Middle East peace talks: 17 years after Oslo Clinton takes on challenge

'It's time to get to work,' says US secretary of state with the knowledge that expectations are low as negotiations begin

It is clear Israelis and Palestinians face a tough slog if the negotiations launched in Washington today are to get anywhere near the agreement Barack Obama hopes to reach within a year.

Low expectations were reflected in the opening statements, but it was the US that sounded most determined to keep hopes alive in the face of profound scepticism in the Middle East and beyond. Hillary Clinton's most significant comment was her promise to be an "active and sustained partner" – noting that an agreement was "in the national security interests of the US".

But her clear warning that the US "cannot and will not impose a solution" will alarm those who believe that only thus will Israelis and Palestinians be able to wriggle out of what she called "the shackles of history" to make peace.

Clinton's appeal to "those who criticise and stand on the sidelines" was unlikely to impress Hamas. The Islamist movement that controls Gaza prefers resistance (including the killing on Tuesday of four Israeli settlers) to negotiations, and excoriates Mahmoud Abbas as a traitor.Wider Arab support for this re-launched process is limited to two close US allies — President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, who both already have (domestically unpopular) peace treaties with Israel. Saudi Arabia and Syria, which attended the ill-fated Annapolis talks in 2007, were conspicuously absent.

Crucially, neither side signalled any readiness for concessions that could create forward movement in the talks, though it would have been surprising if they had at this stage.

Binyamin Netanyahu's familiar script reflected his dual need not to alienate the Americans or his rightwing coalition allies at home. So he hailed Abbas as a "partner" while stressing the importance of security, and repeated his insistence on explicit recognition of Israel as "a Jewish state" – a demand taken by many as a way of blocking the right of return of Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 and 1967.

Netanyahu's pointed references to "Iran and its proxies" and the emergence of "missile warfare in the region" in recent years were reminders of the threats he and many of his compatriots worry about far more than the Palestinians these days. It may be true that "a lasting peace will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides," but there was no sign that he is willing – or politically able – to extend his grudging moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank when it expires later this month. The Palestinians have warned they will break off talks if he does not.

Netanyahu's solemn invocation of the biblical Isaac and Ishmael — burying the Patriach Abraham "the father or our two peoples... in a moment of pain and mutual respect" seemed unlikely to win many Palestinian hearts or minds.

Abbas, speaking in Arabic through an interpreter after Netanyahu's fluent American English, was less florid, warning of "the magnitude of the obstacles facing us" and calling again on Israel to freeze settlements and end the siege of the Gaza Strip. Reference back to an agreement signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat (pictured below, with Bill Clinton) after Oslo in 1993 was a reminder of a more hopeful era.

But Abbas – often criticised by Hamas as a "collaborator" – sounded anxious to prove his good intentions when he revealed that Palestinian security forces were already on the track of the gunmen – Hillary Clinton's "enemies of peace" – who struck with grim predictability near Hebron on Tuesday night. "We cannot tolerate any actions that will undermine your security or ours," Abbas said.

Clinton, ending the public part of proceedings with an affectionate pat on the back and a handshake for each leader in turn, had the best line: "Now it's time to get to work," she concluded. And very hard work it is going to be.

• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Hillary Clinton
• Middle East
• United States
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Obama administration
• US politics
• US foreign policy

Middle East peace talks aim for 'a future that will end conflict'

Israeli prime minister gives positive message to 'partner for peace' Mahmoud Abbas

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, launched peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians today with a call for courageous, bold leadership and an appeal to stay the course even when a resolution seemed elusive.

Clinton noted that all of the key participants – Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and herself – had been there before in one role or another.

"Those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here today, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict," she said. "The core issues at the centre of the negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and others – will get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves."

For many diplomats, though, the great unanswered question at the talks was which Netanyahu would be at the table: 14 years ago the same Israeli prime minister seemed determined to kill any peace deal at talks with Yasser Arafat overseen by the US secretary of state's husband, the then president Bill Clinton.

Yesterday Netanyahu's language was of historic compromises and went further than many expected, repeatedly calling the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, his "partner for peace".

Diplomats had expected the Israeli prime minister to pay lip service to a peace deal and even to make some significant concessions. What they had not expected were the repeated pledges to peace that poured forth after Netanyahu's meeting with Barack Obama yesterday and again today before the talks.

"Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said. "The people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity and good neighbours."

Clinton suggested that maybe the experience of the years of missed opportunities and violence had tempered the Israeli leader as well as the Palestinians.

Netanyahu and Abbas both said they recognised the point. The Palestinian leader said that the issues were not new, and that was a reason for optimism.

"We're not starting from scratch because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government," he said.

Netanyahu reiterated his assertion he would make historic compromises. However, the Israeli prime minister said that there were two issues he regarded as central to any agreement – "legitimacy and security".

"Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over.

"I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats.

"President Abbas, I'm fully aware and I respect your people's desire for sovereignty. I'm convinced it's possible to reconcile that desire with Israel's security."

Abbas noted that his Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised Israel's legitimacy in earlier accords going back to 1993, although they do not mention it explicitly as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian leader called for an end to all Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories, an issue likely to be an open sore at the talks. Netanyahu has declined to commit himself to extending a partial freeze on building in the settlements in the West Bank, although not occupied East Jerusalem, when it expires this month. The Palestinians see the issue as a litmus test of his intent.

The difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city could become a Palestinian capital. "The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter of a million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

• Israel
• Middle East
• Palestinian territories
• Hillary Clinton
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Binyamin Netanyahu

More on the UN | Michael Tomasky

Stupid me, I should have remember to go to undispatch.com and check their archives on this. As usual, the intrepid Mark Leon Goldberg has been on the story of the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic reviews.

In the comment thread to my earlier post on this matter of the State Department and the Arizona immigration law and the UN, I wrote, in response to left halfback, who thought that the US shouldn't be reporting to the UN period end of story:

LHB: The point of participating in such a regime is not to expose ourselves to the UN; it is to set the example of participation so that other countries with less exemplary records may feel forced to do the same. Do we want Egypt and Syria and China and lots of other places to improve their human rights records? Of course we do. Pressuring them to participate in this UN regime seems like a way to help that process along.

No it won't change things overnight. Nothing does. But I rather like the idea of three countries with decent human rights records having the chance to comment on what I presume would be a phony and self-serving and false report by an Egypt or what have you. It can't hurt, and it strikes me as an improvement over the old way.

But the US will have no leverage over the Egypts if we don't participate ourselves. And so the moral of the story: It feels cathartic to tell the UN to f--- off and it proves Uncle Sam doesn't kowtow to anyone. But it also reduces our moral authority to criticize other nations. This is something they don't think much about over on Fox.

Back in February, Goldberg wrote the following tale about how the UPR process had actually made a bit of a difference:

Still, the ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review is the extent to which it can inspire a country to alter its internal human rights practices. With countries that are generally rejectionist of this sort of external interference (say, Iran and North Korea) there is an obvious limit to what the council can practically accomplish. On the other hand, countries that have troubling human rights records, but are not completely rejectionist, have been inspired to improve their human rights records based on the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review. For example, Human Rights Watch notes that following Saudi Arabia's first review last year, the Saudi government pledged a number of reforms on women's rights, ending the juvenile death penalty, and expanding its labor laws to include protection for domestic workers.

So there you are. This process yielded tangible gains in a country with a pretty dismal record. Here's a section from the Human Rights Watch write-up Goldberg linked to:

Saudi Arabia accepted a recommendation put forward by UN member states in February to take steps to end the system of male guardianship over women, to give full legal identity to Saudi women, and prohibit gender discrimination. The government also clarified that the Shari'a concept of male guardianship over women is not a legal requirement, and that "Islam guarantees a woman's right to conduct her affairs and enjoy her legal capacity."

Like any big process, it's far from perfect. But a little bit at a time. And in 10, 20 years, the UPR process might have a string of important successes to its credit.

But it couldn't work without the US's participation. Without the United States taking part, countries could and would just blow the process off. If you want to debate the political wisdom of including the Arizona thing, because it's fodder for the right, fine. But that's a political question, not a substantive one. On substance, I think these last two posts have made it abundantly clear that there are benefits to the US and the world to UPR participation.

It must always be remembered, when confronted with one of these new right-wing memes. Remember to tell yourself whenever you hear one that in all likelihood, there's some minuscule grain of truth to it, but you can be virtually certain that they are twisting it out of shape and omitting context that puts matters in a very different light. Do not panic like the Democrats too often do. Seek out facts. It took me half an hour to find this stuff out. Even allowing for the fact that you're not journalists with Barbara Crossette articles miraculously landing in your in-boxes, you could do it, too.

And, as several of you wisely said in the earlier thread, everything the Democrats do is potential fodder. Let Us Not Go Into Tizzies and Deliver Us From Distortion. Here endeth the lesson.

• Obama administration
• United Nations

Cove star stages protest over Japanese dolphin hunt

Ric O'Barry, who appeared in the Oscar-winning film, delivers petition signed by 1.7 million people to US embassy in Tokyo

The star of an Oscar-winning film about dolphin hunting in Japan delivered a petition to the country's US embassy calling for an end to the practice.

Ric O'Barry, 70 – who appeared in The Cove and trained dolphins for 1960s TV show Flipper – was flanked by police and dozens of supporters carrying banners. The petition was signed by 1.7 million people from 151 countries.

O'Barry had hoped to deliver it to the Japanese fisheries agency but cancelled the plan after threats from a nationalist group with a history of violence. The Cove, which won this year's Oscar for best documentary, shows fishermen from the town of Taiji who scare dolphins into a cove before killing them slowly by piercing them repeatedly.

O'Barry said: "I'm not losing hope. Our voice is being heard in Taiji."

The annual hunt in the town began on Wednesday, but boats came back empty. The government allows the hunting of around 20,000 dolphins a year and argues that killing them is no different from breeding cows and pigs for slaughter. Most Japanese have never eaten dolphin meat and, even in Taiji, it is not consumed regularly.

• United States
• Japan
• Wildlife
• Marine life

Thaksin Shinawatra resurfaces in South Africa

In attempt to scotch rumours of ill health, fugitive Thai prime minister has photo released of him 'visiting Nelson Mandela'

Emerging from weeks of silence, the former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has appeared in Africa, where he said he was dealing in diamonds and visiting Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela.

A photograph of his meeting with the former South African president was released in Thailand by his lawyer in an apparent move to quash rumours that the fugitive was ill – and to advertise that he was rubbing shoulders with VIPs abroad.

