Buycott app gets public to boycott Israeli produce

Link

Buycott app gets public to boycott Israeli produce

As critics of Israel’s policy in Gaza lose faith in governments to take action, a new app is helping them to it themselves. Buycott is one of the hottest items on the market as shoppers are using it in their droves to avoid purchasing Israeli products.

The Buycott app has a number of groups, which its users can join, with one of the most successful being the “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” group. Numbering just a few hundred users in mid-July, it has surged in popularity in a month, with over a quarter of a million people currently signed up, according to the Buycott website.

The “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” group on the Buycott app was set up in April by a British teenager. It is going from strength to strength. The group saw traffic grow by almost 30 percent in just 12 hours on the morning of Thursday 7.


“I noticed three weeks ago that we were seeing an unusual spike in traffic, but there hadn’t been any articles written about the app or Israel campaigns,” said Ivan Pardo, speaking to Forbes. “Next thing I knew Buycott was a top 10 app in the UK and Netherlands, and #1 in a number of Middle Eastern countries. Word was spreading through social media.”

The groups mission is about, “ordinary people around the world using their right to help bring an end to the oppression in Palestine. It’s a peaceful means of putting international pressure on the state of Israel and follows in the successful boycott against South African apartheid,” a message on the “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel” application stated.


The app works by allowing shoppers to scan barcodes of food products, such as a tub of hummus, to see if it was produced in Israel, or has any links with companies that support Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. The scanning process takes just a few seconds and then provides information about the company, such as its location and its website.

The Long Live Palestine, boycott Israel group has 49 companies on its ‘companies to avoid’ list, which range from Victoria’s Secret, which is one of the largest clients of Delta Galil, who operate a textile factory in the West Bank industrial zone of Barkan, to Volvo, who’s machinery has been used to destroy Palestinian settlements in violation of international law.

In contrast, the group also supports four companies, such as the Taybeh Brewing Company, which operates a Palestinian owned brewery and winery in the West Bank. Also on the list is the UK cosmetics firm Lush, which has striven to raise awareness of the struggle for human rights in Palestine.

Social media has been playing its own part in trying to put economic pressure on Israel to halt its actions in Gaza. The Israeli company SodaStream, which is also on “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel’s” list has come in for particular criticism.

SodaStream has its main plant in the industrial zone of Mishor Edomim, which is an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, while the Boycott website also states that Palestinians who work there are paid less than half the minimum wage.

The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement targets products and companies (Israeli and international) that profit from the violation of Palestinian rights, as well as Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions.

In February, BDS hit the headlines when it demanded Oxfam drop Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson as an ambassador for her endorsement of SodaStream. They argued that Johansson’s role in Oxfam undermined the organization’s supposed condemnation of economic corporation with Israeli settlements.

"A refusal to part ways with Johansson will tarnish the charity’s credibility among Palestinians and many people of conscience around the world,” said the BDS in a statement.

Meanwhile, SodaStream’s UK operations were dealt a blow in July after department store John Lewis decided to stop stocking the product in its shops, while another store in Brighton, which had endured protests for two years, also decided to close.

Sarah Colborne, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, attributed the closure of the Brighton store as well the decision by John Lewis, directly to pressure from the BDS movement.

“The news that SodaStream is closing its main UK store and that John Lewis is taking Soda Stream products off its shelves is a major success for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement,” she said, according to Haaretz.

THE RAPE OF KASHMIR AND ARTICLE 370

Link

THE RAPE OF KASHMIR AND ARTICLE 370

The recent demand for abrogation of Article 370 by BJP and RSS has sparked fresh controversy about Kashmir, the land of blood and failed justice. The Article, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian republic, was referred to by Minister of state in the PMO, Jitendra Singh, who declared that the Centre had started the process for repealing it. To understand the full impact of this declaration and the consequences of the abrogation would necessitate a recall of the brief and murky past of the Article.


On 26th October, 1947, Hari Singh Bahadur, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession (IOA).The accession of Kashmir to India was accepted as provisional, pending a plebiscite or a direct vote of all the members of the electorate of Kashmir. Though the IOA did not mention the conditionality of accession, the White Paper clearly specified it, giving rise to the conflict. To assure the people of a fair accession, Jawaharlal Nehru, standing upon Laal Chowk in Kashmir, guaranteed a plebiscite. In a telegram dated October 28, 1947, Nehru stated, “We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite. Ultimately, the final decision of settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir.”

