At the Saudi-Indian Investment Forum held following the G20 meeting in India, Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad Bin Salman, said that the creation of the Economic Corridor had been announced by New Delhi, which will connect India, Middle East and Europe together, would achieve the common interests of “our countries by enhancing economic connectivity”.
Knowing that this Corridor includes Israel, Bin Salman reiterated that it would contribute to the development of infrastructure, including railways, port connections, improved flow of goods and services and enhanced trade exchange between the involved parties.
Regardless of all controversy related to the Saudi conditions to sign a deal to normalise ties with Israel, this proves that the Kingdom is going ahead very fast with the matter. The remarks made by Bin Salman about the Economic Corridor removed all ambiguities about the real relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel. He clearly spoke about common interests and trade exchange among the countries involved in the project.
Emirati political analyst, Salem AlKetbi, made it clearer as he said that this “ambitious project is a common ground for cooperation and integration”, pointing out that “economics serves as the gateway to politics” and said “it can effectively chart a new geopolitical map for alliances, as the interests of these parties are more intertwined than ever before which, in turn, reflects on their regional and international policies and orientations.”
The UN Human Rights Council held a general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine on Wednesday.
Palestine, speaking as an entity concerned, said it is “regretful that some politicized the work of the Council due to the wishes of the occupying power,” the Council said in a statement.
Noting that there are more than six million refugees from Palestine and thousands of people had been killed by Zionist gangs, it said the Israeli occupation’s practices which started in 1967 are becoming “more ferocious and barbaric.”
“This year commemorated 56 years of Israel as the occupying power. Civilians, journalists and health workers were being targeted, with 248 people killed this year and many administrative detention orders issued,” the country said, urging the international community to shoulder “its historic and legal responsibility” to put an end to the occupation.
During the debate, some speakers expressed serious concern over violations of international human rights law in the occupied Palestinian territory, including deprivation of the right to self-determination, extrajudicial killings, restrictions on freedom of movement and assembly, and illegal settlements.
PALESTINE rights campaigners have urged Labour to “confront the reality” of Israel’s crime of apartheid rather than to avoid naming it following the party’s decision to censor the terminology.
Labour administrators refused to allow Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PCS) to use the word apartheid in the group’s annual party conference stall or fringe meeting description in the event brochures, the group said today.
PCS said that when it asked why, Labour replied it would not publish content that “we believe to be detrimental to the party.”
PCS director Ben Jamal said that injustice “cannot be tackled unless you are prepared to name it.”
He said: “A Labour government should be fully committed to the upholding of international law and the principle that respect for human rights should be central to all relations with foreign states, including trade relations.
Five Just Stop Oil supporters have disrupted a staging of the iconic musical ‘Les Misérables’ at the Sondheim Theatre in Westminster last night. Just like revolutionaries featured in the story, they are calling on everyone to take a stand against the government’s criminal plans to “max out our oil and gas reserves” and to join in civil resistance against new fossil fuels.
During the performance of ‘Do You Hear The People Sing?’, five Just Stop Oil supporters entered the stage carrying orange banners reading ‘Just Stop Oil’ and ‘The Show Can’t Go On’. They emerged during the song’s crescendo, amongst actors bearing revolutionary red flags. At around 8:50pm they locked themselves to the set using flexible bicycle locks, which theatre technicians were unable to remove. The performance was halted, and the theatre was evacuated by 9:10pm.
23 year old community worker Hannah Taylor is one of those who took action today. They said:
“The show starts with Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving child. How long before we are all forced to steal loaves of bread? How long before there are riots on the streets? The show cannot go on. We are facing catastrophe. New oil and gas means crop failure, starvation and death. It is an act of war on the global south and an utter betrayal of young people.”
“Rishi Sunak has just approved Rosebank, a new oil project in the north sea which will produce as much carbon as the annual emissions of the 28 lowest-income countries combined. It will lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to starvation as crops fail in the increasingly extreme weather conditions.”
“Am I not, like Jean Valjean, justified in breaking the law to oppose this criminal government and its murderous policies? Ask yourself, will you, like the citizens of Paris in the play, stand by and watch, or will you stand up against our governments’ criminal plans and call for an end to new oil and gas?”
Liberty is taking the home secretary to court for ‘unlawfully’ passing legislation Parliament had already rejected
Image of Home Secretary Suella ‘Sue-Ellen’ Braverman
A human rights campaign group is taking Suella Braverman to court for “unlawfully” forcing draconian anti-protest legislation through Parliament, openDemocracy can reveal.
In June, Braverman used secondary legislation – which is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny – to allow police to restrict or shut down any protest that they believe could cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.
A cross-party parliamentary committee said this is the first time secondary legislation has been used to make changes to the law that have already been rejected by Parliament. Akiko Hart, interim director of Liberty, which launched initial legal action in June, described the move as “the latest power grab from this government”.
The government previously tried to insert the new powers into the Public Order Act 2023 in January, but was blocked by the Lords. Liberty’s lawyer, Katy Watts, accused Braverman of “sneak[ing] in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the power to do so”.
Hart said: “We all want to live in a society where our government respects the rules – but the home secretary has deliberately done the opposite. The home secretary’s actions have enabled the government to circumvent the will of Parliament.”
She continued: “This is just the latest power grab from this government, which has shown it is determined to erode the ways people can hold it to account, whether that’s in Parliament or on the streets. The home secretary’s actions give the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the government doesn’t agree with – and the way she has done it is unlawful.”
The home secretary has long called for more police powers to tackle peaceful methods of protests by climate activists, such as road blocking, ‘locking on’, and slow marching, which she said “bring misery and chaos to the law-abiding majority”.
One supporter of Insulate Britain previously told openDemocracy that protest is “our only legitimate means to achieve the changes needed within the time frame we have”.
Another of the group’s supporters said that the criminalisation of protest – in particular, of environmental protest – “is an example of attempting to shoot the messenger” and that elected politicians “obviously don’t really care about protecting people’s democratic rights”.
Watts, Liberty’s lawyer leading the case, said Braverman’s circumventing of the Lords’ rejection is “a flagrant breach of the separation of powers that exist in our constitution”.
She added: “The wording of the government’s new law is so vague that anything deemed by police to cause ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the home secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.
“It’s really important the government respects the law and that the home secretary’s decision is reversed immediately.”
Liberty has also claimed the new legislation was not consulted on fairly. It has accused the government of only consulting parties it knew would support the amendments, such as the police.