"I travel all the time. Currently, I'm in Africa for diamond mining," Thaksin told the Thai Rath newspaper, adding that rumours of his failing health were lies. He said the photograph of him with Mandela was taken last Friday.

A spokesman for the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Johannesburg did not return several calls seeking comment.

Thaksin, who was ousted in a military coup in 2006, has been accused of funding the anti-government Red Shirt protests in April and May. Protesters occupied Bangkok's main shopping district, forcing the closure of shopping malls and hotels , in an attempt to unseat the government and possibly bring Thaksin back to power. Sporadic violence and a crackdown by the military left 91 people dead and 1,400 wounded.

The tycoon-turned-politician, who remains popular among his rural poor power base, was convicted on conflict of interest charges in 2008 and fled the country. Thailand revoked his passports but Thaksin has acquired at least two new ones from Nicaragua and Montenegro.

He is believed to be living in Dubai. He has spent much of the past four years roaming the globe in search of business deals. He visited South Africa previously to inspect diamond mines and has travelled to Liberia, Uganda and Swaziland for investments in diamonds and gold. He has posted photographs of meetings with leaders on trips to Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives.

Normally active on Twitter, Thaksin's last posts came on 25 July, the day before his 61st birthday, when he called for political reconciliation in Thailand. Since then he has kept a low profile.

In the interview with Thai Rath, he complained about a Thai supreme court ruling in February that approved the seizure of $1.4bn (£910m) of his assets over his abuse of power while in office.

"More than half of my assets have been robbed from me, so I have to earn them back again to look after my kids," he said of his three adult children. In a list of Thailand's wealthiest people published this week, Forbes magazine put Thaksin at 23 with a net worth of $390m.

• Thailand
• South Africa
• Nelson Mandela

Oil rig explodes in Gulf of Mexico

Explosion off Louisiana raises pollution fears after BP oil spill, with mile-long slick reported in the area

Fresh fears about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico were raised today when fire forced workers to abandon an oil and gas platform, just six months after the BP explosion that created an environmental disaster in the region.

The coastguard reported an oil slick a mile long and 30 metres wide near the site of the fire, undercutting a claim by the oil company that there was no pollution.

It is not known yet whether the oil might have come from the platform or, more worryingly, from a well below the surface. The prospect alarmed the White House, environmentalists, fishermen and others on the Gulf Coast, still coping with the pollution from the BP oil spill.

The company, Mariner Energy, said none of the 13 workers, who fled the platform and took to the sea in immersion suits and aboard a raft, were injured. The coastguard said they were taken by ship to a nearby platform and from there to hospital in Houma, Louisiana to be checked.

A coastguard spokesman said the platform was still on fire and that ships, helicopters and planes had been sent from Houston, New Orleans and Mobile.

The fire is a setback for the oil industry, which has been arguing that drilling in the Gulf is safe and that the BP explosion was a rare event. It came only 24 hours after companies including Mariner had staged a rally in Houston against a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. About 5,000 employees had been bussed in for the rally.

A spokesman for Mariner, Patrick Cassidy, said he did not anticipate any pollution as the platform had not been drilling and there had been no blowout. "There is no hydrocarbon spill," he said.

The fire had broken out on a facility above the water, at some distance from the wells, he added.

Dave Reed, an oil worker on a platform about 14 miles away, told CNN he could see the smoke and that a call had gone out for ships, helicopters and planes in the region to divert to the area. "It took an hour for the helicopters to get here and all 13 were taken from the water," Reed said.

The alarm was raised by a commercial helicopter flying over the platform. A coastguard spokesman, Chief Petty John Edwards, said: "We were able to confirm that all people were accounted for."

At the rally in Houston on Tuesday against the moratorium, Barbara Dianne Hagood, a spokesman for Mariner Energy, told the Financial Times: "I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this [the Obama] administration is trying to break us. The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast employees and Gulf Coast residents."

The fire broke out on the platform Vermilion Oil Rig 380, about 90 miles south of the Louisiana Coast and west of the earlier BP explosion that had killed 11 workers.

Both the White House and the coastguard said they did not anticipate any pollution but that ships equipped with facilities to help clean up spills had been sent to the area as a precaution.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said: "We obviously have response assets ready for deployment should we receive reports of pollution in the water." The White House stressed that, unlike the BP rig, the platform was not a deepwater facility and was only working to a depth of 340ft.

BP's attempts to cap its well, which saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf, were bedevilled by the depth at which they had been drilling. They finally capped the well in July.

Mariner is a small company in the process of being taken over by the Apache oil company in a deal worth an estimated $3.9 billion (£2.5bn). The deal has not yet been completed. Shares in both companies fell after news of the fire.

• United States
• Oil
• Oil
• Oil and gas companies
• BP oil spill

Oil rig explodes in Gulf of Mexico

Explosion off Louisiana raises pollution fears after BP oil spill, with mile-long slick reported in the area

Fresh fears about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico were raised today when fire forced workers to abandon an oil and gas platform, just six months after the BP explosion that created an environmental disaster in the region.

The coastguard reported an oil slick a mile long and 30 metres wide near the site of the fire, undercutting a claim by the oil company that there was no pollution.

It is not known yet whether the oil might have come from the platform or, more worryingly, from a well below the surface. The prospect alarmed the White House, environmentalists, fishermen and others on the Gulf Coast, still coping with the pollution from the BP oil spill.

The company, Mariner Energy, said none of the 13 workers, who fled the platform and took to the sea in immersion suits and aboard a raft, were injured. The coastguard said they were taken by ship to a nearby platform and from there to hospital in Houma, Louisiana to be checked.

A coastguard spokesman said the platform was still on fire and that ships, helicopters and planes had been sent from Houston, New Orleans and Mobile.

The fire is a setback for the oil industry, which has been arguing that drilling in the Gulf is safe and that the BP explosion was a rare event. It came only 24 hours after companies including Mariner had staged a rally in Houston against a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. About 5,000 employees had been bussed in for the rally.

A spokesman for Mariner, Patrick Cassidy, said he did not anticipate any pollution as the platform had not been drilling and there had been no blowout. "There is no hydrocarbon spill," he said.

The fire had broken out on a facility above the water, at some distance from the wells, he added.

Dave Reed, an oil worker on a platform about 14 miles away, told CNN he could see the smoke and that a call had gone out for ships, helicopters and planes in the region to divert to the area. "It took an hour for the helicopters to get here and all 13 were taken from the water," Reed said.

The alarm was raised by a commercial helicopter flying over the platform. A coastguard spokesman, Chief Petty John Edwards, said: "We were able to confirm that all people were accounted for."

At the rally in Houston on Tuesday against the moratorium, Barbara Dianne Hagood, a spokesman for Mariner Energy, told the Financial Times: "I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this [the Obama] administration is trying to break us. The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast employees and Gulf Coast residents."

The fire broke out on the platform Vermilion Oil Rig 380, about 90 miles south of the Louisiana Coast and west of the earlier BP explosion that had killed 11 workers.

Both the White House and the coastguard said they did not anticipate any pollution but that ships equipped with facilities to help clean up spills had been sent to the area as a precaution.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said: "We obviously have response assets ready for deployment should we receive reports of pollution in the water." The White House stressed that, unlike the BP rig, the platform was not a deepwater facility and was only working to a depth of 340ft.

BP's attempts to cap its well, which saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf, were bedevilled by the depth at which they had been drilling. They finally capped the well in July.

Mariner is a small company in the process of being taken over by the Apache oil company in a deal worth an estimated $3.9 billion (£2.5bn). The deal has not yet been completed. Shares in both companies fell after news of the fire.

• United States
• Oil
• Oil
• Oil and gas companies
• BP oil spill

Read more [Guardian America]

Middle East peace 'in a year'

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin framework talks on a peace deal which could encompass borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, met for the first day of direct talks in Washington today and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin putting together a framework agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.

Mitchell said Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to meet again in a fortnight in the Middle East and every two weeks after that. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Mitchell will attend the first of those meetings on 14 September.

Mitchell declined to disclose the detail of the discussions, although he said some of the major issues were touched on. Netanyahu and Abbas met American officials and then on their own. Mitchell described the two men's relationship at the talks as "cordial".

Before the talks opened, Netanyahu said two key demands – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within a Palestinian state – were a prerequisite to a wider agreement.

Netanyahu again called Abbas his "partner in peace" and said he was prepared to make "painful concessions" to reach a deal. But the Israeli prime minister said that what he called the "two pillars to peace" must be resolved.

Clinton launched the negotiations by calling for the two leaders to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one year deadline set by Barack Obama. "We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to make sacrifices to reach an agreement. "Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said.

The Israeli prime minister said central to any agreement were legitimacy and security. "Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats."

Abbas said he believed a deal was possible. "We're not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government."

Comment, page 33

• Middle East
• United States
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas

Middle East peace 'in a year'

Israeli and Palestinian leaders begin framework talks on a peace deal which could encompass borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, met for the first day of direct talks in Washington today and agreed that a peace deal could be achieved within a year.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy who joined the negotiations, said the two leaders decided to begin putting together a framework agreement on all major issues – such as borders, Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and security – that will "establish the fundamental compromises necessary" to flesh out a comprehensive peace deal.

Mitchell said Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to meet again in a fortnight in the Middle East and every two weeks after that. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and Mitchell will attend the first of those meetings on 14 September.

Mitchell declined to disclose the detail of the discussions, although he said some of the major issues were touched on. Netanyahu and Abbas met American officials and then on their own. Mitchell described the two men's relationship at the talks as "cordial".

Before the talks opened, Netanyahu said two key demands – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within a Palestinian state – were a prerequisite to a wider agreement.

Netanyahu again called Abbas his "partner in peace" and said he was prepared to make "painful concessions" to reach a deal. But the Israeli prime minister said that what he called the "two pillars to peace" must be resolved.

Clinton launched the negotiations by calling for the two leaders to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one year deadline set by Barack Obama. "We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to make sacrifices to reach an agreement. "Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," he said.

The Israeli prime minister said central to any agreement were legitimacy and security. "Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel … new forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats."

Abbas said he believed a deal was possible. "We're not starting from scratch, because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government."

