A Palestinian state on 1967 borders: Is Hamas going to Hajj as everyone is leaving?

Hamas is accepting the 1967 borders just as everyone else who has pursued a Palestinian state next to Israel is abandoning them

David Hearst-Tuesday 2 May 2017 15:09 UTC

The launch of Hamas’s new declaration of principles on Monday night proved as complex as the document itself.

The management of the Intercontinental Hotel in Doha cancelled the booking for the news conference at the last moment, and the week before, the Hamas delegation in Cairo was refused permission to leave, because Egypt claimed a piece of the action.

Hamas is reaching for the borders of 1967 at the exact time when everyone else who has been pursuing an independent state next to Israel is abandoning this patch of land

The logistical difficulty of holding a news conference outside Gaza was emblematic of Hamas’s imprisonment inside the enclave. And a good reason why the political leadership now wants to break out of its confinement by stating a position closer to other Palestinian factions.

This process, however, is fraught with difficulty for Hamas.

Almost with one voice, the Western media interpreted the document as a softening of Hamas’ position on Israel and as a challenge to Fatah’s monopoly of the principle of a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967.

However, the document itself set three conditions which fell short of following Fatah on its doomed journey. It refused to recognise Israel, refused to relinquish its claim on all the land from the river to the sea, and demanded the unfettered return of all Palestinian refugees. 

Nevertheless on Tuesday, the reaction on the Palestinian street and on social media followed the same logic: if there is no difference between Hamas and Fatah on the borders of a future Palestinian state, why all the years of infighting between the two factions? And why should anyone now vote for Hamas? What is different about it?

Strategic shift

That is a good question. There is no doubt Hamas went into this debate with its eyes open. Unlike the original charter which was written by one man in a state of war, this document was the fruit of four years of internal debate. The document itself was extensively leaked. The message was backed by the leadership. There is no doubt it represents a deliberate and major strategic shift. 

But is the strategy itself right?

Hamas is reaching for the borders of 1967 at the exact time when everyone else who has been pursuing an independent state next to Israel is abandoning this patch of land. Almost 24 years after Oslo, the brights lights of settlements twinkle every night on almost every hillock in the West Bank.

There are 200,000 settlers in Palestinian areas of Jerusalem and 400,000 in the West Bank. Outside the three main settlement blocks, which Israel refuses to abandon, there are a further 150,000 settlers. Two decades of peace process has led to the irreparable fragmentation of a putative Palestinian state. 

Israel itself has all but abandoned the idea of a separate Palestinian state. Barring the little piece of theatre produced by the evacuation of Amona (here’s a maths question: if 3,000 police spent 24 hours evacuating 40 families, how many would it take to evacuate 600,000 settlers?) the political mood in Israel is turning now to annexation.

To use the standard Arabic warning given to latecomers, is Hamas going to Hajj when everyone is leaving?

Staying true to principles

At the news conference in Doha, the outgoing political leader Khaled Meshaal was asked whether Hamas would now negotiate with Israel. This too is a good question.

The new strategic position of Hamas places it in a unique situation. If Hamas stays true to its principles, which is not to recognise Israel, it cannot sit down at a negotiating table with representatives of the Israeli state.

To be true to its principles and to reap the political benefits of entering politics, Hamas would have to accept the one-state solution

This means it has to rely on other Palestinian factions to make the necessary compromises on borders, refugees, Jerusalem, while Hamas essentially looks the other way in the name of keeping the consensus. This, in turn, means that Hamas cannot lead the political process or even derive much benefit from it.

This puts Hamas in a different position from say, the IRA, under the leadership of the late Martin McGuinness. Both Hamas and the IRA have seen the limits of military action, although the IRA did not start the decommissioning process until a peace accord was reached. Both were drawn to politics as a way of achieving a united Palestine and a united Ireland. 

