New York.

The UN bid was “the beginning of the game, not the end,” he said. “It is a process.”

In public, Palestinian officials are standing firm in the face of “very serious pressure” to backtrack. Privately, there are suggestions of wavering.

However, the International Crisis Group warned this week that any climbdown now “could decisively discredit [Mahmoud Abbas's] leadership, embolden his foes and trigger unrest among his people”. It went on: “Most Palestinians do not strongly support the UN bid; but they would strongly oppose a decision to retract it without suitable compensation.”

Israel has engaged in its own diplomatic offensive to try to derail the Palestinian bid, instructing its diplomats around the globe to campaign vigorously for votes and lavishly hosting delegations from undeclared countries.

But Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, acknowledged that the “battle to stem the tide” was lost, and warned that “this unilateral course of action won’t lead to peace and won’t lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

The Palestinians reject the claim that they are acting unilaterally, saying the UN path “is the ultimate expression of multilateralism”. They add that Israel’s apparent opposition to unilateralism has not stopped it acting without agreement, such as building and expanding settlements.

Sallai Meridor, a former Israeli ambassador to the US, said the move “weakens the chances for negotiation and agreement and increases the chances of frustration and violence. For Israelis it will strengthen the voices saying there is no one to talk to. Once you act unilaterally, the chances for negotiations are much lower.”

Israel is also alarmed at the prospect that the Palestinians could bring a case against it at the international criminal court, a possibility that would open up with enhanced UN status for the Palestinians. “No Israeli government could negotiate if it has criminal proceedings hanging over its head,” said a former official.

Retaliatory options raised by Israeli ministers should the Palestinian bid succeed include tearing up the Oslo accords, under which the Palestinian Authority was given control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, annexing the West Bank settlements and withholding tax revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the PA. The US Congress is also threatening to cut off financial aid to the Palestinians.

Violence in the aftermath of the UN move has been predicted by the Israelis for months, despite Abbas’s insistence that any demonstrations would be peaceful. “Non-violent demonstrations have a high risk of developing into something violent regardless of planning,” said Meridor. “When you take gasoline and play with matches, you run the risk of a big fire.”

The Israeli security forces have restocked with crowd-dispersal equipment, including teargas, rubber bullets and water canon. They are also training and arming settlers, fuelling fears on both sides that hardline elements could provoke violence.

How the bid for Palestinian statehood will work at the UN

• The main session of the 2011 UN general assembly opens in New York with a speech by Barack Obama on Wednesday 21 September.

• The Palestinians say they will submit a formal application for full membership as a state next week. The approval of the 15-member security council is required.

• The US will veto such an application. But it may set up a committee to examine the request in the hope of kicking the issue into the long grass.

• In the event of a veto, the Palestinians say they will request enhanced “observer member status” at the general assembly, which does not require security council approval but needs a two-thirds majority (129 votes).

• The Palestinians claim to have the support of 126 countries, equating to about 75% of the world’s population, including China, India, Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Ireland and Spain.

• Israel concedes it will lose a vote at the general assembly but hopes to claim the support of a “moral minority” of countries, including the US, Canada and Italy.

• The EU bloc of 27 countries is split. Of the “big three”, Britain and France have not explicitly declared their intentions, and Germany is opposed to full membership. France is inclined to back the Palestinians but is attempting to come up with a compromise acceptable to Germany in the interests of EU unity.

• The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is due to address the general assembly on Friday 23 September.

• Israel’s turn at the podium is also scheduled for 23 September. It has not been decided whether the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, or the president, Shimon Peres, will represent Israel.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “US told: support Palestinian UN bid or risk ‘toxic’ reputation in Arab world” was written by Chris McGreal in Washington, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 12th September 2011 16.15 UTC

A former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence and ex-ambassador to Washington, Turki al-Faisal, has warned that an American veto of Palestinian membership of the United Nations would end the “special relationship” between the two countries, and make the US “toxic” in the Arab world.

The warning comes as Washington is scrambling to avoid a scenario where it alone casts a veto in the UN security council against the Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood, which is expected to be formally requested next week. The US is putting considerable pressure on the Palestinians not to submit the request, and on Britain – the only other permanent member of the security council that has not publicly supported the Palestinian request – to also exercise its veto if necessary.

