The Latest on Israel-Gaza-Palestine (21 February)

Evening Update: Egypt has said that the Palestinian "reconciliation" talks will take place on 25 February. Hamas has been holding against attendance at the discussions, which originally were to take place tomorrow.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz uses first-hand evidence to report, "Gazans: IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] used us as 'human shields' during offensive".

Afternoon Update: A spokesman has said Hezbollah is not behind the rocket attack from Lebanon into northwestern Israel this morning.

Morning Update (9:20 a.m. GMT; 11:20 a.m. Israel/Palestine): Benjamin Netanyahu (pictured), the Likud Party leader asked on Friday to form the next Israeli Government, has called for unity with other political parties such as Kadima and Labor and declared that Iran "is developing nuclear weapons and poses the biggest threat to Israel since the war of independence".

Three Israeli medics were injured in northwestern Israel, by one of two rockets fired from Lebanon on Saturday. Israel fired artillery into Lebanon near Tyre.

Two Gazan militants were killed on Saturday. Local medics claim they died from Israeli shellfire, but the Israeli military denied that they launched any attack.

The Troublemaking Cartoon: We Know Who Is Meant by the Chimp Now But Is That All?

A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill with the rampaging chimpanzee that was shot dead in Thursday's New York Post has been the subject of much discussion in the States. The cartoon depicts two police officers standing over the dead chimp, with one of them saying, “They'll have to find someone else to write the next bill.” According to some politicians and various human rights organizations, the chimpanzee was supposed to represent President Obama and that this depiction was an unacceptably racist move by the New York Post that exceeded the limits of freedom of expression. Other criticisms included the fact that making fun of a situation in which a woman was seriously hurt was not appropriate.

A day after the cartoon crisis and hundreds of demonstrators' complaints, an official response came from the New York Post: “It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. But it has been taken as something else – as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.” Unfortunately, the following statement makes this apology conditional: “However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with the Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback. To them, no apology is due.” These last two sentences may be a tactical step by the newspaper in order to get out from under taking responsibility by calling attention to those who 'benefited from the situation' as the real trigger for raising the issue. At this point, I understand the newspaper's concern regarding the intention of the cartoon and appreciate the apology but making an apology conditional without being specific about the "some in the media and in public life," one is addressing overshadows the sincerity of the apology. In addition to this, I also agree with the criticism that it is absolutely not ethical to use such a dramatic event after which the chimp victim was transferred to the Cleveland Clinic, which performed the first successful face transplant in the United States of America. The Post's editorial team should have considered the seriousness of the situation before publishing the cartoon.

Some remember the cartoon crisis that took place between Muslims and the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper, that published Mohammed cartoons in 2005. As we all remember, months-long protests targeted Israeli, Danish and American flags and embassies around the world. Even after what the protesters wanted – an apology from the newspaper – came in January 2006, the publication of similar cartoons by others re-strained relations. Yes, this recent cartoon has been the most controversial one since  the 2005 crisis. However, in terms of freedom of expression, I do not think that the two cases are comparable. Although both newspapers have apologized to those who felt offended, the misunderstanding of what had been intended by the New York Post is somewhat different to the offense caused to Muslims that picturing the prophet Mohammed caused. The real reaction behind the 2005 cartoon crisis was not that the pictures showed Mohammed as a 'terrorist' , but that he was pictured for any reason. We should take this fine distinction into consideration before comparing these two cases.

At the end of the day, the apology of from the New York Post is likely to diminish the tension. However the criticisms  --- that the New York Post's editors should have realised that the chimp could be perceived as Obama himself (and by extension whether shooting Obama was being encouraged), and that they should have considered the critical situation of the woman who was seriously hurt by the chimp --- are unlikely to end.

Atoms of Fear: Reality Check on That Iranian Nuclear Programme

The flurry of headlines on the International Atomic Energy Agency report on the Iran nuclear programme has come and gone. The hype in some media outlets of "Iran has enough enriched uranium to build a bomb" has not been matched by a dramatic response from the Obama Administration.

Still, it's not a bad idea to knock down the distortions and exaggerations of the IAEA's findings. Blogger Cheryl Rofer offers an excellent scientific reality-check on Iran's stocks of enriched uranium:

Whoo-Hoo! Atoms of Fissionable Material Everywhere!
by Cheryl Rofer

As I put the tea water on to boil and turned on the tv this morning, I was assaulted by the claim that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you've seen it in the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or heard the same CBS report that I did, or even read it on Kevin Drum [of Mother Jones].


It's a lie.

Much as I hate to do so, because psychology tells us that repetition will help to fix the erroneous message in our minds, I will quote the most egregious statement of this "news."

Iran has enriched sufficient uranium to amass a nuclear bomb – a third more than previously thought – the United Nations announced yesterday.

Ah yes. And if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

The issue here is concentration. Mining uranium concentrates it from the ore. Purification and conversion to UF6 concentrates it further. The purpose of the enrichment centrifuges is to concentrate the fissionable U-235.

Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration. See also this post from earlier this week.

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess.

Bloggers who are trying to hold back this tsunami of misleading non-science: Sean Paul Kelly, Cernig.

I also know of one newspaper reporter who is trying to get the story straight, but he hasn't posted yet. I'll post more links as I get them.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Updates on US Foreign Policy (21 February)

Latest Post: Atoms of Fear - Reality Check on That Iranian Nuclear Programme
Latest Post: Obama Administration to Detainees in Afghanistan - You Have No Rights
Latest Post: Secret Britain-Iran Talks in 2005 on Iraq, Tehran Nuclear Programme?



Evening Update: Pakistani Government officials say militants in Pakistan's Swat Valley have agreed to a "permanent cease-fire".

Afternoon Update: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met Chinese leaders in Beijing, stating, ""It is essential that the United States and China have a positive, cooperative relationship." Clinton also put priorities in order: while she had discussed human rights matters with President Hu Jintao, "Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises."

Morning Update (8:30 a.m. GMT; 3:30 a.m. Washington): In a step that was foreshadowed by Syrian President Bashir al-Assad (pictured) in his interview with The Guardian of London, the US will resume direct talks with Damascus this week. The State Department's Acting Assistant Secretary for the Near East, Jeffrey Feltman, has requested a meeting with the Syrian Ambassador to the US, Imad Moustapha.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said, "The meeting is an opportunity for dialogue to discuss our concerns with the Syrians," Duguid said. "There remain key differences between our governments."

Three NATO coalition soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device on Friday in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan.

Obama Administration to Detainees in Afghanistan: You Have No Rights

Lawyers for the Justice Department told a Federal Court on Friday that the Obama Administration "adheres to [the] previously articulated position" on the rights of detainees held in facilities such as Camp Bagram in Afghanistan.

In effect, President Obama's officials are maintaining the Bush Administration position, first set out at Guantanamo Bay but extended to US prisons around the world that "enemy combatants" have no right to challenge their detention. The prisoners at Camp Bagram can thus be held indefinitely without any prospect of a hearing in a military tribunal or US or international court.

Last year the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that detainees at Guantanamo Bay did have the right to a legal process but declined to extend the ruling to those held in other US prisons.