• ANALYSIS: Hamas's drive for legitimacy hits brick wall of Palestinian opinion

McGuinness’s recent death produced tributes from the most unlikely of quarters. People who, in my days as reporter in Belfast, would have cast McGuinness as the devil incarnate, praised the journey he travelled from IRA leader to Northern Ireland’s deputy first minister. Lady Paisley, the wife of the late Ian Paisley, McGuinness’s first partner in the power-sharing government, claimed the Republican experienced something akin to St Paul’s conversion at Damascus.

Gerry Adams rightly denied this. He said McGuinness remained a committed Republican, who never abandoned his IRA comrades as a result of the peace process or power-sharing with Unionists.

In other words, the Republican movement ended the armed struggle while staying true to its principles of a united Ireland (one which, if Brexit happens, is probably closer to being realised than at any time before, ironically at the behest of Brussels).

This is exactly the dilemma now facing a Hamas which recognises the 1967 borders. How can it enter the PLO and be part of the leadership of the Palestinian people and stay true to its principles? If it negotiates, it abandons its principles and effaces any difference with Fatah. If it leaves the negotiation to others, it cannot be part of the leadership.

Supporters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Ahrar movement, protest against Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbasin the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah on 2 May (AFP)

Sinn Fein has now become the largest political party on the island of Ireland. This is not Hamas's destiny if it limits its vision of a Palestinian state to 1967 borders. It would neither end the fragmentation of the Palestinian people, nor would it solve the problem of the abandonment of Palestinians inside 1948 Israel, nor would it solve the problem of the refugees.

The real choice, the real enemy

Israel has long since abandoned the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and even the most generous models discussed the return of only 100,000, out of a potential diaspora of six million.

The real choice today is between a one-state solution enforced by Israel or a political entity where Jew and Arab are treated as equal

And why would Israel accept Hamas as a negotiator when it has rejected Fatah, which has for more than 20 years been its most flexible friend? What incentive would Israel have to negotiate a "hudna" with Hamas, when it knew that from Hamas's point of view, this would not be an end of conflict?

To stay Hamas, to be true to its principles and to reap the political benefits of entering politics, the movement would have to accept the one-state solution, which would do all of the things Hamas has strived for. It would allow Hamas to lead the PLO. It would reunite a fragmented Palestinian people. It would represent Palestinians who are citizens inside Israel and the Palestinian diaspora. 

Read ► Hamas in 2017: Document in full

It would give Palestinians a clear vision in a world where the real choice is not between a one-state or a two-state solution. The real choice today is between a one-state solution enforced by Israel or a political entity where Jew and Arab are treated as equal.

The major achievement of this document is to redefine the enemy. In the original charter, it was Jews and Judaism. In this document, Hamas's enemy is the Zionist project of settlement and occupation. The two are very different, and have been throughout Jewish history, both after and before the Balfour Declaration.

This redefinition could open the path for talks and for peace. But it will need a clear vision for the way forward. It certainly is a bold step. It may not, however, be the final one.

- David Hearst is editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He was chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, former Associate Foreign Editor, European Editor, Moscow Bureau Chief, European Correspondent, and Ireland Correspondent. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Yahya Sinwar (C-L), the new leader of the Hamas Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip and senior political leader Ismail Haniyeh (C) attend a gathering to watch the speech of Exiled Hamas Chief, in Gaza City on 1 May 2017. (AFP) 

Stephen Colbert hits Trump below the belt

By Callum Borchers May 2 at 10:01 AM


After Infowars founder Alex Jones said in March that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) “looks like the archetypal c---sucker,” Jones's ex-wife tried to submit the remark as evidence in a child custody trial.When Fox News's Jesse Watters said of Ivanka Trump last week that he “really liked how she was speaking into that microphone,” he took an abrupt “vacation” while the outrage died down.

Now that “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert has said “the only thing mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c--- holster" ...

Well, we'll see. Perhaps Colbert won't face any consequences for a joke he delivered during his opening monologue on CBS Monday night. But he might consider the company he keeps by descending into vulgar quips about oral sex. His liberal viewers might take a moment to reflect, too.

“Our motto,” Michelle Obama said in her address to the Democratic National Convention last year,"is when they go low, we go high.”