Al-Faisal says in an article in the New York Times that the US will jeopardise its close ties with Saudi Arabia and further undermine its position in a changing Arab world if it again sides with Israel.

“The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region,” al-Faisal says.

“Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to co-operate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.”

He adds: “Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy.”

Al-Faisal, a vigorous advocate of Palestinian statehood who has previously accused the US of bias toward Israel, said that the two-decade long Oslo peace process has not yielded results and should be replaced with “a new paradigm based on state-to-state negotiations”.

This is a view shared by some European nations, including France, which regard the Oslo process as a trap that has failed to deliver statehood for the Palestinians and is unlikely to do so in the near future.

“American support for Palestinian statehood is therefore crucial, and a veto will have profound negative consequences. In addition to causing substantial damage to American-Saudi relations and provoking uproar among Muslims worldwide, the United States would further undermine its relations with the Muslim world, empower Iran and threaten regional stability,” al-Faisal writes.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has said he will submit a request to the security council for full membership of the United Nations when he is in New York for the opening of the general assembly next week. If that is vetoed by the US, the request will move to the general assembly, which has the power only to grant enhanced observer status, but where Israel concedes the Palestinians are all but certain to win.

The prospect has alarmed the Americans and the Israelis, who say the move would undermine peace efforts and lead to further violence. The Palestinians say there is no peace process to speak of.

But the diplomatic fallout is of principal concern to the US. It will be hard for Washington, and for Britain, if it backs the American position, to explain to newly liberated parts of the Arab world why they are prepared to go to war against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and agitate against Bashar al-Assad in Syria but not support the Palestinian bid for statehood in the face of an intransigent Israel.

For Israel, the UN move comes as it is grappling with the collapse in relations with Turkey over the Israeli assault on the Gaza flotilla last year, in which Israeli forces killed nine Turks, and rising hostility in Egypt, which saw the Israeli embassy in Cairo ransacked last week.

Israel also looks to many as increasingly out of step with a changing region, in maintaining the occupation, expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and thwarting Palestinian independence in the near future.

The US has been pressuring the Palestinian leadership not to make the request, with promises to get peace negotiations going again. But Abbas said that the Americans came with no concrete proposals and the Palestinians have little confidence that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is seriously interested in ending the occupation.

George Mitchell, until recently Barack Obama’s Middle East envoy, said last week that he sees little chance of the US persuading the Palestinians not to submit the request.

The US Congress is also pressuring the Palestinians to withdraw the request by threatening to cut off funding. The House of Representatives is holding hearings this week on whether to continue financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. Its principal witnesses are among the PA’s strongest critics, including Elliot Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state and former deputy national security advisor.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Russia refuses more Syria sanctions” was written by Ian Black, for The Guardian on Monday 12th September 2011 19.44 UTC

Russia has rebuffed western attempts to increase the pressure on the Syrian regime, led by Bashar al-Assad, as new United Nations figures show at least 2,600 people have been killed since anti-government protests erupted in March.

President Dmitry Medvedev said after talks with David Cameron that additional pressure was “absolutely not needed” because existing UN and European Union sanctions were squeezing the regime.

Britain, the US and France have been pushing for tougher action by the UN but have met opposition from Russia and China, veto-wielding permanent members of the security council, and others.

The latest UN casualty figures – 400 more than previously given – were announced on Monday by the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, who called the situation “dire” and again complained that Syria had refused access for a UN humanitarian assessment team.

Syria has banned almost all journalists from entering the country but new images have emerged of killings, injuries and funerals of victims.

One clip, [WARNING: Contains explicit images] posted by the Local Co-ordination Committees, appeared to show the final moments of a 14-year-old boy, Izzat al-Babidi, reportedly shot in the head during a demonstration in the Damascus suburb of Douma on Monday morning.

Other pictures showed hundreds of people attending the funeral of another boy, Subhi Salam, who was fatally wounded by a sniper during protests last Friday.