Comment, page 33

• Middle East
• United States
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Barack Obama
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Mahmoud Abbas

Read more [Guardian America]

Michael White's political briefing | Sex, lies and Fleet Street headlines

Gay Tory MPs are adamant that the foreign secretary is not, as Lady Thatcher used to say, 'one of us', but it doesn't end there

Reporters who remember William Hague's byelection win in Richmond in 1989 affectionately recall one odd aspect of the campaign. Whatever they asked a Conservative press officer about their precocious bachelor candidate's views on great issues of the day, the jittery answer would usually be: "Did you know, his girlfriend's arriving tomorrow?" Yet gay Tory MPs are adamant that the foreign secretary is not, as Lady Thatcher used to say, "one of us".

Attitudes on sexuality have become much more relaxed since the days of section 28, to the point where having gay MPs is mandatory and David Cameron promises to curb homophobic bullying in the playground. As the "gay spy" narrative falsely imposed on murdered M16 staffer Gareth Williams showed yet again last week, Downing Street is yet to promise similar curbs in Fleet Street.

The media's reluctance to abandon a good sex story, let alone admit error, means it has been chipping away at Hague ever since. Far from being discouraged by his marriage to Ffion Jenkins, a member of his staff, shortly after becoming Tory leader in 1997, the pack took it as a challenge. "No smoke without fire" is a familiar justification for sexual gossip, straight or gay. From John Profumo to David Laws via Cecil Parkinson and David Mellor it is sometimes even true.

In most circumstances Hague's denial, accompanied by distressing revelations of miscarriages, should be regarded as watertight. He used the word "never" in respect of any gay relationships. But people lie about money and sex. So Tory hopes that the Sunday papers will take his word for it may be premature. Meanwhile the justification for stoking fresh headlines has shifted to one of Hague's "judgment".

It is marginally less humbug than the "national security" concerns spuriously invoked in the Profumo affair. Was Hague, 49, right to share a hotel room with a young aide (of either sex) or to appoint a talented friend to a special adviser's post for which his qualifications were not obvious? MPs were divided today. Brilliant but naive, an "intensely private" loner who does not consult enough, was the kinder verdict. Naive but arrogant was the sceptics' take.

Trickier by far was whether it was wise of the Foreign Office to issue an inadequate statement on Tuesday, which led to Hague's self-lacerating second effort 24 hours later. The worldly publicity pimp, Max Clifford, was adamant that Hague's statement was a major error, one which gave TV networks the green light to pursue what had only been a blog-driven tabloid tale.

"Only when it appears on TV does a story become serious with voters," scandal-ravaged MPs tell new colleagues. "Until that happens it is best to say nothing."

But Hague made clear yesterday that he and his wife felt they had endured enough gossip and wanted to take a stand. Honest, but naive was Westminster's prevailing verdict, it will not buttress his wonky reputation for wise judgement in the day job.

The Hagues' reward today was pages of gossipy coverage, mock sympathy over their miscarriages and suggestions he may quit politics. He was making a reported £1m a year before David Cameron lured him back. Downing Street dismisses such talk, but some sympathetic Tory MPs, still nursing bruises from the expenses scandal, do not. If Hague were to retire hurt after David Laws's departure the coalition cabinet's average IQ would be seriously depleted, though not necessarily its stock of common sense.

• William Hague
• Conservatives
• Gay rights
• Newspapers & magazines

News Analysis: France’s G-20 Agenda May Be a Tough Sell

On Nov. 12, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, will take over the presidency of the Group of 20, but it may be difficult to initiate ambitious change.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Hurricane Earl warning puts east coast on alert

Warning extended to include Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts

Hurricane Earl blew towards North Carolina today with winds of up to 125mph (200kph), putting the east coast on alert. Federal emergency management agency (Fema) administrator Craig Fugate said there was no longer time to wait on the next forecast to see how close the eye of the storm might get to shore.

A hurricane warning for the tip of Massachusetts, including Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, joined earlier warnings and watches for hurricanes or tropical storms that stretch from North Carolina up to near the Canadian border.

"They really need to focus today on what they're going to do before the storm gets there," Fugate said. "Implement your plans and be ready to heed evacuation orders."

Earl was a dangerous category 3 storm and the hurricane force winds were beginning to spread farther from the eye as the centre of the storm underwent a change, the National Hurricane Centre in Miami said.

The centre's director, Bill Read, said hurricane winds were spread 90 miles from the eye and widening. The eye of the storm was predicted to remain about 30 to 75 miles east of the Outer Banks, meaning that, at the closest point of approach, the western edge of the eyewall could impact Cape Hatteras, with huge waves, beach erosion and maybe some property damage from the waves.

"They're going to have a full impact of a major hurricane," Read said.

There will be a similar close approach for the eastern tip of Long Island, Rhode Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. "They'll be facing a similar scenario that North Carolina is facing today," Read said. "And it will be bigger. The storm won't be as strong but they spread out as they go north and the rain will be spreading from New England."

That will mean strong, gusty winds much like a nor'easter, and because leaves are still on the trees, there could be fallen trees or limbs and downed power lines. "This is the strongest hurricane to threaten the northeast and New England since Hurricane Bob in 1991," said Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist and spokesman for the National Hurricane Centre. "They don't get storms this powerful very often."

The North Carolina National Guard is deploying 80 troops to help, and president Barack Obama declared an emergency in the state. The declaration authorises the Department of Homeland Security and Fema to coordinate all disaster relief efforts.

• Natural disasters and extreme weather
• United States

Hurricane Earl warning puts east coast on alert

Warning extended to include Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts

Hurricane Earl blew towards North Carolina today with winds of up to 125mph (200kph), putting the east coast on alert. Federal emergency management agency (Fema) administrator Craig Fugate said there was no longer time to wait on the next forecast to see how close the eye of the storm might get to shore.

A hurricane warning for the tip of Massachusetts, including Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, joined earlier warnings and watches for hurricanes or tropical storms that stretch from North Carolina up to near the Canadian border.

"They really need to focus today on what they're going to do before the storm gets there," Fugate said. "Implement your plans and be ready to heed evacuation orders."

Earl was a dangerous category 3 storm and the hurricane force winds were beginning to spread farther from the eye as the centre of the storm underwent a change, the National Hurricane Centre in Miami said.

The centre's director, Bill Read, said hurricane winds were spread 90 miles from the eye and widening. The eye of the storm was predicted to remain about 30 to 75 miles east of the Outer Banks, meaning that, at the closest point of approach, the western edge of the eyewall could impact Cape Hatteras, with huge waves, beach erosion and maybe some property damage from the waves.

"They're going to have a full impact of a major hurricane," Read said.

There will be a similar close approach for the eastern tip of Long Island, Rhode Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. "They'll be facing a similar scenario that North Carolina is facing today," Read said. "And it will be bigger. The storm won't be as strong but they spread out as they go north and the rain will be spreading from New England."

That will mean strong, gusty winds much like a nor'easter, and because leaves are still on the trees, there could be fallen trees or limbs and downed power lines. "This is the strongest hurricane to threaten the northeast and New England since Hurricane Bob in 1991," said Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist and spokesman for the National Hurricane Centre. "They don't get storms this powerful very often."

The North Carolina National Guard is deploying 80 troops to help, and president Barack Obama declared an emergency in the state. The declaration authorises the Department of Homeland Security and Fema to coordinate all disaster relief efforts.

• Natural disasters and extreme weather
• United States

Read more [Guardian America]

Sex parties, bloody duels and blackmail: life at court of last German emperor

Historian suggests Princess Charlotte, sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, may have hosted orgy to entrap aristocratic rivals

Its public image was one of prudery and Prussian punctiliousness, but a historical investigation into the sexual habits of the court of the last German emperor has revealed a previously unknown predilection for swinger-style parties and late-night orgies.

Using police files uncovered from the Prussian Secret State Archives in Berlin, historians have been able to reconstruct the erotic goings-on of a group of aristocrats and court officials, which started off as a sex party and ended in a series of bloody duels.

According to the Berlin historian Wolfgang Wippermann, a select group of Prussia's blue-bloods first met at the invitation of Princess Charlotte, the older sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, at Jagdschloss Grunewald, a hunting lodge in the woods of western Berlin, in 1891.

The partygoers included the brother-in-law of the kaiser, his master of ceremonies, Leberecht von Kotze, a host of aristocrats and a foreign ministry state secretary.

The parties, details of which are revealed in Spiegel magazine, consisted of unbridled sex sessions, in which the participants drank and danced, as well as experimenting with a variety of different sexual positions.

Wippermann's research, which has culminated in the book Scandal in Hunting Lodge Grunewald, due to be published later this month, led him to a total of 246 letters, in which the experiments are outlined in detail.

The gatherings might have remained anonymous but for one of the partygoers, whose identity remains unknown – but who Wippermann suspects to be Charlotte herself – who the day after one of the escapades sent participants blackmail letters.

The letters included illustrations and descriptions of the events of the previous night, and threatened to reveal the identities of the participants.

Wippermann has no concrete proof, but believes that Charlotte, a chain-smoking lover of scandal who died after lengthy psychiatric treatment in 1919, may have even hosted the events with the sole purpose of entrapping her unwitting guests.

The attempts at blackmail exploded into a scandal of huge political proportions when news of the orgies reached high-ranking representatives of the Prussian court, as well as the emperor himself.

A heated debate in the Reichstag followed.

In the correspondence the whistle-blower, who graphologists say was certainly a woman, repeatedly takes a swipe at the Duchess of Hohenau, describing her as a "randy tart".

A celebrated horse rider, the duchess was married to the openly gay aristocrat Friedrich von Hohenau. Her love life was legendary and included liaisons with the future reichs chancellor Max von Baden, as well as Herbert von Bismarck, a state secretary in the foreign ministry.

The letter writer also unleashes her anger on Alide von Schrader, the wife of a master of ceremonies who enjoyed lesbian affairs, and Prince Aribert von Anhalt, an official for the first Olympic games, who is accused of having sex with other men.

After discovering his own master of ceremonies, Kotze, was deeply entangled in the affair, Kaiser Wilhelm had him imprisoned.

But Kotze was soon released because no arrest warrant had been issued and in his thirst for revenge began to search for the partygoers who had revealed his identity.

A series of duels between Kotze and other male partygoers followed. He was injured in one duel, receiving an Easter egg from the Kaiser as a get-well gesture, and then subsequently killed in another, when a bullet penetrated his intestine.

"I'm almost certain that Charlotte was responsible for this cabal," Tobias Bringmann, who has researched the case, told Spiegel. "What is needed now is to get a graphologist to compare her correspondence with that of the blackmailer."