Yeah, about that: The threat of a violent protest prevented conservative commentator and best-selling author Ann Coulter from speaking at the University of California at Berkeley last week. Liberal readers of the New York Times are flooding the newspaper's public editor with complaints about the recent hiring of conservative columnist Bret Stephens — a conservative who didn't even support Trump during the election, by the way.

[The problem with calling Bret Stephens a climate change 'denier']

The new chair of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, can't seem to stop cussing in public.

And every couple of hours, an automated Twitter account created by a Chicago software developer tweets the name, hometown, occupation and employer of an individual who donated to Trump's campaign.

Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are holding a week-long series of rallies across the U.S., and Perez has some choice words for Republican leaders. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

“It is very clearly doxxing and harassing small-dollar donors,” Brianna Wu, a Democratic congressional candidate in Massachusetts, told me last week.

“There's a real sense — that we have to get past on the left — that every person who voted for Trump is evil,” she added.

That “real sense” appears to foster a mentality (among some) in which Trump and his supporters deserve whatever venom his detractors feel like spewing.

Colbert's comedy is often laced with anti-Trump commentary; it's usually clever, and it has propelled him to the top of the late-night ratings. But by hitting below the belt Monday, he rushed the bro-ternity of Jones and Watters and became the latest liberal to ignore Obama's “go high” mantra.

Venezuelan opposition blocks streets to protest Maduro power shakeup

By Alexandra Ulmer and Eyanir Chinea | CARACAS-Wed May 3, 2017

Venezuela's opposition blocked streets in Caracas on Tuesday to denounce a decision by leftist President Nicolas Maduro to create a "constituent assembly," a move critics said was a veiled attempt to cling to power by avoiding elections.

After a month of near-daily protests by opponents demanding early general elections, the unpopular leader announced on Monday he planned to set up the super-body popular assembly with the power to rewrite the constitution.

The socialist government said the opposition was promoting street violence and refusing dialogue, so it had no choice but to shake up Venezuela's power structure.

An injured opposition supporter is helped during a rally against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins--Demonstrators clash with police during a rally against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela May 1, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

Demonstrator stands next to riot police during rally against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela. REUTERS/Marco Bello--Demonstrators run as they clash with police during a rally against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, Venezuela. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

Critics of the president said he was increasingly dictatorial and planned to staff the assembly with supporters and avoid elections he would likely lose during a crushing recession in the oil-producing country.

Regional elections that were scheduled for last year have yet to be called and a presidential election is due for 2018.

Asked about elections in an interview on state television on Tuesday, the Socialist Party official in charge of the constituent assembly said the electoral schedule would be respected. However the official, Elias Jaua, also suggested that current political turmoil was hindering setting a quick date.

"One of the aims of the constituent assembly is to seek the conditions of stability to be able to go to those electoral processes," Jaua said. "Those conditions of normality do not exist," he added, citing protests and institutional clashes between authorities and the opposition-led National Assembly.

The United States, as well as fellow Latin American countries Argentina and Chile, on Tuesday expressed worry about Maduro's move.

"We have deep concerns about the motivation for this constituent assembly which overrides the will of the Venezuelan people and further erodes Venezuelan democracy," said Michael Fitzpatrick, deputy assistant secretary of state for the Western hemisphere, in a phone call with reporters.

Fitzpatrick said Maduro was trying to yet again "change the rules of the game" in an effort to remain in power.

'MORE FUEL TO THE FIRE'

Maduro's critics worry the new body would further sideline the current opposition-led legislature and pave the way for undemocratic changes to the constitution.

The controversial decision was likely to add more energy to anti-government protests, already the most sustained since 2014, as they seek to end 18 years of socialist rule that began under late leader Hugo Chavez.

Opposition barricades snarled traffic in and around Caracas on Tuesday morning, with demonstrators using garbage bags, branches, bottles, and cardboard boxes to block roads. Security forces used tear gas to disperse some demonstrators.

"We don't believe in Maduro's fake peace, what he's done is add more fuel to the fire," said Jesus Gutierrez, 64, who was with about 100 demonstrators blocking one of the main avenues in the capital. "The people have to react, and that's what they've been doing."