Present day Laal Chowk

In a message to Jinnah on  October 31, 1947, Nehru once again repeated his promise, “First of all, I would like to remind you of the fateful days of 1947 when I came to Srinagar and gave the solemn assurance that the people of India would stand by Kashmir in her struggle.On that assurance, I shook Sheikh Abdullah’s hand before the vast multitude that had gathered there. I want to repeat that the Government of India will stand by that pledge, whatever happens. That pledge itself stated that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their fate without external interference. That assurance also remains and will continue.”

However, this plebiscite remained pending and in late 1947, Sheikh Abdullah, the then-appointed Prime Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, was asked to finalize the text of Article 370, as deputed by Maharaja Hari Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru. Following this, Nehru invited IAS officer and erstwhile minister, Gopalaswamy Ayyangar to consult on the Kashmir portfolio and plead the case of Article 370 in the newly-formed Indian Constituent Assembly. In a statement to the Constituent Assembly, Nehru once again said, “…The people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion ( Indian or Pakistan Dominion) then.”

Then, in early 1948, Nehru approached the United Nations for a resolution of the Kashmir Conflict. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was set up and the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948 which instructed the Commission to help the governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir. On 5th January 1949, the Commission published its resolution which once again stated that the accession of Jammu & Kashmir will be decided through a free and impartial plebiscite. Both Pakistan and India accepted the resolution but failed to arrive at a truce agreement due to the demiliarisation clause. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with the Line of Control as the de facto border.

Jammu, ruins. April 2015

On 17 October 1949, the Indian Constituent Assembly adopted Article 370 of the Constitution which ensured a special status and internal autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, with Indian jurisdiction in Kashmir limited to the three areas agreed in the IOA, namely, defence, foreign affairs and communications. With the first post-independence elections coming up in 1950, the UN passed a resolution that declared that the elections did not substitute a plebiscite as there was no option of choosing between Pakistan and India.

In response, the governments of India and Pakistan agree to appoint a Plebiscite Administrator by the end of April 1954. Nehru, in a hasty attempt to disguise his false promise, continued to assert, “I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years (1947-1952) have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done we would willingly leave Kashmir if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them at the point of bayonet. I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.”

Kashmiri youth, April 2015

Shuttered shops, Kashmir, April 2015

However, on 30 October 1956, the State Constituent Assembly adopted a constitution for the state that declared it an integral part of the Indian Union. On 24 January 1957, UN passed another resolution stating that such actions would not constitute a final disposition of the State. Protests broke out in Kashmir in December 1963 against Articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution being extended to the state, which granted the Centre power to assume the government of the State and exercise its legislative powers. In 1990, Kashmir Valley and areas close to the Line of Control were declared ‘disturbed’ under AFSPA when armed insurgency began in the Valley. Under AFSPA, an authorised officer in a disturbed area has the power to open fire at any individual even if it results in death to prevent (a) terrorist acts aimed at overthrowing the government, striking terror in the people, or affecting the harmony of different sections of the people or (b) activities which disrupt the sovereignty of India, or cause insult to the national flag, anthem or India’s Constitution.

Army van parked alongside the road, Kashmir, April 2015

AFSPA, described by UN Commissioner for Human Rights as a “dated and colonial-era law that breach contemporary international human rights standards”, became the tool of dominion for the people of Kashmir. The provisional nature of the IOA lay forgotten, as was the notion of an impartial vote to let the people of Kashmir decide their fate. If the BJP government chooses to scrap Article 370 with regards to Kashmir, and with it, the special status that was granted to it, the people of Kashmir will be rendered powerless to decide their fate. The plebiscite, promised by Indian and Nehru to the Kashmiris in 1947 and sanctioned by the UN, is a pledge that remains unfulfilled despite it being the only solution to Kashmir’s brief and bloody history. Through casualties of wars, and countless human rights violations by the Indian Army, such as the mass rape of 53 women by the Indian Army in Kunan Poshpora, India has continued to strong-arm Kashmiris into voicelessness. This has led to the fostering of internal conflict and further loss of human lives through ethnic cleansing by Islamist militants and Hindu fundamentalist organizations alike.

The Narendra Modi-led BJP government, in July 2014, ruled out changes in AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir and favoured its continuation in the present form in the state. However, in a complete reversal of opinion on December 1, 2014, BJP stated, “We believe the Armed Forces Special Powers Act will not be required if we come to power in the state. We will create such an atmosphere that everything will move peacefully and according to law. There will be no need of the stringent law.”  On Article 370 of the Constitution, BJP said they want open discussions, “We are coming before public with open mind.” Despite BJP’s long history of communalisation of politics in India, they denied allegations of promoting religious unrest in the area.