• Germany
• Sex

I write a nasty book. And they want a girly cover on it | Lionel Shriver

Publishing's notion of what women want is dated and patronising. In my case it's like trying to stuff a rottweiler in a dress

The latest literary dust-up in the United States concerns the outsize critical admiration of Jonathan Franzen's new novel Freedom, the follow-up to his 2001 National Book Award winner The Corrections. Freedom secured two worshipful reviews from the New York Times in one week, the Book Review's lengthy cover essay drooling with such jaw-dropped awe that it was hard to read for the saliva stains. Franzen himself appears on the cover of Time, and Freedom sits in President Obama's stack of holiday reading.

Fellow novelist Jodi Picoult ignited online fireworks last week by claiming that female writers never attract the same reverence as "white male literary darlings" like Franzen. Naturally Picoult risks the appearance of plain old envy. Though a skilful craftsman, Picoult may also lack the literary standing to make such a charge. Myself, I've yet to read Freedom, embargoed until this Wednesday, but it does sound like an excellent book, one I'm looking forward to.

Nevertheless, Picoult has a point. A female novelist would never enjoy a Franzen-scale frenzy of adulation in America, which maintains two distinct tiers in fiction. The heavy hitters – cultural icons who often produce great doorstop novels that no one ever argues are under-edited – are exclusively male. Rising literati like Rick Moody and Jonathan Franzen efficiently assume the spots left unoccupied by John Updike and Norman Mailer, like a rigged game of musical chairs. Then there's everybody else – including a raft of female writers who keep the publishing industry afloat by selling to its primary consumers: women.

Elaine Showalter did a bang-up job in the Guardian Review last spring explaining why American women are never credited with writing the Great American Novel while identifying female writers who deserve more acclaim. So in preference to singing yet more praises of the gifted Annie Proulx, I'll share an inside glimpse of how publishers are complicit in ghettoising not only women writers but women readers into this implicitly lesser cultural tier.

With merciful exceptions, my publishers constantly send prospective covers for my books that play to what "women readers" supposedly want. Take the American reissue of my fourth novel Game Control – a wicked, nasty novel about a plot to kill two billion people overnight. The main character is a man, the focal subject demography. Yet what cover do I first get sent? A winsome young lass in a floppy hat, gazing soulfully to the horizon in a windblown field – soft focus, in pastels. Dismayed, I emailed back: "Did your designers read any of this book?" When I proposed a cover photo by Peter Beard of sagging elephant carcasses – perfectly apt – the sales department was horrified. Women would be repelled by dead animals. We settled on live elephants, but it was pulling teeth to get girls off that paperback.

Or take the amicable difference of opinion I am having with my German publisher, since apparently this problem is also European. My latest novel, So Much for That, is told from two male points of view. Its subject matter – illness, mortality, and the fiscal depredations of American healthcare – is unisex, its tone furious. Yet what's on the cover? A woman, looking stricken. Male readers wouldn't be caught dead reading a book with that cover on the Strassenbahn.

The titling of that novel also came up against stereotypes of my ostensibly all-female audience. The US sales department vetoed the original title, Time is Money, for "sounding like nonfiction", though fiction appropriating and subverting nonfiction titles is commonplace (nobody mistook Alison Lurie's Foreign Affairs for an international policy journal). It took me a while to discern the real problem: Time is Money was too direct, too aggressive, too in your face; it would frighten the girls away. This suspicion was confirmed when I suggested the Germans, with no equivalent of "so much for that", simply use my original title. Uh-uh. Zeit ist Geld is "too male and harsh". I admired my publisher's candour, if not his neutral substitute: The Better Part of Life.

Publishing's notion of what "women want" is dated and condescending. In the era of Venus Williams, girliness and goo isn't the way to every woman's heart. Yet publishers presume that women only buy a book that looks soft and that appears to be all about women, even if it isn't. Yet women, unlike men, buy books by and about both sexes.

Granted, the marketing logic seems unassailable: in the US, Britain and Germany, 80% of fiction readers are women. (Which mysteriously makes women look bad: those layabout ladies have nothing better to do than loll around and read. Yet if 80% of fiction readers were men, we'd assume that men are still far more cultured and better informed, while women squander their free time on mopping the floor.) Why appeal to the meagre male 20%?

Simple: smart female authors who twig that their careers depend on writing solely for their own gender will instinctively narrow their subject matter. Meanwhile, gauzy covers with shy titles signal that the literary establishment needn't take this work seriously. Little wonder, then, that the language of extravagant regard in that New York Times Book Review write-up of Jonathan Franzen – "Like all great novels," Freedom "illuminates, through the steady radiance of its author's profound moral intelligence" – is rarely lavished on female novelists. Little wonder that admiration of Franzen's focus on "family as microcosm or micro-history" would invert to disdain should a woman choose the same subject: look, just another bint stuck in her tiny domestic world.

When my novels are packaged as exclusively for women, I'm not only cut off from a vital portion of my audience but clearly labelled as an author the literary establishment is free to dismiss. By stereotyping my work's audience as self-involved and prissy, women-only packaging also insults my readers, who could all testify that trussing up my novels as sweet, girly and soft is like stuffing a rottweiler in a dress.

Lionel Shriver won the 2005 Orange prize for fiction with We Need to Talk About Kevin

• Publishing
• Gender
• Marketing & PR

France 24: 'medieval court' where rivalry with the Saxons fades as chiefs slug it out

Sackings, strike threats and a bitter battle for supremacy engulfs French TV channel

When launched four years ago France 24 was billed as a "CNN à la française": a television news channel that would counter the influence of Anglo Saxon media and make the voice of France heard around the world.

In recent days, however, that voice has sounded rather more anguished than authoritative.

Engulfed in rivalries and recriminations, the newsroom has been plunged into crisis, with one union threatening a  strike and another planning a vote of no- confidence. Journalists mutter about a "battle of the bosses" fuelling dissent. One even likened the atmosphere to the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre: vicious, unrelenting and very, very, bloody.

Since last week, when rumours of sackings and suspensions at the highest level of editorial started flying round the newsroom, tensions that had long been bubbling under the surface have burst forth in spectacular fashion.

At the heart of the latest troubles are the channel's two chiefs: Alain de Pouzilhac, the chief executive known to staff as "Poupou", and his second-in-command, Christine Ockrent, one of France's best-known journalists whose imperious persona and brusque leadership have earned her the nickname "the Queen".

Target

Married to the foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, the formidable former news anchor Ockrent is no stranger to conflict: sources say that, during last year's surge of "bossnappings", she was terrified of being taken hostage by marauding journalists.

According to Paris's media pundits, she and Pouzilhac are now engaged in a battle for influence over the state-funded television channel, which broadcasts in French, English and Arabic.

While they slug it out the staff are becoming increasingly restless. "Editorial is falling victim to the battle of the bosses," one journalist told the daily newspaper Libération this week.

Last Wednesday the knock-on effect of this rivalry, and the tensions it prompted, became clear when Albert Ripamonti, an editor popular among France 24 reporters and seen as a favourite of Pouzilhac, was rumoured to have been fired by Ockrent.

The rumour turned out to be false; in fact, it was Vincent Giret, Ockrent's righthand man, who was reportedly suspended by the CEO. The reasons are unclear, and the management has refused to comment. The move by "Poupou", who took up his new position in July, has been greeted in media circles as a sign that the former adman is preparing to make his influence felt on the company.

Without providing figures to back up their claims, union leaders say the channel saw a drop in viewing figures in the first half of this year. They also predict a budget deficit of between €5-€10m.

Seeking to explain why the CEO targeted Giret and not Ockrent, some pundits suggested political reasons for his reticence, claiming that, as long as Kouchner was at the Quai d'Orsay, his wife would remain at France 24.

One leading commentator, Emmanuel Berretta, evoked the subject on his Twitter page this week, alluding to expectations that Kouchner would be ousted by Nicolas Sarkozy in a November cabinet shake-up. "Hypothesis: does C Ockrent's disgrace herald the fact that Kouchner is going to be kicked out of government at the reshuffle?"

While the open conflict between the bosses has emerged only recently, the dissent among France 24's staff is nothing new. Unions have complained for months that "malaise" at the heart of the editorial division has left journalists overworked, underpaid and badly treated.

Sweatshop

This week the CFDT union asked members to go on strike from Monday, while another, the CGT, has asked for a vote of no-confidence in the management. The CFDT said it was "worried" about the firm's circumstances, and denounced "the arbitrary and clannish management".

Among employees, current and former, complaints about the treatment of France 24's staff are legion. Last year, during a change in the business structure, around 30 people applied to leave.

"It's like we were pawns, like we weren't treated as human beings but like mechanical parts of a sausage factory," one former journalist said. "France 24 is like a medieval king's court. People have patrons: you're so and so's guy or you're so and so's. It's all about alliances."

Another former freelancer on the English language side said that "the sweatshop atmosphere" of the channel meant that journalists at Radio France International, part of the same public media group led by Pouzilhac and Ockrent, felt better off. "Journalists who have worked at both RFI and France24 consistently prefer the former to the latter, despite poorer pay," she said.

• France
• Television
• Television industry

Iranian journalists' website puts Ahmadinejad spin on Barack Obama

Website barackobama.ir promises 'an Iranian viewpoint on Barack Obama's opinions'

A group of Iranian journalists sympathetic to the world view of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched barackobama.ir, a website set up to address "an Iranian viewpoint on Barack Obama's opinions".

The news of its creation first appeared this week in a series of government-sponsored websites and news agencies, which endorsed it as an independent source of information about the life of Obama, his administration and issues such as 9/11, Israel and Iran's nuclear programme.

The website has attracted nearly 100,000 visitors in its first week. It introduces itself as a group "that believes that Barack Obama isn't only a name but a political phenomenon".

It depicts the American president as someone "who insists on the Arabic-Islamic part of his name: Hussein" and adds: "He is educated, lawyer, friendly, who observes the niceties of etiquette showing real oriental feeling in his innocent eyes that are the heritage of the occidental government's cruelty to the Negroes." But it adds that, by electing him as president, "the United States confessed to the increasing power of Islam".

Among articles published on his life is one headlined: "Is he the first Jewish president?"

Ahmadinejad sees the internet as a platform used for "psychological war against Iran" and has repeatedly asked its supporters to attack the "enemies" in the virtual society.

Since the disputed presidential election last summer, when Iranian protesters exploited Twitter and Facebook to spread their voice, the number of government-supported websites and blogs has increased significantly, while access to almost all opposition websites has been blocked.

An Iranian journalist who asked not to be identified said: "In Iran, all blogs and websites need to register with the government, especially those holding .ir domains, and the fact that barackobama.ir is set up without problem and is welcomed by governmental news agencies shows that it is backed by officials within the Iranian regime."