Pillay’s figure of 2,600 dead was immediately contradicted by a senior aide to Assad, Bouthaina Shaaban. “There are 700 casualties among the army and the police, and 700 among the rebels,” she said in Moscow. “We have a list [of the victims' names], and we can provide it.”

Shaaban’s visit was part of an attempt by Syria to stave off any danger that its Russian ally would abandon it. Medvedev appeared to show that he would stand firm, calling for a “well-balanced position between both parties to the conflict, the Syrian government and the rebels”. This was a far cry from the now firm western position that Assad has lost all legitimacy. Russia’s support brought a call from Syrian opposition activists for a “day of anger”.

Al-Arabiya TV quoted opposition sources as claiming that Syrian military aircraft had been flying low over the central city of Homs, where many have died in recent weeks. Syrian activists describe fighting in the nearby Rastan area between army defectors and loyalists, and an incipient “low-intensity civil war”, with Islamists smuggling in weapons from abroad.

The Saudi-owned channel also reported three clergymen from the Assad family’s Alawite sect in Homs as distancing themselves from the “atrocities” carried out by the regime. This week, opposition figures plan to unveil the final makeup of the Syrian National Council, a broad coalition of different anti-Assad groups.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Iran refuses to let in UN’s human rights monitor” was written by Saeed Kamali Dehghan, for The Guardian on Monday 18th July 2011 16.45 UTC

Iran has announced that it will not permit the UN special rapporteur assigned with investigating its record of human rights to enter the country.

Ahmad Shaheed, the former Maldivian foreign affairs minister, was appointed by the UN in June to look into human rights violations in Iran, leading to much criticism from the regime in Tehran.

According to the Tehran Times, the state English-language newspaper, Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iran’s secretary general of the high council for human rights, said: “The western-engineered appointment of a special rapporteur for Iran is an illegal measure.”

Larijani – whose brothers Ali and Sadegh Larijani are Iran’s speaker of the parliament and head of the judiciary – added: “This unilateral action makes no sense and if they want to send a special rapporteur to Iran, they should take the same measure in the case of other countries.”

Shaheed’s appointment was the result of concerted warnings by various human rights organisations against Iran’s current record of human rights.

In recent years, rights groups have expressed concerns over the arbitrary arrests of political activists, the sharp rise in the country’s rate of execution and claims of torture and rape inside Iran’s prisons.

According to the organisations that have been monitoring Iran, in the first six months of this year an average of almost two people a day were executed.

Dozens of journalists, several lawyers, political activists, members of different ethnic minorities and many political figures remain in jail with poor legal representation and little access to the outside world.

In his remarks about Shaheed, Larijani objected that the countries behind the appointment of the special rapporteur had remained silent over the human rights issues surrounding “Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Israeli jails”.

“Iran has no problem with the individual who has been appointed as the special rapporteur, but the appointment of a rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran is unacceptable and Iran will not accept the decision,” he added.

In a separate incident, Iran claimed on Monday that its revolutionary guards had dismantled an Iranian Kurdish opposition group based in Iraq after an operation inside Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region in the past two days that left many dead on both sides.

A week ago, Iran warned that it would take military action against the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan, a Kurdish rebel group based in Iraq, which Iranian officials have labelled a “terrorist organisation”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

This article titled “Libya resolution: UN security council air strikes vote – as it happened” was written by Richard Adams and David Batty, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 17th March 2011 22.03 UTC

5.45pm ET / 9.45pm GMT: The UN security council will shortly start its proceedings for a vote on a resolution supporting military action against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Here’s the Guardian’s latest coverage reporting today’s meeting:

Britain, France and the US, along with several Arab countries, are to join forces to throw a protective ring around the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi as soon as a UN security council vote on military action is authorised, according to security council sources.

We’ll be following the UN security council debate, final vote and reactions here as it happens. With France’s air force said to be ready to fly missions over Libya within hours of a resolution, we’ll be watching what happens in the air and on the ground in Libya, as well as input from the Guardian’s correspondents and other international responses.

A live webcast of the security council meeting can be watched here – and of course we welcome comments below.