Some 29 people have been killed, more than 400 people injured and hundreds more arrested since the anti-Maduro unrest began in early April.

The government has responded with shows of force by security forces and counter-demonstrations by Maduro supporters.

Many details remain unclear about the constituent assembly, although foes say it would be excessively powerful.

"According to the government, it would have all powers," said Jose Ignacio Hernandez, law professor at Venezuela's Catholic University. "It could dissolve the National Assembly, name a new electoral council, dismiss governors, and dismiss mayors."

The opposition planned more marches on Wednesday.

(Additonal reporting by Diego Ore, Andreina Aponte, Andrew Cawthorne in Caracas, Yeganeh Torbati in Washington D.C., Fabian Cambero in Santiago, and Nicolas Misculin in Buenos Aires; Writing by Alexandra Ulmer; Editing by Frances Kerry and Andrew Hay)

Majority of Mélenchon supporters will not back Emmanuel Macron, poll finds

Poll suggests 65% of those who backed hard-left candidate will not vote for centrist fighting Marine Le Pen for French presidency

Mélenchon, who came fourth in the first-round vote, has been heavily criticised for not advising his supporters how to vote next Sunday. Photograph: UPI/Barcroft Images

Kim Willsher in Paris-Tuesday 2 May 2017 

The majority of supporters of the hard-left French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon will abstain or spoil their ballot papers in Sunday’s second round, according to the results of a consultation of members of his France Unbowed movement.

About 450,000 of his supporters were asked to say whether they would abstain, spoil their ballots or support Emmanuel Macron in the second round runoff this Sunday. Voting for the other candidate, he Front National’s Marine Le Pen, was not an option.

The results, released on Tuesday afternoon, showed that of more than 243,000 Mélenchon supporters who responded, 87,818 (36.1%) intended to spoil their vote, 84,682 (34.8%) planned to support Macron and 70,628 (29%) would not turn out for the second round. The figures suggest a total of 65% will not vote for Macron.

Mélenchon, who came fourth in the first round vote 10 days ago with the support of 19.5% – about 7 million voters – has been heavily criticised for not advising his supporters how to vote.

Both he and his team have, however, insisted not a single vote should go to Le Pen. Alexis Corbière, Mélenchon’s spokesman, said they were not going to take “moral lessons” on how to combat the far-right Front National, and Mélenchon was not a “guru”.

On YouTube last Friday, Mélenchon said he would have been in the second round “but for 620,000 votes”. He told supporters: “I’m going to vote, but what I’m going to vote, I’m not going to say. You don’t have to be a great scholar to guess what I’m going to do.” He added: “Is there a single person among you who doubts the fact that I’m not going to vote for the Front National? Everyone knows that.”

Mélenchon made it clear he did not support Macron’s programme. Macron is still favourite to win Sunday’s presidential vote, but opinion polls suggest the gap with Le Pen is narrowing.

 Marine Le Pen’s rise in ‘forgotten France’ — video

Is Theresa May misleading voters over the NHS?

“When you look at basic pay, together with progression pay, actually for around half of NHS staff they have an annual increase of, on average, 3 per cent – rather than just the 1 per cent basic pay.” – Theresa May, April 30 2017

The background

By MARTIN WILLIAMS-2 MAY 2017

In March, the government came under fire for offering a “derisory” 1 per cent pay rise for NHS staff. But Theresa May has now defended her record on the issue, dismissing concerns that nurses are being pushed into poverty.

Speaking on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, the prime minister claimed that around half of NHS employees had seen their salaries increase by 3 per cent on average.

She was not technically incorrect. But was the Conservative leader misleading voters about the government’s record on NHS staff pay?

The analysis

A recent report by the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB) confirms May’s claim about pay increases. “Slightly more than half (54 per cent) of NHS staff in England were due to receive pay increments of around 3 to 4 per cent on average in 2016/17,” it said. “In addition to the 1 per cent pay award.”
But the devil is in the detail. Using this statistic to dismiss concerns about NHS pay throws up two main problems.