• Iran
• Barack Obama
• United States
• Internet

Iranian journalists' website puts Ahmadinejad spin on Barack Obama

Website barackobama.ir promises 'an Iranian viewpoint on Barack Obama's opinions'

A group of Iranian journalists sympathetic to the world view of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has launched barackobama.ir, a website set up to address "an Iranian viewpoint on Barack Obama's opinions".

The news of its creation first appeared this week in a series of government-sponsored websites and news agencies, which endorsed it as an independent source of information about the life of Obama, his administration and issues such as 9/11, Israel and Iran's nuclear programme.

The website has attracted nearly 100,000 visitors in its first week. It introduces itself as a group "that believes that Barack Obama isn't only a name but a political phenomenon".

It depicts the American president as someone "who insists on the Arabic-Islamic part of his name: Hussein" and adds: "He is educated, lawyer, friendly, who observes the niceties of etiquette showing real oriental feeling in his innocent eyes that are the heritage of the occidental government's cruelty to the Negroes." But it adds that, by electing him as president, "the United States confessed to the increasing power of Islam".

Among articles published on his life is one headlined: "Is he the first Jewish president?"

Ahmadinejad sees the internet as a platform used for "psychological war against Iran" and has repeatedly asked its supporters to attack the "enemies" in the virtual society.

Since the disputed presidential election last summer, when Iranian protesters exploited Twitter and Facebook to spread their voice, the number of government-supported websites and blogs has increased significantly, while access to almost all opposition websites has been blocked.

An Iranian journalist who asked not to be identified said: "In Iran, all blogs and websites need to register with the government, especially those holding .ir domains, and the fact that barackobama.ir is set up without problem and is welcomed by governmental news agencies shows that it is backed by officials within the Iranian regime."

• Iran
• Barack Obama
• United States
• Internet

Read more [Guardian America]

Saskatchewan government blow for Potash in BHP Billiton takeover bid

Saskatchewan government will not support takeover of fertiliser company by any sovereign wealth fund

Potash Corp of Saskatchewan's best hope of escaping BHP Billiton's $39bn (£25bn) hostile takeover bid has received a blow from a local government minister.

The Saskatchewan government says it is unlikely to support a takeover of the Saskatoon-based fertiliser company by a sovereign wealth fund, a state-owned firm from China or any other large potash-buying nation because it fears its primary motive would be to deflate the price of the region's most important asset.

A rival bid from the Chinese had been seen as Potash Corp's best hope of avoiding the clutches of BHP after its mining rivals Vale and Rio Tinto have signalled that they will not be launching a rival bid.

Saskatchewan energy minister Bill Boyd said: "It would seem to us … that their interest and the interest of taxpayers of Saskatchewan may not be aligned."

While the provincial government does not have the final say over any deal, its support is seen as crucial. Boyd has also announced that the Conference Board of Canada will conduct an independent analysis of a proposed takeover. "No matter who owns the potash mines, the people of Saskatchewan own the potash," he said.

• BHP Billiton
• Canada

Chief rabbi challenges Stephen Hawking in row over origins of universe

Lord Sacks accuses astrophysicist of logical fallacy in book excluding possibility of supernatural creation

The chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, hit back at Stephen Hawking after the astrophysicist said God did not create the universe.

In his new book, The Grand Design, published next week, Hawking concludes that science excludes the possibility of a deity and that it is unnecessary to "invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going".

But his finding were described by Sacks as an "elementary fallacy" of logic.

Writing in the Times, the chief rabbi said: "There is a difference between science and religion. Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the universe came into being."

Sacks also said the mutual hostility between religion and science was one of "the curses of our age" and warned it would be equally damaging to both.

"But there is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science."

In an earlier book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking was apparently more open to the idea of God, suggesting that a scientific understanding of the universe was not incompatible with a creator. "If we discover a complete theory … it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God," he wrote.

• Stephen Hawking
• Physics
• Religion

British man piloted Congo death crash plane

Chris Wilson died along with 19 others when flight from Kinshasa to Bandundu was unable to land last week

The pilot of a plane that crashed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo killing 20 people has been named as a Briton who had worked as an air steward but loved flying so much he trained as a pilot.

Chris Wilson, 39, from Bury, Greater Manchester, died when the twin-engined plane crashed last week near the airstrip in the town of Bandundu.

His family said he had worked for Congolese airline Filair since 2009. They did not learn of his death until Saturday as no identification was found on his body.

Congo, which has suffered decades of civil war and corrupt rule, has one of the world's worst air safety records and is blacklisted by the international aviation authorities. UN spokesman Madnodje Mounoubai said a number of people on the ground had also been killed. There was only one reported survivor on the plane.

The Let L-410 plane took off from the capital Kinshasa and crashed after it was unable to land at Bandundu airport and seemingly ran out of fuel.

Wilson is survived by his parents, Jean and Eric Wilson, from Bury, a twin brother Robert, and three other siblings.

Jean Wilson, 78, told the Bury Times yesterday: "It's such a shock. He loved flying and he worked hard to fulfil his dream of becoming a pilot. He had three jobs at once just to pay for his training. He absolutely adored flying.

"I'm very proud of him for working so hard. He loved life and did everything he could to achieve his dream."

She added: "There have been so many messages from people he has known through the years. We didn't realise so many people cared for him."

Wilson's best friend, Martin Kirkby, said: "It is a tragedy. Chris worked really hard to become a pilot and he died doing what he loved. His passion was always to fly and he was very happy to be doing it."

Wilson joined the Territorial Army after university and was a member of the Royal Green Jackets. He trained in bomb disposal and served in the US and Germany. He worked for Airtours for several years before moving to another airline, BMED, as an air steward. He trained as a pilot while working there.

An air accident investigation into the cause of the crash has been launched. Wilson's family is in contact with the British Consulate about returning his body to the UK so his funeral can take place.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: "We can confirm the death of a British national in the Democratic Republic of Congo on 25 August 2010. We are providing consular assistance to the family at this distressing time."

• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Plane crashes
• Air transport

Universe is self-created: Hawking

UK scientist writes in new book that "it is not necessary to invoke God to ... get the Universe going".
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Biscuit matriarch stages takeover in car park

Spanish executive calls board meeting in Mercedes after sons lock her out of Galletas Gullón HQ

It was a strange way to wrest back control of the 100-year-old family company but, after her sons locked her out, María Teresa Rodríguez – the matriarch of Spanish biscuit manufacturer Galletas Gullón – decided to call a board meeting in a car.

The meeting in the company car park, attended by her daughter Lourdes and another major shareholder as photographers surrounded the Mercedes, saw her appointed sole administrator of the company.

The 68-year-old thereby took away control of Spain's third-biggest biscuit manufacturer from her three sons and two brothers.

The 35-minute meeting, also attended by a notary who sat in the passenger seat, was duly advertised with two posters stuck to the front windscreen.

A family feud pits the Gullón men against its women. Sons and brothers had tried to block Rodríguez's attempts to take control by declaring the board meeting irregular and locking her out of the company HQ.

A security guard turned mother and daughter away from the front door of Spain's biggest biscuit factory, in the western town of Aguilar de Campoo. But those in the Mercedes controlled 80% of the company. Their takeover was a shoo-in.

The man in the driver's seat of the Mercedes was Juan Martínez, the former company chief executive fired by Rodríguez's sons last year. He held 16% of the stock.

Rodríguez had appointed him to help her run the company after her husband, José Manuel Gullón, died in a car accident in 1983. Rodríguez herself had been executive president – until she, too, was eased out by her children.

Last year's rebellion against them and the decision to sack Martínez sparked the feud over the business, which has 400 employees, exports to 80 countries and has an annual turnover of €162m. It also saw a court award him €8.2m for wrongful dismissal.

"The company will go to my children, but only when I decide," she said in a recent interview.

Yesterday's board meeting failed to resolve the underlying problems. The sons today claimed it had not been properly convened and said their mother was illegally using voting shares left to them by their father.

"None of the reasons they have given to invalidate the meeting are true," said a spokesman for Rodríguez. "All legal actions taken by the sons and brothers of María Teresa Rodríguez pursue a single illegitimate aim: to keep hold of power."

• Spain
• Food & drink industry
• Family

Burger King sold for £2.6bn

Fast food chain Burger King acquired by 3G Capital, private equity firm, in $24-per-share deal

Burger King has been sold to 3G Capital, a private equity firm backed by three of Brazil's best-known businessmen, in a deal worth $4bn (£2.6bn).

The $24-a-share agreement is 46% more than Burger King shares closed at on 31 August, the day before rumours of a deal surfaced and sent the shares soaring by 15%.

In a letter to franchisees, who run 90% of the company's restaurants, 3G's managing director, Alex Behring, said: "We share a common goal to improve the Burger King brand experience for guests at both company-owned and franchisee restaurants, while running a sustainable business on an ongoing basis."

3G declined to say if any job losses are planned, either in the UK, where the company has 500 restaurants, or across the group as a whole. However, market watchers said that the new owners would be likely to focus on increasing the proportion of franchised restaurants by "re-franchising" company-owned outlets and expanding in areas such as Asia and Latin America, where the new owners have especially strong links.

David Palmer, an analyst at investment bank UBS, said: "We do not believe a private equity buyout would necessarily foreshadow a significant change in strategy for BK. The company's recently announced refranchising initiative is one we believe a private equity sponsor would support. In our view, improved restaurant assets will be a key to stabilising sales – and this is something that could take several years and require significant reinvestment in assets."

The takeover has been funded by debt, which sources put at $2.8bn, raised from JP Morgan Chase and Barclays. Analysts at stockbrokers Robert W Baird commented: "We would find this level of leverage surprising, given the apparent need for BK to invest capital in initiatives to position the brand for long-term success."

The deal also comes at a particularly challenging time for the fast food chain, which last week said worldwide sales this year were down 2.3%, compared with an increase of 1.2% last year. Sales in North America were down 3.9%. Bitter rival McDonald's saw global sales in the second quarter rise 4.8%, with US sales up 3.7%.

BK's chairman and chief executive, John Chidsey, will stay in his role during a transition period before becoming co-chairman with Behring.

The deal represents the second time the 55-year-old chain has been owned by buyout specialists after it was spun out of then owner Diageo in 2002 by Texas Pacific, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs in a $1.5bn deal (worth £950m at the time). The private equity groups implemented an aggressive turnaround strategy for the loss-making company, and focused on expanding into emerging markets such as China, Brazil and Russia. They floated the company four years later but retained just under a third of the shares.