BJP banners, Kashmir, April 2015

The recent re-appeal for the abolition of Article 370 by BJP, if successful, would deny the people of Jammu & Kashmir the right to a free and impartial plebiscite, take away the autonomy of the State and incorporate it into the Indian Republic by force and without consent. This legislative rape orchestrated by the BJP government, if successful, will once again give rise to communal clashes, leading to another bloodbath in Kashmir’s brief history. There is a desperate need for open dialogue focusing, firstly, on the retainment of this Article to prevent India from forcefully seizing Dominion status, and secondly, to discuss the means to bring about a free and impartial plebiscite that has been due to the people of Kashmir since 1947.

Saudi airstrikes violate ‘unconditional humanitarian pause’ in Yemen

Link

Saudi airstrikes violate ‘unconditional humanitarian pause’ in Yemen

A man and a boy walk at a site hit by a Saudi-led air strike in Yemen's capital Sanaa

The second UN-brokered humanitarian pause in Yemen has been violated by Saudi-led air strikes less than an hour after the truce came into effect. According to reports at least three cities witnessed bombardment.


The airstrikes first hit the country’s third-largest city of Taiz, after a UN-declared truce kicked in after midnight Friday, official sources on the ground confirmed to Reuters and the Associated Press.

Collateral damage: Yemeni man loses 27 family members in 1 Saudi airstrike

Witnesses on the ground said that fighting engulfed the city prior to the bombardment, with both sides placing the blame for truce violation on each other. At least three airstrikes hit Houthi fighters positions in Taiz.

In Sana’a, a number of strikes were targeting the presidential residence in the city center, while in Aden a number of Houthi positions came under attack, a security source in the Aden Governorate told Sputnik early on Saturday.

Member of the Houthi rebels’ political council Hamza al-Husi told Sputnik that air-strikes began just 40 minutes after the start of the humanitarian pause.

Witnesses also reported that Saudi-led air strikes had increased across the country in the hours before the truce was to take effect.

The UN-declared truce began after midnight Friday and was meant to offer a humanitarian window of assistance for the conflict-torn country. It was scheduled to last through the end of the holy month of Ramadan which ends on July 17.

More than 3,000 people, mostly civilians have been killed since the coalition started their bombing campaign in March, aiming to get rid of anti-government Houthi rebels and restore the rule of the exiled Sunni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Saudis resume airstrikes on Yemen following five-day humanitarian ceasefire

Yet despite Saudi intervention there has not been any significant progress, as Yemen’s army units, which are loyal to the country’s previous president and Houthi ally Ali Abdullah Saleh, are putting up a stiff fight.

The Saudi-imposed blockade of its neighbor and air campaign created a humanitarian catastrophe for Yemen, with UN warning that the Arab world’s poorest country is “one step” from famine.

According to UN more than 80 percent of Yemen’s roughly 25 million residents now require some form of aid. Another one million civilians were displaced by the conflict. The first humanitarian pause, advocated by Russia and the UN was allowed to take place for five days in May, but did not bring much relief as the air campaign continued shortly afterwards.

'US beating drums of war against Russia to increase European defense spending'

Link

'US beating drums of war against Russia to increase European defense spending'

Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford testifies during the Senate Armed Services committee nomination hearing to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 9, 2015.

European leaders know that the US wants to get them to spend money on military equipment which will be purchased from the US, says Brian Becker of the anti-war Answer Coalition. But Europe knows the dangers from the experience of two world wars, he added.

Several senior American officials say Russia is the greatest threat to their country's national security. First it was Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James, then General Joseph Dunford at his confirmation hearing for the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called Russian actions “nothing short of alarming.”


RT: Several senior American officials say Russia is the greatest threat to US national security. Why is such rhetoric being employed by senior American officials?

US military leaders call Russia ‘greatest threat’, demand more funding

Brian Becker: We have to understand this rhetoric and these presentations first by the Air Force Secretary Deborah James and Major General Joseph Dunford, soon to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both of whom pose the presentation that Russia is an existential threat and the greatest threat to America.

They also say, and this is very interesting, that it requires the 28 NATO members to step up and do their part to spend at least two per cent of their GDP on military spending in NATO, and only four of the 28 members of NATO are doing it so far. What the US military officials are basically telling NATO is: “Get in line, this is an existential threat, you have to spend more of your money, money that is being drained from other parts of the economies of Europe." A lot of that money will go to US war contractors. So the ABCs of the war propaganda Russia is an existential threat is that it is very good, very necessary in fact for the biggest war contractors, the biggest parts of the military industrial complex in America. That is one part of the story.

RT: What is calling Russia 'the biggest threat'' and lumping it in with Islamic State going to lead to?