First, the prime minister’s figures rest on the inclusion of so-called “progression pay”. This doesn’t refer to any universal pay rises handed out by the government – it simply means that some individuals have secured more money.

That includes natural career progression and people moving into new jobs. Nurses can also often increase their earnings if they agree to work unsocial hours.

The NHS has fixed pay bands for each role, with most nursing jobs paying between £22,128 and £28,746. Built-in increments mean they can gradually move up the scale if they demonstrate the required skills and competencies. But if you’re already at the top of the pay band – or can’t demonstrate the required skills – your annual pay rise is frozen at 1 per cent by the government. And the data shows there are huge variations between staff.

The NHSPRB’s report points out that individual career progression is hardly surprising. “Pay tends to increase with age, experience and job tenure,” it said. Indeed, figures from the ONS last year confirm that people in their 30s and 40s enjoy far higher gross weekly earnings than those in their twenties. But that’s chiefly thanks to personal development, not government policy.

FactCheck spoke to David Ulph, an economics professor who is one of the members of the NHSPRB which produced the report. He told us that Theresa May’s argument “shouldn’t be relying on pay progression”.

He said: “If 50 per cent are getting a 3 per cent pay rise, then there’s 50 percent who are not. They’re just limited to 1 per cent through the government pay policy.

“If she’s trying to pretend that, for half the staff in the NHS, the government is being quite generous and paying them well, I don’t think that’s the case. People are getting pay increases because they’re taking on extra responsibilities, and they should be compensated for that.

But there’s an even bigger problem with May’s claim: the figures don’t take the rising cost of living into account. Without this context, the numbers are meaningless for determining whether or not NHS staff are being pushed into poverty.

There are debates about how best to measure inflation, CPI or RPI. But whichever way you look at it, NHS staff have been losing out.

The NHSPRB says nurses are among many NHS staff whose real pay has “decreased significantly”. It has fallen by around 8 per cent (using CPI) to 12 per cent (using RPI) since 2010/11. Ulph says using RPI “might be closer to the true picture”.

He told us: “RPI is running ahead of 3 per cent, so even if you were looking at those staff who are getting 3 per cent pay increases, they’re still not keeping pace with inflation. If you look at it over quite a long period of time, there’s been quite significant hits to pay in the NHS.

“You cannot argue that the 3 per cent tells you what’s been happening to people in the NHS. It’s a rather misleading way of putting it.”

Surrounding research also backs up concerns that nurses are having to tighten their belts. In 2015, a survey for the Royal College of Nursing found that around half of respondents felt financially worse off than they did five years previously.

30 per cent said they struggled to pay their gas and electricity bills, while 14 per cent said they had missed meals to save money.

The verdict

The statistics Theresa May cites are technically correct: just over half of NHS staff have received pay increments of around 3-4 per cent.

But using this to defend the Conservative’s record on NHS pay is highly misleading. In a debate about whether nurses are being pushed into poverty, the numbers she used are meaningless.

Evidence suggests that nurses and other NHS staff have become financially worse off. Even if we accept May’s pay rise figures, the rise in living costs effectively wipes out out any benefits.

China welcomes Asean Summit’s softer stance on South China Sea



Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders link arms during the opening ceremony of the 30th Asean Summit in Manila, Philippines April 29, 2017. Source: Reuters/Mark Crisanto

2nd May 2017

CHINA on Tuesday welcomed a softer stand taken by Southeast Asian countries on the disputed South China Sea at a weekend summit, saying it showed efforts to ease tension were working.

The Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) dropped references to “land reclamation and militarisation” from its chairman’s statement this year at the end of its summit in the Philippine capital, Manila.

The reference had been included last year and was even in an earlier, unpublished version of the statement, seen by Reuters on Saturday.

Two Asean diplomats said that this year, China had pressed Asean chair the Philippines to keep China’s contentious activities in the strategic waterway off Asean’s official agenda.

China is not a member of the 10-member bloc and did not attend the summit but it is extremely sensitive about the content of its statements.