The deal also marks another example of Brazil's increasing power as a corporate player. Behring is the right-hand man of fellow Brazilian Jorge Paulo Lemann, having previously worked at the buyout firm the 71-year-old billionaire founded. Lemann, who backs 3G along with Marcel Telles and Carlos Sicupira, are known as "the trio" and are best remembered for building the Brazilian brewery InBev, which in 2008 bought Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Budweiser.

Under the terms of the agreement, Burger King can solicit superior bids until 12 October.

• Food & drink industry
• Private equity
• United States
• Brazil

Burger King sold for £2.6bn

Fast food chain Burger King acquired by 3G Capital, private equity firm, in $24-per-share deal

Burger King has been sold to 3G Capital, a private equity firm backed by three of Brazil's best-known businessmen, in a deal worth $4bn (£2.6bn).

The $24-a-share agreement is 46% more than Burger King shares closed at on 31 August, the day before rumours of a deal surfaced and sent the shares soaring by 15%.

In a letter to franchisees, who run 90% of the company's restaurants, 3G's managing director, Alex Behring, said: "We share a common goal to improve the Burger King brand experience for guests at both company-owned and franchisee restaurants, while running a sustainable business on an ongoing basis."

3G declined to say if any job losses are planned, either in the UK, where the company has 500 restaurants, or across the group as a whole. However, market watchers said that the new owners would be likely to focus on increasing the proportion of franchised restaurants by "re-franchising" company-owned outlets and expanding in areas such as Asia and Latin America, where the new owners have especially strong links.

David Palmer, an analyst at investment bank UBS, said: "We do not believe a private equity buyout would necessarily foreshadow a significant change in strategy for BK. The company's recently announced refranchising initiative is one we believe a private equity sponsor would support. In our view, improved restaurant assets will be a key to stabilising sales – and this is something that could take several years and require significant reinvestment in assets."

The takeover has been funded by debt, which sources put at $2.8bn, raised from JP Morgan Chase and Barclays. Analysts at stockbrokers Robert W Baird commented: "We would find this level of leverage surprising, given the apparent need for BK to invest capital in initiatives to position the brand for long-term success."

The deal also comes at a particularly challenging time for the fast food chain, which last week said worldwide sales this year were down 2.3%, compared with an increase of 1.2% last year. Sales in North America were down 3.9%. Bitter rival McDonald's saw global sales in the second quarter rise 4.8%, with US sales up 3.7%.

BK's chairman and chief executive, John Chidsey, will stay in his role during a transition period before becoming co-chairman with Behring.

The deal represents the second time the 55-year-old chain has been owned by buyout specialists after it was spun out of then owner Diageo in 2002 by Texas Pacific, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs in a $1.5bn deal (worth £950m at the time). The private equity groups implemented an aggressive turnaround strategy for the loss-making company, and focused on expanding into emerging markets such as China, Brazil and Russia. They floated the company four years later but retained just under a third of the shares.

The deal also marks another example of Brazil's increasing power as a corporate player. Behring is the right-hand man of fellow Brazilian Jorge Paulo Lemann, having previously worked at the buyout firm the 71-year-old billionaire founded. Lemann, who backs 3G along with Marcel Telles and Carlos Sicupira, are known as "the trio" and are best remembered for building the Brazilian brewery InBev, which in 2008 bought Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Budweiser.

Under the terms of the agreement, Burger King can solicit superior bids until 12 October.

• Food & drink industry
• Private equity
• United States
• Brazil

Read more [Guardian America]

Jewish director Julian Schnabel brings Palestine to Venice

Director talks of 'responsibility' to tell story of Middle East conflict in film Miral, told through eyes of two Palestinian women

The American artist and film-maker Julian Schnabel said he felt a "responsibility" as a Jew to tell the story of Palestine when he opened his new movie at the Venice film festival.

Schnabel's film Miral, competing with 22 others for the Golden Lion award, brought a note of seriousness to an event that sometimes veers towards the frothier side of culture.

Miral is told mainly through the eyes of two Palestinian women, covering 40 years of history from the birth of the state of Israel in 1948 to the failed Oslo peace accord of 1993. Its message is that education is the only hope to bringing any kind of resolution to the conflict.

Yesterday Schnabel said he felt a responsibility to bring the story to the big screen. "Coming from my background, as an American Jewish person whose mother was president of Hadassah [the Women's Zionist Organisation of America] in 1948, I figured I was a pretty good person to try to tell the story of the other side."

Schnabel has admitted not knowing much about the Palestinian people until he read the semi-autobiographical book by Rula Jebreal on which the film is based. "I felt it was my responsibility to confront this issue because, maybe, I've spent most of my life receding from my responsibility as a Jewish person."

He said there was an urgency to his film. "This conflict has to end. Every time a child dies on each side — there's no reason for it."

Miral tells the story of the Dar al-Tifl orphanage in Jerusalem, which was set up by a rich socialite called Hind Husseini in 1948 after she came across 55 orphans in the street. Within six months she had a school for 2,000 children.

The film shows how one of the orphans, Miral, is forced to grow up fast when she falls in love with a Palestinian activist. Miral is played by Slumdog Millionaire's Freida Pinto, and while there have been eyebrows raised at the Indian actor's casting as a Palestinian, Pinto bears an uncanny resemblance to Jebreal, on whom the character of Miral is based. Vanessa Redgrave and Willem Dafoe have small cameo roles.

Schnabel said the values that were instilled in him by his mother were the same as the ones instilled in Jebreal by Hind Husseini. "One of the reasons why I made this film is that it was so obvious to me that there are more similarities between these people than differences."

The debut of Miral was well-timed, coming on the day the US president, Barack Obama, opened a new round of Middle East peace talks.

Meanwhile, Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi has been forbidden by the authorities from attending the premiere of his new short film Accordion. He was arrested last year and imprisoned for making a film looking at the Iranian elections, but had planned to attend.

• Israel
• Middle East
• Venice film festival
• Festivals
• Palestinian territories

Strong Yen Helps to Fuel Germany’s Export Boom

Europe tends to focus on the dollar exchange rate, but the yen’s recent rise is helping Germany significantly.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Tibetan nomads struggle as grasslands disappear from the roof of the world

Scientists say desertification of the mountain grasslands of the Tibetan plateau is accelerating climate change

Like generations of Tibetan nomads before him, Phuntsok Dorje makes a living raising yaks and other livestock on the vast alpine grasslands that provide a thatch on the roof of the world.

But in recent years the vegetation around his home, the Tibetan plateau, has been destroyed by rising temperatures, excess livestock and plagues of insects and rodents.

The high-altitude meadows are rarely mentioned in discussions of global warming, but the changes to this ground have a profound impact on Tibetan politics and the world's ecological security.

For Phuntsok Dorje, the issue is more down to earth. He is used to dramatically shifting cloudscapes above his head, but it is the changes below his feet that make him uneasy.

"The grass used to be up to here," Phuntsok says, indicating a point on his leg a little below the knee. "Twenty years ago, we had to scythe it down. But now, well, you can see for yourself. It's so short it looks like moss."

The green prairie that used to surround his tent has become a brown desert. All that is left of the grasslands here are yellowing blotches on a stony surface riddled with rodent holes.

It is the same across much of this plateau, which encompasses an area a third of the size of the US.

Desertification

Scientists say the desertification of the mountain grasslands is accelerating climate change. Without its thatch the roof of the world is less able to absorb moisture and more likely to radiate heat.

Partly because of this the Tibetan mountains have warmed two to three times faster than the global average; the permafrost and glaciers of the "Third Pole" are melting.

To make matters worse, the towering Kunlun, Himalayan and Karakorum ranges that surround the plateau act as a chimney for water vapour – which has a stronger greenhouse gas effect than carbon dioxide – to be convected high into the stratosphere. Mixed with pollution, dust and black carbon (soot) from India and elsewhere, this spreads a brown cloud across swaths of the Eurasian landmass. When permafrost melts it can also release methane, another powerful greenhouse gas. Xiao Ziniu, the director general of the Beijing climate centre, says Tibet's climate is the most sensitive in Asia and influences the globe.

Grassland degradation is evident along the twisting mountain road from Yushu to Xining, which passes through the Three Rivers national park, the source of the Yangtze, Yellow and Lancang rivers. Along some stretches the landscape is so barren it looks more like the Gobi desert than an alpine meadow.

Phuntsok Dorje is among the last of the nomads scratching a living in one of the worst affected areas. "There used to be five families on this plain. Now we are the only one left and there is not enough grass even for us," he says. "It's getting drier and drier and there are more and more rats every year."

Until about 10 years ago the nearest town, Maduo, used to be the richest in Qinghai province thanks to herding, fishing and mining, but residents say their economy has dried up along with the nearby wetlands.

"This all used to be a lake. There wasn't a road here then. Even a Jeep couldn't have made it through," said a Tibetan guide, Dalang Jiri, as we drove through the area. By one estimate, 70% of the former rangeland is now desert.

"Maduo is now very poor. There is no way to make a living," said a Tibetan teacher who gave only one name, Angang. "The mines have closed and grasslands are destroyed. People just depend on the money they get from the government. They just sit on the kang [a raised, heated, floor] and wait for the next payment."

Many of the local people are former herders moved off the land under a controversial "ecological migration" scheme launched in 2003. The government in Beijing is in the advanced stages of relocating between 50% and 80% of the 2.25 million nomads on the Tibetan plateau. According to state media, this programme aims to restore the grasslands, prevent overgrazing and improve living standards.

The Tibetan government-in-exile says the scheme does little for the environment and is aimed at clearing the land for mineral extraction and moving potential supporters of the Dalai Lama into urban areas where they can be more easily controlled.

Qinghai is dotted with resettlement centres, many on the way to becoming ghettos. Nomads are paid an annual allowance – of 3,000 yuan (about £300) to 8,000 yuan per household – to give up herding for 10 years and be provided with housing. As in some native American reservations in the US and Canada, they have trouble finding jobs. Many end up either unemployed or recycling rubbish or collecting dung.

Some feel cheated. "If I could go back to herding, I would. But the land has been taken by the state and the livestock has been sold off so we are stuck here. It's hopeless," said Shang Lashi, a resident at a resettlement centre in Yushu. "We were promised jobs. But there is no work. We live on the 3,000 yuan a year allowance, but the officials deduct money from that for the housing, which was supposed to be free."

Their situation was made worse by the earthquake that struck Yushu earlier this year, killing hundreds. People were crushed when their new concrete homes collapsed, a risk they would not have faced in their itinerant life on the grasslands. Many are once again living under canvas – in disaster relief tents and without land or cattle.