5.59pm ET: Security council members are milling about in the chamber – with the big question being, how will the votes go?

The Guardian’s Luke Harding spoke with Germany’s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, and he sounded hostile:

Westerwelle warned the results of western military intervention were “unpredictable” and could have consequences for freedom movements in the Arab world.

“Your own instinct is to say ‘We have to do something.’ But military intervention is to take part in a civil war that could go on for a long time.

“Germany has a strong friendship with our European partners. But we won’t take part in any military operation and I will not send German troops to Libya.”

From the sound of those comments, Germany is likely to abstain tonight – but will Angela Merkel want Germany to be out of step with the rest of Europe on this?

6.15pm ET: Nine votes are needed tonight for the Libya resolution to pass the security council – the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill thinks it will be 10 for, with five abstentions:

Voting for the resolution

Permanent members: United States, Britain, France
Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa

Abstentions

Permanent members: Russia, China
Non-permanent members: Germany, Brazil, India

6.24pm ET: Finally, the meeting is called to order, and the agenda is adopted. In these situations the UN security council appears to be something like a council meeting, all agendas and points of order.

The first speaker to introduce the resoltuion is Alain Juppé, the great survivor of French politics now back as minister of foreign affairs after the resignation of Michèle Alliot-Marie, who famously went on holiday for in Tunisia during the protests there.

Juppé is careful to mention that the idea of a no-fly zone is endorsed by many governments in the region, including the Arab League, and urges the adoption of the resolution.

“We are ready and willing to act together with members, including the Arab members,” Juppé tells the council, concluding:

“Each day, each hour, increases the weight on our shoulders. We must not wait.”

6.32pm ET: No other members wish to speak.

The resolution is being put to the vote now. That’s very quick moving by the security council.

6.33pm ET: Here’s the result: 10 in favour, zero against, five abstentions. So the vote went exactly as predicted. “The resolution 1973/2011 is adopted.,” says the chairman.

Now there are more statements. Lebanon to speak first.

6.36pm ET: Muammar Gaddafi has already made his feelings known, telling the Portuguese TV channel RTP that the UN resolution was an act of “flagrant colonization” for which it had no legal mandate:

This is craziness, madness, arrogance. If the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace.

There we are: Muammar Gaddafi threatens to “get crazy”.

6.40pm ET: Now the UK’s representative, Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, is addressing the council:

The Libyan population want the same rights and freedoms that people all across North Africa are demanding.

6.45pm ET: The US is preparing to participate in a no-fly zone in Libya “within a few days” with the help of Arab countries, AP reports:

[Congressional] officials said they expected the effort to enforce a no-fly zone and ground Muammar Gaddafi’s air force could begin within a few days if the UN takes action by day’s end.

They spoke after a briefing for members of the Senate.

One official said Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were among possible participants, in a showing designed to demonstrate that the effort to aid anti-Gadhafi rebels had support from other countries in the region.

6.50pm ET: The US’s UN ambassador Susan Rice now speaking to the council: “Today the Security Council has responded to the Libyan people’s cry for help.”

Colonel Gaddafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental of the human rights of his people.

6.55pm ET: Blogger Iyad El-Baghdadi – based in Dubai – is watching the scenes of celebration in Benghazi.

7pm ET: Here’s the Guardian’s first take on tonight’s UN security council vote and what it means:

British, French and US military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the United Nations security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

With Gaddafi’s troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, Francois Fillon, said “time is of the essence” and that France would support military action set to take place within hours.

Jets could take off from French military bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries would join the operation.

7.05pm ET: There’s some very impressive singing in central Benghazi, accompanied by celebratory gunfire, right now, based on al-Jazeera’s footage.

An al-Jazeera English reporter, Tony Birtley, later says: “I haven’t been hugged by so many people since my daughter’s birthday party.”

7.11pm ET: US enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya could begin by Sunday or Monday, according to anonymous US officials quoted by AP, and would involve “jet fighters, bombers and surveillance aircraft”.

7.16pm ET: Italy announces it is opening its air force and naval bases in Sicily for operations against Libya – the obvious spot to base US and British jets.