SEE ALSO: Delayed Asean statement on S. China Sea gives Beijing a pass

It has often been accused of trying to influence the drafting of statements to muzzle what it sees as challenges to its sweeping sovereignty claim.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang did not directly answer a question on whether China had exerted pressure over the statement.

“Since last year, with the joint efforts of China and Asean countries including the Philippines, temperatures in the South China Sea situation have gone down and things have eased up. I think this accords with the interests of countries in the region,” Geng told a daily news briefing.

“The relevant situation at this Asean summit again fully shows the positive changes in the South China Sea situation and that the joint wish of countries in this region is to seek stability, promote cooperation and seek development, and this should be respected and supported by all sides.”

SEE ALSO: Asean statement to go ‘soft’ on Beijing regarding South China Sea

China has reacted angrily to individual members of the regional bloc expressing their concern about its rapid reclamation of reefs in the Spratlys islands and its installation of missile systems on them.

Philippine foreign ministry official Zaldy Patron, who is in-charge of Asean affairs, said nobody at the summit had pushed strongly on the South China Sea issue, or mentioned anything about land reclamation and militarisation.

“But on the other hand, the leaders highlighted improving relations between Asean and China,” Patron said in Manila.

The softer statement comes as Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte seeks to bury the hatchet with China after years of wrangling over its maritime assertiveness and over-lapping claims.

After lobbying from Duterte, China agreed to let Philippine boats back to the rich fishing ground of the disputed Scarborough Shoal following a four-year blockade.

China claims most of the South China Sea. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have competing claims that overlap with China’s. – Reuters

India: Gender crimes — When will State step in?

by Flavia Agnes- May 2, 2017

( May 2, 2017, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) A two-year-old dalit child from Chhattisgarh succumbed to injuries in the burns ward of the Sion Hospital (a public hospital) in Mumbai on April 22. The shock of 35 per cent burns was just too much for her. She was given a Christian burial by the social workers who came forward to receive the body, as her family was too poor to meet the expenses. No newspaper reported this death. The kid’s mother also succumbed to injuries. They were not the primary targets of the ghastly incident that had taken place in a dalit basti in Bandra on April 14 — the day Christians mourned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and dalits celebrated Ambedkar Jayanti. They were only “collateral damage”. The primary target was 18-year-old Reena (name changed), who had spurned the advances of a guy several times. The spurned suitor poured petrol on her as an act of revenge. When she felt the warm liquid dripping down her spine, Reena screamed “acid dala” and ran away before he could ignite her. With great alertness of mind, she managed to find some water and poured it on herself to wash away the petrol. But as she ran back to her hut, she saw her mother in flames and fainted. The mother, a 40-year-old dalit, Amravati Harijan, sitting outside her hut, bore the major brunt of the attack and suffered 95 per cent burns. Her younger daughter too became an accidental victim.

The neighbours rushed the three victims to the nearby Holy Family Hospital. After an agonising wait for a few hours, they were referred to Sion Hospital in the suburbs. As the hospital took a lot of time to sort out the admission formalities, Amravati was rushed to Masina Hospital in south Mumbai. All this travel was done in an ordinary tempo, not in an air-conditioned well-equipped ambulance. Admission into Masina required money and the family had none. So they ran helter-skelter collecting it. This was only the beginning. More money was required for medicines and other expenses. And it only increased without respite; after all, it was a private hospital. After assessing the damage, the hospital gave a rough estimate of Rs 18 lakhs as the cost of initial treatment, an amount far beyond the reach of Amravati or her family. A few NGOs offered to help, they even started a fundraising drive and also approached the government for medical assistance from the chief minister’s funds. But just when the funds were to be released, Amravati breathed her last on April 27. The hospital has refused to release her body until all dues are cleared. Reena is now left alone to cope with the guilt and the trauma.