In a sign of the sensitivity of the subject, the authorities declined to officially answer the Guardian's questions. Privately, officials said resettlement and other efforts to restore the grassland, including fencing off the worst areas, were worthwhile.

"The situation has improved slightly in the past five years. We are working on seven areas, planting trees and trying to restore the ecosystem around closed gold mines," said one environmental officer. The problem would not be solved in the short term. "This area is particularly fragile. Once the grasslands are destroyed, they rarely come back. It is very difficult to grow grass at high altitude."

The programme's effectiveness is questioned by others, including Wang Yongchen, founder of the Green Earth Volunteers NGO and a regular visitor to the plateau for 10 years. "Overgrazing was considered a possible cause of the grassland degradation, but things haven't improved since the herds were enclosed and the nomads moved. I think climate change and mining have had a bigger impact."

Assessing the programme is complicated by political tensions. In the past year, three prominent Tibetan environmental campaigners have been arrested after exposing corruption and flaws in wildlife conservation on the plateau.

Infestation

Another activist, who declined to give his name, said it was difficult to comment. "The situation is complicated. Some areas of grassland are getting better. Others are worse. There are so many factors involved."

A growing population of pika, gerbils, mice and other rodents is also blamed for degradation of the land because they burrow into the soil and eat grass roots.

Zoologists say this highlights how ecosystems can quickly move out of balance. Rodent numbers have increased dramatically in 10 years because their natural predators – hawks, eagles and leopards – have been hunted close to extinction. Belatedly, the authorities are trying to protect wildlife and attract birds of prey by erecting steel vantage points to replace felled trees.

There is widespread agreement that this climatically important region needs more study.

"People have not paid enough attention to the Tibetan plateau. They call it the Third Pole but actually it is more important than the Arctic or Antarctic because it is closer to human communities. This area needs a great deal more research," said Yang Yong, a Chinese explorer and environmental activist. "The changes to glaciers and grasslands are very fast. The desertification of the grassland is a very evident phenomenon on the plateau. It's a reaction by a sensitive ecosystem that will precede similar reactions elsewhere."

Phuntsok Dorje is unlikely to take part in any study. But he's seen enough to be pessimistic about the future. "The weather is changing. It used to rain a lot in the summer and snow in the winter. There was a strong contrast between the seasons, but not now. It's getting drier year after year. If it carries on like this I have no idea what I will do."

Additional reporting by Cui Zheng

• Climate change
• Conservation
• Tibet
• China

Panasonic aiming for half of Europe's 3D TV market (Reuters)

Reuters - Panasonic Corp is aiming to grab a 50 percent share of the European 3D television market this year as demand outstrips expectations and the technology wins converts worldwide, its head of Europe said on Thursday.

Pakistan win but down to 11 on troubled tour (AFP)

AFP - Pakistan's first match since a betting scandal engulfed the team on their tour of England ended with them having just 11 fit players at their disposal on Thursday.

Immigration: the case for executive orders | Stewart J Lawrence

Such is the political hysteria over 'illegal aliens' that legislative reform is paralysed. Only President Obama can break the logjam

A month after a federal judge struck down most of Arizona's tough new immigration law, the White House campaign to stigmatise the GOP as the party of bigotry and intolerance has backfired. Rather than rally independents, it's further polarised white swing voters against the Democrats.

And its real purpose – to galvanise disaffected Latino voters – hasn't borne fruit either. It's time for Obama to change course.
 
With Republicans still hostile to comprehensive immigration reform, Democrats prefer to punt on immigration until after the mid-terms. But with the GOP surging fast, that's likely to delay further progress until after the 2012 elections – and perhaps even longer.
 
America, already convulsed by nativism on a scale not seen since the 1920s, can't afford to wait that long. And neither can the president's restive Latino base. We need to act now.
 
As the nation's chief executive, Obama has the power to institute policy action on immigration that does not require a formal vote by congress. It's not a power he should use lightly, but it's there, and current circumstances warrant its use. There are two areas of executive action on immigration that the president should consider.
 
First, in deference to those seeking a legalisation program, Obama should issue an executive order to temporarily suspend the deportation of certain classes of illegal aliens. "Deferred enforced departure", or DED, as it's known, wouldn't give aliens green cards, but it would protect them from deportation for a set period. It could also serve as a prelude to full-scale legalisation, if congress so chooses.
 
Two obvious candidates for DED are the children of illegal aliens who migrated when they were still minors, and the illegal alien spouses of US soldiers in uniform. Their numbers are less than 9% of the total illegal alien population. Many in both groups have lived in the US for years.
 
The GOP has labeled DED and other similar options an "executive amnesty". It accuses Obama of threatening an end-run around congress. But it doesn't – and shouldn't – apply to all 11 million illegals. And aliens who qualify don't necessarily have the right to stay in the US permanently; it's only a temporary, but sustained, reprieve.
 
Ironically, a handful of defence hawks – including vocal "amnesty" opponents like representatives Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) and Sam Johnson (Republican, Texas) – have already pressed Obama to grant DED to military spouses. But they still view illegal alien minors – about 800,000, currently – as simply "law-breakers".
 
Senators Richard Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) and Richard Lugar (Republican, Indiana) have co-sponsored the so-called Dream Act to allow these minors to get green cards right away. To qualify, they would have to go to college or enlist in the US military. The Pentagon, in search of fresh recruits, strongly supports this bill. But the bulk of the GOP isn't budging – and probably won't, unless pushed.
 
As a stopgap, Obama has already sent word to the department of homeland security not to target illegal aliens guilty of only minor crimes. But with so much GOP hostility, he's been reluctant to protect specific classes of illegal aliens, like the Dream kids. It's time to take that step now.
 
Presidents in both parties – Ronald Reagan, no less than Bill Clinton – have previously extended DED or "temporary protected" status to large classes of illegal aliens, including Central American and Liberian asylum-seekers. Arguably, these quasi-refugees faced danger back home, had they been deported. But everyone knows this was largely a fiction in the Central American case. It simply made sense, politically, to grant them a temporary stay.
 
It's important, however, that Obama couple any concession of this kind with continued efforts to tighten immigration enforcement. The president, under GOP pressure, has already signed a bill to beef up border enforcement. Now, on his own initiative, he should take similar action at the workplace – to deter illegal hiring.
 
How? By ordering that "E-Verify", the workplace verification system that's currently in restricted use, be extended nationwide and made mandatory for all employers. A dozen states, including Arizona, have already mandated use of E-Verify. And congressional Republicans, as well as Blue Dog Democrats, are among its staunchest supporters. They'd be hardpressed to oppose the president for taking up their cause.
 
Executive action is risky. But it's far less risky, politically, than convening a "lame-duck" session of congress, as some Democrats like senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) now propose, to try to ram through the Dream Act or other broader immigration measures, much as they did with healthcare reform.
 
Most outgoing Democrats aren't going to play ball, especially if they have to vote to expand enforcement. And even those who survive the mid-terms still have to face the voters in 2012. Supporting legalisation in a GOP-controlled congress could well cost them their seats.
 
As president, Obama is uniquely placed to step in and exercise Solomon-like leadership on behalf of Democrats and Republicans alike. Recent polls show that a majority of voters – including a majority of GOP voters – support expanded enforcement coupled with some kind of legalisation.
 
At a time when the public discourse on immigration is degenerating into near-hysteria, and congress remains paralysed, even-handed executive action can point the country forward. It sends a powerful signal to voters that the president still has the courage to stick his neck out, even when a nervous and recalcitrant congress, including members of his own party, won't.
 
The entire country – Democrats, Republicans and independents alike – would stand up and cheer.

• US immigration
• US politics
• US midterm elections 2010
• United States
• Barack Obama
• Obama administration
• US Congress
• US domestic policy

Immigration: the case for executive orders | Stewart J Lawrence

Such is the political hysteria over 'illegal aliens' that legislative reform is paralysed. Only President Obama can break the logjam

A month after a federal judge struck down most of Arizona's tough new immigration law, the White House campaign to stigmatise the GOP as the party of bigotry and intolerance has backfired. Rather than rally independents, it's further polarised white swing voters against the Democrats.

And its real purpose – to galvanise disaffected Latino voters – hasn't borne fruit either. It's time for Obama to change course.
 
With Republicans still hostile to comprehensive immigration reform, Democrats prefer to punt on immigration until after the mid-terms. But with the GOP surging fast, that's likely to delay further progress until after the 2012 elections – and perhaps even longer.
 
America, already convulsed by nativism on a scale not seen since the 1920s, can't afford to wait that long. And neither can the president's restive Latino base. We need to act now.
 
As the nation's chief executive, Obama has the power to institute policy action on immigration that does not require a formal vote by congress. It's not a power he should use lightly, but it's there, and current circumstances warrant its use. There are two areas of executive action on immigration that the president should consider.
 
First, in deference to those seeking a legalisation program, Obama should issue an executive order to temporarily suspend the deportation of certain classes of illegal aliens. "Deferred enforced departure", or DED, as it's known, wouldn't give aliens green cards, but it would protect them from deportation for a set period. It could also serve as a prelude to full-scale legalisation, if congress so chooses.
 
Two obvious candidates for DED are the children of illegal aliens who migrated when they were still minors, and the illegal alien spouses of US soldiers in uniform. Their numbers are less than 9% of the total illegal alien population. Many in both groups have lived in the US for years.
 
The GOP has labeled DED and other similar options an "executive amnesty". It accuses Obama of threatening an end-run around congress. But it doesn't – and shouldn't – apply to all 11 million illegals. And aliens who qualify don't necessarily have the right to stay in the US permanently; it's only a temporary, but sustained, reprieve.
 
Ironically, a handful of defence hawks – including vocal "amnesty" opponents like representatives Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) and Sam Johnson (Republican, Texas) – have already pressed Obama to grant DED to military spouses. But they still view illegal alien minors – about 800,000, currently – as simply "law-breakers".
 
Senators Richard Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) and Richard Lugar (Republican, Indiana) have co-sponsored the so-called Dream Act to allow these minors to get green cards right away. To qualify, they would have to go to college or enlist in the US military. The Pentagon, in search of fresh recruits, strongly supports this bill. But the bulk of the GOP isn't budging – and probably won't, unless pushed.
 
As a stopgap, Obama has already sent word to the department of homeland security not to target illegal aliens guilty of only minor crimes. But with so much GOP hostility, he's been reluctant to protect specific classes of illegal aliens, like the Dream kids. It's time to take that step now.
 