BB: It doesn’t just lump Russia in with ISIS, it says “Russia is a greater threat to the US and to the West, and to world peace than ISIS.” Now you see the US’s government right now is at war, endless war with IS because purportedly it poses an existential threat. But if the existential threat posed by Russia is even greater than IS, you can make the case, and I think it’s absolutely true, that the US military is preparing the American public for military confrontation, conflict of some type with Russia, which would seem to all people to be absolute madness.

Nonetheless, they must be doing this to prepare the population to allow greater and greater military threats to go against Russia. Now, once the Pentagon claims the escalation ladder, carries out massive war exercises on Russia’s border, Russia will be compelled to meet that threat. That’s how conflicts go from small conflicts to bigger conflicts, and even possible global conflicts.



RT: European officials have been so far reluctant to boost military spending for NATO. Do they not fear any imminent threats that the US is citing?

BB: The European powers know absolutely that this is hogwash. They know with certainty that the US is beating the drums of war in order to get them to spend more of their money on military equipment, much of which will be purchase from the US. And they also know that it’s easy for American politicians, and the Generals in America are just politicians in uniform before they become big businessman when they circulate back into corporate America, they know that they are playing with fire. It is very easy for American officials to talk tough against Russia. But Europe knows all too well, the dangers of real war, the danger of WWI and WWII which is 70 years over this year. They don’t take lightly to the fact that the Pentagon is playing with fire. And of course it will be the European people who will be on the frontlines, not Americans.

RT: US military officials said that they knew Europe was facing tough economic challenges, but NATO commitments should still be a priority. Is this talk of threats a way to secure NATO funding?

BB: Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of this is to keep the alliance together. They know that Germany and France, and other major European powers could start to have very warm and good relations - economic, political, and even possibly military relations with Russia. They are trying to keep the discipline of the alliance, and they are also trying to make sure that those countries pay their fair share to the war effort, to the NATO war effort, which, as I said, benefits US war corporations.

Units from NATO allied countries take part in the NATO Noble Jump 2015 exercises, part of testing and refinement of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) in Swietoszow, Poland June 18, 2015.

US Secretary of the Air Force and United States Marine Corps general not diplomats

Paul Heroux, Middle East expert also commented on Deborah James’s and General Joseph Dunford’s statements that Russia is the greatest threat to US national security saying that “Their job is to bring to attention what, in their point of view, is going to be a big threat.”

RT: European officials have been so far reluctant to boost military spending on NATO. Why do you think that is?

Paul Heroux: There could be a number of reasons. The crisis in Greece right now is putting pressure on other European counties because there is maybe a need for a debt bailout. But at the same time we don’t want to go back to the old ways of huge deficit spending on the military. I would like to think we’ve progressed a lot more and we’re going to do more diplomatic solutions.

RT: You talk about diplomatic solutions... Is it diplomatic to call Russia 'the biggest threat' to American security?

PH: No, I don’t think it is. But I also think that was made by somebody whose job is not to be a diplomat, somebody who is either a general or secretary of one of the branches of our [US] armed forces. Their job is to bring to attention what, in their point of view, is going to be a big threat.


We also have other people in the US saying that the biggest threat to US security is cyber terrorism, or cyber security; other people say it might be global warming; other folks might say it’s ISIS or terrorism, and some might even say the nuclear program in Iran.

RT: Does calling Russia "the biggest threat" suggest the deterioration in relations between Moscow and Washington? Is that the sign there is no real hope for dissent dialogue in the next coming weeks and months?

PH: Deterioration has been going on for a number of years, that’s right. From the point of view of the US, Russia is the problem, from the point of view of Russia; it’s probably the US that’s the problem. The important thing is that they keep working together. What we need to do is basically take baby steps, small, realistic goals that can be achieved rather than trying to change the whole landscape of the negotiations and the state of affairs between the two countries. Small realistic baby steps will help develop a sense of trust and a sense of shared interest. And I think that’s the direction we should be going in.

‘Artificially hostile atmosphere’: Moscow blasts US claims of Russian threat

RT: Why has the trust deteriorated so badly, do you think on the both sides since the so-called reset?

PH: I think it could be a number of issues. Just the interest of the US and Russia. Russia, for example, is trying to reclaim its former kind of Eastern superiority, and that may sometimes complete with some US interests or some of NATO’s interests. Other times the US is also trying to keep ourselves from sliding into place where other countries don’t want to work with us, and it’s a difficult balance. Also it largely could be just the personalities of different leaders. We see that with Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu; we saw that starting with Vladimir Putin and George Bush. So personalities do play a large role in these negotiations and discussions.