The incident has raised many questions about the manner in which gender crimes are registered. It has also become evident that when it comes to the poor and the marginalised, well-intentioned measures can be so easily be flouted. Though the police recorded the incident of April 14, the meticulous planning of the accused to take revenge upon the family for ticking him off while he was stalking Reena for over a year did not find a mention. The family had approached the police but the accused, Deepak, was let off with a warning. Without this history, a gender crime becomes a simple case of homicide. Another glaring flaw is that though the three victims were doused with petrol, the police did not add the critical section — Section 326A of IPC, which was inserted in 2013 when the criminal law was amended after the Nirbhaya incident. This section addresses acid attack cases, but its wording is broad enough to include cases of burning. The explanation makes it very clear: “For the purposes of this section, ‘acid’ includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury ….”

This is a serious lapse because the scheme for financial support to survivors of sexual assaults and acid attacks, Manodhairya, mentions the compensation that needs to be paid when these sections are mentioned in the FIR. Questions are being raised in official quarters about the decision to shift the patient from the public hospital into a private hospital. But here we have a very strong precedent. In the Shakti Mills gangrape case, the victim had admitted herself into the top-end Breach Candy Hospital. But since it was a high-profile case, there was no hesitation in shifting her to a VVIP room and meeting all her medical expenses. Can the State now shrug off its responsibility towards Amravati? There is also the responsibility of all private charitable hospitals that are duty bound to admit poor patients and reserve 10 per cent of beds for such cases. The scheme formulated by the Bombay high court in 2006 is flouted by all private hospitals. In an audit of 11 leading private charitable hospitals in the city, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India has found that seven were wrongly billing poor patients and charging hefty deposits during admission.

The question that begs for an answer — does the State have a responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens? What avenues are left for citizens if the State fails in its obligation of providing basic support, emergency care and support to victims of gender crimes? Questions also need to be raised about the role of the media. Why did it not give due publicity for this ghastly incident? Is it because it was not a case of gangrape, or an acid attack? Does burning by petrol lacks sensational value? Is it because the 18-year-old did not become the victim and hence it was not sensational enough to report? Is it because the three lives that were affected did not merit media attention? Is it that the affected families were poor and not from the middle class? We need to understand why the media selectively covers incidents.

( The writer is a human rights lawyer and a columnist Deccan Chronicle, Chennai based daily newspaper) 

There Are 3 Major Famines on Our Planet Right Now—Can You Even Name Them? The Media Is Virtually Blacking Out Human Tragedy

Millions of people are facing famine and drought in Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen, but how many countries are paying attention?

By Jack Healey / Huffington Post-May 1, 2017

To be an American in the world today is to be a citizen of a country rapidly losing its place as a global leader in foreign aid, foreign assistance and even what we once might have considered the moral high ground. There are crises, it seems, in every corner of the globe, including refugee camps in the center of Paris and immigrant detention centers on our own borders. Our leaders are telling us these crises are impossible to solve diplomatically, complex in nature and beyond the scope of what we can or should handle. 

And yet on April 6, Representative Barbara Lee along with ten other representatives, sent a letter to the Committee on Appropriations with a simple request—money for famine relief. Money for food, for people who had none. Specifically, a billion dollars. 

The countries they were hoping to assist were places that are geopolitically complex—namely, Yemen, along with South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. Famine in these places has its roots in everything from colonialism to climate change to U.S. foreign policy in the region. Specifically in Yemen, the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia in its brutal campaign to stop ISIS as well as the Houthis, a Shi’ite minority fighting the Saudi-backed Sunni government. Hospitals, schools, refugee centers—these have all been bombing targets of a campaign quietly supported by both the Obama and Trump administrations. The instability has led to famine across a country that was never food-stable to begin with, leaving families unable to find the food to feed their children. Over 17 million are facing imminent famine without immediate international assistance. 

There has been no Congressional approval for our support of the Saudi military campaign in Yemen, no declaration of war and no speech to the American people about the how and the why. While Obama held the Saudis at arms’ length because of the brutal nature of the conflict, hoping to execute at least some type of control, the Trump administration has invited them to the White House, welcomed them with open arms. The administration that has preached America first isolationism is entangling us more deeply in a conflict in a country not even on the radar screens of most voters. And yet, to obtain the funding to ease the repercussions of this campaign requires a lengthy approval process in Congress, clear justification, bipartisan support. 