The Berlusconi government may have had relatively warm relations with Libya, but Italy’s Nato obligations gave it little choice but to allow other members to use its bases.

7.20pm ET: So what happens next? A meeting of Nato ministers, for example, but the organisation has already drawn up plans for a no-fly zone so that shouldn’t take very long.

7.25pm ET: The UN resolution just passed by the security council is eight pages long but the key part is point four, “Protection of civilians,” which states:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council

The phrase “take all necessary measures” means this is more than a no-fly zone: it allows air strikes and any military action short of landing troops (“excluding a foreign occupation force of any form”) – such as attacking tanks on the road to Benghazi.

7.31pm ET: Not all Libyans are delighted by the news of the UN’s authorisation of military action. AP has this quote:

In contrast, a dentist in the capital of Tripoli rejected the measure. “You are in fact protecting people carrying weapons against the official forces. This is nonsense,” said Mohammed Salah, 33.

7.35pm ET: Some reaction from British policy makers:

• Foreign secretary William Hague said the UN resolution was necessary “to avoid greater bloodshed and to try to stop what is happening in terms of attacks on civilians”.

This places a responsibility on members of the United Nations and that is a responsibility to which the United Kingdom will now respond.

• Former Conservative defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind, on Newsnight, described the UN vote as “the action the world is waiting for”:

I’m absolutely delighted. Without action of this kind, Benghazi would have been a bloodbath. By the standards of the last 20 years, this is a remarkable vote. This is a tremendous morale booster for Libyans, not just in Benghazi.

7.39pm ET: Full text of the UN resolution is right here.

Here are the key points in the document:

• “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians.”

• authorizes UN member states “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”

• establishes a “ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians,” but allows humanitarian flights and flights sanctioned by the UN and the Arab League.

• orders members states to stop any Libyan owned, operated or registered aircraft from taking off, landing or overflying their territory without prior approval from the UN committee monitoring sanctions.

• allows member states “to inspect in their territory, including airports and seaports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from” Libya if the country has “reasonable grounds” to believe they contain military items or armed mercenaries.

• freezes assets of five financial institutions: Libya’s central bank, the Libyan Investment Authority, the Libyan Foreign Bank, Libyan Africa Investment Portfoilio, and the Libyan National Oil Corporation.

7.45pm ET: A Libyan official from Gaddafi’s government, Khalid Kaim, deputy foreign minister, is addressing journalists in Tripoli, and apologises for waking them up, since it’s 1.30am there.

He begins by thanking the UN security council members who abstained, especially Germany, which seemed to amuse him for some reason.

It’s a string of bland statements, which complains about the “technical details of such a decision” and says the government will need to study the final text before making a response.

Kaim does say that UN security council members needed to be careful about intervening in an internal matter, and accused the resolution of threatening the unity of Libya and that any country arming the rebels was “inviting Libyans to kill each other”.

7.47pm ET: The regime’s press conference in Tripoli is interrupted. “Don’t worry guys, it’s just some demonstrators,” says the deputy foreign minister, explaining that this is a spontaneous show of support for Gaddafi by ordinary Libyans. At 1.30am in a hotel.

In any case, the tone is very different to the earlier comments by Gaddafi today vowing “no mercy” in Benghazi.

7.55pm ET: The Guardian’s UK politics correspondent Nick Watt reports on David Cameron’s change of plans in the wake of tonight’s UN vote:

The prime minister has ripped up his diary for Friday to hold an emergency cabinet on Libya in the morning. He will then make a statement to MPs in the Commons on Friday.

8pm ET: Mohammed Abdel Malek, chairman of Libya Watch based in London, said: “I think that the West can rest assured that they did the right moral thing…. It is a little bit late but it’s not too late.”

He said the west should recognise the transitional national council in Benghazi as the only way to bring about effective action on the ground.

8.08pm ET: The Wall Street Journal reports that Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge, in a well-timed story:

The shipments – mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition – appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Further down:

“We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can’t be so visible,” said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.

“Weapons are getting through,” said Mr Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. “Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don’t want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn’t do it if they didn’t get the green light.”

8.16pm ET: British politician Sir Menzies Campbell, a Liberal Democrat member of the foreign affairs committee, told Sky News: “I don’t think there is any appetite for putting troops on the ground.”

Campbell said UK forces were already overstretched, and suggested that the main military action would be “combat air patrols, regular patrolling of airspace” to block air strikes by Gaddafi’s forces.

8.28pm ET: Libyan state television has yet to mention the UN security council vote, according to al-Jazeera.

8.34pm ET: So when will Nato planes be seen over the skies of Libya. Not long, perhaps, according to AP:

In Britain, a lawmaker with knowledge of defense matters confirmed that British forces were on stand by for air strikes and could be mobilised as soon as Thursday night. The lawmaker declined to be named because the Defense Ministry has not issued official confirmation.

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-2 Television that if the resolution was approved France would support military action against Gaddafi within a matter of hours.

8.41pm ET: My colleague David Batty in London looks at the front page headlines of the British national newspapers on Friday:

• The Guardian: Britain, France and US line up for air strikes against Gaddafi

• The Sun: War on Gaddafi

• Financial Times: US joins push for UN action on Libya

• The Times: US set to lead allied attack on Gaddafi

• The Independent: Gaddafi: now it’s a fight to the death

8.46pm ET: Canada, in an atypical display of aggression, has quickly pledged six CF-18 fighter jets to help impose the no-fly zone in Libya.

8.49pm ET: Republican Senator John McCain applauds the Obama administration’s decision to support military action in Libya.

8.55pm ET: All the talk of warplanes being in the skies of Libya tonight appears to be somewhat overheated – see the 8.34pm post – and being disputed by US and Nato sources.

9.15pm ET: The official Libyan state news agency JANA has issued a response to the UN vote, with dire warnings of military reprisals:

Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military facilities will become targets of Libya’s counter attack. The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short term, but also in the long term.

9.31pm ET: President Obama held a conference call this evening with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy to agree on enforcement of the UN resolution.

The trio agreed to co-ordinate closely on the next steps, and to continue working with Arab and other international partners to ensure the enforcement of the UN resolutions.

9.45pm ET: We’re wrapping up our live coverage of the UN vote and its consequences – but the Guardian’s coverage will continue later on Friday morning.

Here is a round-up of the developments tonight at the UN and in Libya:

• The UN security council approved Libya resolution by a 10-5 vote. Permanent council members China and Russia both abstained along with Germany, while the US, Britain, Lebanon and France voted in favour of military action

• Resolution 1973/2011 allows states wide latitude to take “all necessary measures” – short of an occupation force – to protect civilians within in Libya

• News of the UN decision was greeted with scenes of jubilation on the streets of Benghazi, amid singing and gunfire. The Gaddafi regime issued a statement threatening “danger not just in the short term, but also in the long term” for foreign military acts

• David Cameron calls an emergency cabinet meeting for Friday morning and plans on making a statement to parliament

• There are reports that Egypt’s military is allowing a flow of arms to the Libyan rebels, with the tacit approval of the US

• Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Cameron held a conference call after the vote, and agreed to co-ordinate enforcing the UN resolution

• Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates may supply forces to help police the no-fly measure

The Guardian’s coverage of events in Libya continues here.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Gaddafi threatens retaliation in Mediterranean as UN passes resolution” was written by Ian Black in Tripoli, for The Guardian on Friday 18th March 2011 00.23 UTC

Muammar Gaddafi has pledged to retake the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and warned that any foreign attack on Libya would endanger air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean area, as the UN security council voted for military intervention.

In a defiant and menacing radio address, the Libyan leader sought to pre-empt the UN. “No more fear, no more hesitation, the moment of truth has come,” he declared. “There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.”

The defence ministry in Tripoli issued its threat of retaliation in the Mediterranean in the apparent hope of influencing deliberations in New York that approved an assault on Libya’s air defences and ground forces.

Any action by foreign forces would inevitably be portrayed by Libya as an aggressive intervention in the country’s internal affairs and linked to the US bombing in 1986, a key element of the national narrative of resistance to imperialism. As the security council vote was taking place, Gaddafi called it a “flagrant act of colonisation”. He told Portuguese TV: “If the world gets crazy with us, we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace.”

The ominous statement from the defence ministry would not have been made without Gaddafi’s approval. However, rebel leaders in Benghazi vowed to stand firm against any assault by Gaddafi’s forces and loud bursts of celebratory gunfire were heard there last night.

The mood in Tripoli has been one of studied defiance tempered by continuing attempts to defuse the gathering crisis. The biggest banner in the capital’s central Green Square proclaimed “No to foreign intervention in Libya’s internal affairs” as giant loudspeakers blared out songs and slogans praising Gaddafi.

Libyan officials were alarmed on Wednesday when Russia appeared to endorse the no-fly zone idea. Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the leader’s second son, said government forces would retake Benghazi within 48 hours so any international action would come too late to save the opposition.

But officials admitted privately that this statement was a tactical move designed to sow doubts about the efficacy of UN action. It seems clear that while the regime has the upper hand strategically, there is no quick or easy military way to reconquer the rebel stronghold, a city of a million people, without a bloodbath.

Gaddafi repeated an earlier offer of an amnesty for those who had taken up arms, while insisting that unarmed people would have nothing to fear. The offer of a ceasefire made earlier was immediately spurned.

State TV said government troops had taken Zueitina, an oil port on the coastal road 80 miles from Benghazi, but the rebels said they had surrounded the force. The rebels also denied a claim that government troops were on the outskirts of Benghazi.

Clashes around Ajdabiya, a strategic town and junction on the coast road, killed about 30 people earlier on Thursday, al-Arabiya TV reported. Libyan government forces displayed artillery, tanks and mobile rocket launchers – far heavier weapons than those used by the rebels – and the likely target of UN-mandated attacks.

Fighting was again reported from around Misrata, Libya’s third city and a major port, despite the government’s claims to have already taken it.

Fireworks were set off in Green Square in a continuing celebration of the military victories of recent days.

Earlier in the day, themes from Arab and Islamic history were invoked by pupils from the Khalid bin al-Walid school who had decorated a placard with the Qur’anic injunction “Sedition (fitna) is worse than killing” – a lightly coded reference to the sins of the anti-Gaddafi forces.

Despite the regime’s strenuous attempts to lay down a uniform line and control visiting journalists, some Libyans are not buying the official story. “Things look very bad,” said Abu Salah, a former government employee who drives a taxi. “The rebels don’t want Gaddafi and he won’t go. I was pessimistic before this crisis began – and yes, it’s a crisis. Some people thought Saif al-Islam would bring change. But he’s no better than his father. We need dialogue, not killing.”

State media, however, have been turning up the volume in a crescendo of bile, fury and condemnation of the opposition. Treachery, conspiracy, rats, agents of imperialism, colonialism, lies and al-Qaida – this is the vocabulary of the propaganda war being waged in the Libyan media.

In Thursday’s al-Zahaf al-Akhdar (The Green Page), a cartoon on the back page excoriated al-Jazeera, its Saudi rival al-Arabiya and the BBC, decrying their “false” or “biased” coverage. Al-Jazeera was the subject of an entire page of invective in Wednesday’s al-Fajr al-Jadid (The New Dawn) and described as an outpost of Israel’s Mossad. The broadcaster’s owner, the “corrupt Zionist” emir of Qatar, was condemned for supporting Libya’s rebels.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the popular preacher who appears regularly on al-Jazeera, has been vilified for issuing a fatwa authorising Libyan security forces to assassinate Gaddafi.

In the past few days the media focus has been on key tribes pledging loyalty to Gaddafi and a flood of telegrams offering support and solidarity. TV showed schoolgirls in Sirte, the leader’s home town, taking turns to sing his praises and kiss his picture, the more confident ones ululating energetically for good measure.

Thursday’s edition of Al-Jamahiriya devoted two full pages to Gaddafi’s rambling message to one of the many delegations which have visited him at the Bab al-Aziziya barracks in Tripoli. Other papers ran shorter versions, but all used the identical headline: “Libyan unity or death!”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.