Presidents in both parties – Ronald Reagan, no less than Bill Clinton – have previously extended DED or "temporary protected" status to large classes of illegal aliens, including Central American and Liberian asylum-seekers. Arguably, these quasi-refugees faced danger back home, had they been deported. But everyone knows this was largely a fiction in the Central American case. It simply made sense, politically, to grant them a temporary stay.
 
It's important, however, that Obama couple any concession of this kind with continued efforts to tighten immigration enforcement. The president, under GOP pressure, has already signed a bill to beef up border enforcement. Now, on his own initiative, he should take similar action at the workplace – to deter illegal hiring.
 
How? By ordering that "E-Verify", the workplace verification system that's currently in restricted use, be extended nationwide and made mandatory for all employers. A dozen states, including Arizona, have already mandated use of E-Verify. And congressional Republicans, as well as Blue Dog Democrats, are among its staunchest supporters. They'd be hardpressed to oppose the president for taking up their cause.
 
Executive action is risky. But it's far less risky, politically, than convening a "lame-duck" session of congress, as some Democrats like senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) now propose, to try to ram through the Dream Act or other broader immigration measures, much as they did with healthcare reform.
 
Most outgoing Democrats aren't going to play ball, especially if they have to vote to expand enforcement. And even those who survive the mid-terms still have to face the voters in 2012. Supporting legalisation in a GOP-controlled congress could well cost them their seats.
 
As president, Obama is uniquely placed to step in and exercise Solomon-like leadership on behalf of Democrats and Republicans alike. Recent polls show that a majority of voters – including a majority of GOP voters – support expanded enforcement coupled with some kind of legalisation.
 
At a time when the public discourse on immigration is degenerating into near-hysteria, and congress remains paralysed, even-handed executive action can point the country forward. It sends a powerful signal to voters that the president still has the courage to stick his neck out, even when a nervous and recalcitrant congress, including members of his own party, won't.
 
The entire country – Democrats, Republicans and independents alike – would stand up and cheer.

• US immigration
• US politics
• US midterm elections 2010
• United States
• Barack Obama
• Obama administration
• US Congress
• US domestic policy

Read more [Guardian America]

Binyamin Netanyahu opens Middle East talks with two 'pillars to peace'

Israeli PM names non-negotiable issues as Hillary Clinton warns of cost of continued conflict

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, opened peace talks with the Palestinians today by saying that two issues – recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within an independent Palestine state – are key to any deal.

Netanyahu called the two issues the "pillars to peace" at the opening of face-to-face talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, launched the negotiations by calling for the two men to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one-year deadline set by Barack Obama.

"We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel borne out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."

Clinton noted that everyone at the negotiating table had been there before, in Netanyahu's case when he was prime minster 14 years ago.

"Those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict," she said. "The core issues at the centre of the negotiations – territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and others – will get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves."

Netanyahu responded by repeating his assertion that he sees Abbas as a "partner for peace".

"Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides … from my side and from your side," said Netanyahu

"But the people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity and good neighbours."

However, the Israeli prime minister said there were two issues he regards as central to any agreement: "legitimacy and security".

"Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over.

"I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel ... New forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take in to account security arrangements against these real threats.

"President Abbas, I'm fully aware and I respect your people's desire for sovereignty. I'm convinced that it's possible to reconcile that desire with Israel's security."

Abbas responded by noting that his Palestine Liberation Organisation has recognised Israel's legitimacy in earlier accords going back to the 1993 Oslo agreement, although they do not mention it explicitly as a Jewish state. However, diplomats do not believe that will prove a significant stumbling block.

Security may prove more problematic. Among other things, Israel wants to keep control of the border between the West Bank and Jordan, which would mean a Palestinian state there would be entirely surrounded by the Israeli military.

Abbas said he believes a deal is possible. "We're not starting from scratch because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government," he said.

But the Palestinian leader called for an end to all Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories, which is likely to be an open sore at the talks. Netanyahu has so far declined to commit himself to extending a partial freeze on building in the settlements in the West Bank, although not occupied East Jerusalem, when it expires later this month. The Palestinians see the issue as a litmus test of his intent.

The first issue is to agree an agenda. The US says that all the biggest issues, from drawing final borders and the fate of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories to Israel's security demands, will be on the table.

Diplomats said they were surprised by the strength of Netanyahu's insistence that he is committed to making an "historic compromise" in search of a durable peace settlement.

But the difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city can become a Palestinian capital.

"The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.

One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.

"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.

• Middle East
• Binyamin Netanyahu
• Israel
• Palestinian territories
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Hillary Clinton

State, Arizona and the UN | Michael Tomasky

Our dear Appalachian-Lukacsian-Burnettian comrade (did I forget anything?) known by the initials VM certainly piqued my interest this morning with that business in the comment thread about the State Department and Arizona and the UN. So I looked into it, and yes it's true, but...

The UN used to have a high commission on human rights. That's the one Libya chaired. Thus discredited, the high commission was replaced by a new body called the UN Human Rights Council in 2006. Under its rules, apparently all member nations are required to submit evaluations of their own human rights records. As nearly as I could find out this morning, this is to be done quadrennially, so this seems to be the first one conducted by the US (i.e., the Bush administration wasn't obligated to do one). It's officially called a universal periodic review, or UPR.

The UPR process (more than you need to know, but...) involves a series of public discussions and consultations held over the previous year, arranged by State in conjunction with local nonprofits, churches and universities. Eleven were held. Here's the list.

The result of these meetings is the report itself, a 29-page document that list the US human-rights record on a number of fronts: freedom of speech, assembly and worship; fairness and equality; et cetera. It's broken into six sections, the fifth of which is entitled "A commitment to values in engagement across our borders," which is broken into three sections: national security, immigration and trafficking.

In the immigration section there are five paragraphs. The first is glorious-history boiler plate. The second is about immigration detention. The third describes the so-called 287(g) program, under which the federal government may delegate to states and localities immigration enforcement. Then the fourth graf says in its entirety:

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

And that's it. Three sentences that are as objective and straightforward as they could possible be, just describing a situation. There is no appeal to the UN to do anything. There is no assertion that this is a major problem. There isn't even an adjective describing the law as bad. It's the 95th out of 100 numbered paragraphs, and it's actually one of the shorter grafs in the report.

As fate would have it, this morning I was emailed a write-up of the UPR by Barbara Crossette, the excellent former New York Times journalist who covered the UN and diplomacy for many years and now writes syndicated pieces. I don't have a link, since I got it in an email. Maybe you can find it somewhere. In what reads to me like about a 1,300-word piece, she doesn't even mention the fact that the UPR mentions Arizona.

She focuses on what any reasonable news person would focus on reading it, which is the language about gay rights in America, which is clearly the most newsworthy language and something that, if those kind of people want to get mad about something, maybe they should focus on.

Crossette describes what the US's participation in this process actually means:

A periodic review "package" consists of not only the country's own assessment of how it thinks it has met its obligations under various international and national laws and conventions, but also input from nongovernmental organizations or other interested parties, the office of the high commissioner and finally experts from three other countries -- in the case of the United States, those will be Cameroon, France and Japan. The US review will be on the agenda of the Human Rights Council in November. The council has no enforcement powers; it can merely pass resolutions and make statements. But its actions have a large international audience. And this will be the first appearance by the United States in such a review process. The Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council last year, reversing the Bush administration's hostile policy toward it and global human rights monitoring in general as it affected the United States. In preparing its first review, the Obama administration met with human rights activists and community groups around the country.

In other words, the Bush administration shunned this process, and the Obama administration is participating in it. That's a change. If you think that's a bad change, fine. If you think it's a good one, fine. Let's debate that.

But that's not what's going to happen over the next few days, if our Misanthrophic friend and some of the rest of you are right, which you might well be. By next week, half of America might believe that Obama - not some State Department functionary, not even Hillary C., but Obama himself - wants to "force" Arizona's law to undergo review by the UN or something. And we'll be off to the races again.

Having said all this, I still think it was unwise to include a mention of the law in there. But having now read the report, I can't honestly say that if I'd been in the room, reading that brief and anodyne language, I'd have seen any political red flags. I might have, I might not have.

• Obama administration
• US immigration
• Arizona

Ping! Apple enters social media market via music

Apple announces social networking service which will display the music interests of friends via iTunes, iPhones and iPod Touch

Having cornered the MP3 player, mobile phone and computer tablet markets with the iPod, iPhone and iPad devices respectively, last night Apple announced its latest expansion – into social media – with Ping.

Ping will be integrated into Apple's latest iTunes software update and will enable users, or "Pingers", to follow musicians, friends and others to see details including what music they're buying and what concerts they're attending.

Steve Jobs, Apple's chairman and chief executive, said the information will arrive in a long stream of updates, similar to the way Facebook and Twitter work.

"Be as private or as public as you want. The privacy is super-easy to set up," he said adding that users can choose to automatically accept followers or decide on a follower-by-follower basis – similar sounding controls to those on Twitter.

The service is available immediately to more than 160 million iTunes users, Jobs said, and will also be available across the iPhone and iPod Touch ranges.

The feature is believed to have been based on the technology Apple acquired with the purchase of the former online music store Lala.com last year.

The iTunes logo will no longer feature a CD – mirroring the change in the program's focus.

Jobs unveiled a range of other upgrades to its products and services, including a new version of Apple TV – which will allow users to stream television programmes and films.

The company is also releasing a revamped range of iPods, including an iPod touch with front- and rear-facing camera, Jobs told an assembled crowd of journalists, bloggers and analysts in California.

Until now the Apple TV device was "never a huge hit", admitted Jobs.

The box originally allowed users to buy films and television programmes, but the latest version, which is smaller and, at $99, much cheaper than its $229 predecessor, will only allow the renting, rather than purchasing, of content.

Users will pay $4.99 for high-definition films on the day they come out on DVD, while the rent of high-definition TV shows will be $0.99, Apple announced.

"We've sold a lot of them, but it's never been a huge hit," Jobs said of Apple TV. The new version will be available within a month.

Jobs also introduced a new design across the range of iPods, including the latest Nano, featuring a rotatable screen and a new Shuffle which sees the return of buttons – its predecessor was voice activated.

The new iPod Touch will have front- and rear-facing cameras, the latter of which will be able to record HD video content, Jobs added.

• Apple
• Computing
• Steve Jobs
• itunes
• Software
• iPod
• iPhone
• Mobile phones
• Telecoms
• United States