In Somalia, over six million people are currently facing famine and drought. Driven from their homes by political instability, they are swelling refugee camps that are rapidly running out of food and water. The governments’ ongoing battle with the al-Qaeda associated terrorist organization al-Shabab has spread to the farms and villages of ordinary Somalis, splitting families apart and forcing people to leave behind their livestock and livelihood as they flee the conflict. The roots of al-Shabab’s rise are complex lie in the political instability created decades ago, when the U.S. and Soviet Union used Somalia to fight its proxy wars. In the decades since, the U.S. has invaded Somalia again and again, in covert military operations requiring no Congressional approval or declaration of war. The fractured country was fertile ground for the training camps of al-Shabab’s parent organization. And yet, to find the funding to ease this imminent famine, another byproduct of the constant onslaught of foreign intervention and instability, is somehow almost insurmountable. 

In South Sudan, whose split from the northern part of the country was supported by many across the West, famine has returned with a vengeance to the men, women and children caught between warring tribes vying for the presidency. Our support for this initial break was largely political, driven by pressure from powerful Christian lobby groups on Congress and the Obama administration, yet it was interference nonetheless. The U.S. chose a side, and hailed the split from the north as some sort of triumph of western inspired democracy; when that fledgling democracy descended almost immediately into bloodshed, we turned our backs. The famine that followed that instability rages on, without foreign aid, support, or attention.

Non-O blood group 'linked to higher heart attack risk'

SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY-In the UK, 48% of the population have blood group O

30 April 2017

People with a non-O blood group have a slightly increased risk of heart attack and stroke, research suggests.

Scientists say it could be because higher levels of a blood-clotting protein are present in people with A, B and AB blood.

The findings could help doctors better understand who is at risk of developing heart disease, the researchers said.

But a heart charity said people should focus on giving up smoking and eating healthily to reduce their risk.

The research, presented at the European Society of Cardiology congress, analysed studies involving 1.3m people.

It found that 15 in 1,000 people with a non-O blood group suffered a heart attack, compared to 14 in 1,000 people with blood group O.

Although the increase in risk was small, when applied to a whole population the numbers become more important.

Previous research found that people with the rarest blood group - AB - were the most vulnerable, being 23% more likely to suffer heart disease.

The most common blood group in the UK is O, which 48% of the population have.

There are a number of factors which can increase the risk of heart disease, such as smoking, being overweight and leading an unhealthy lifestyle.

These are all things we can do something about - unlike our blood group.

Which group you belong to is determined by the genes inherited from both parents.

Assessing the risk

Study author Tessa Kole, from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, said more research was needed to work out the cause of the increased cardiovascular risk in people with a non-O blood group.

And she said looking at the risk for each individual blood group would help.

She said: "In future, blood group should be considered in risk assessment for cardiovascular prevention, together with cholesterol, age, sex and systolic blood pressure."

People with blood group A - who are known to have higher cholesterol - may need a lower treatment threshold for high blood pressure, for example.

The analysis looked at coronary events in more than 770,000 people with a non-O blood group and more than 510,000 people with an O blood group.

Around 1.5% in the first group and 1.4% in the second experienced a heart attack or angina.

They also looked at cardiovascular events in 708,000 people with non-O blood and 476,000 with O blood, which affected 2.5% and 2.3% of each group respectively.

When the researchers looked at fatal heart events, they found no major difference in risk between the O and non-O blood groups.

Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the findings would not have a large impact on the current guidelines used to assess someone's risk of a heart attack.

"Most of a person's risk estimation is determined by age, genetics (family history and ethnicity) and other modifiable risk factors including diet, weight, level of physical activity, smoking, blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes.

"People with a non-O blood group type - AO, BO and AB - need to take the same steps as anyone wanting to reduce their CVD risk.

"That includes taking sensible steps to improve their diet, weight, level of physical activity and not smoking, and where needed, manage blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes."