View allAll Photos Tagged statement.
This statement bib necklace features rose pink, fuchsia and salmon pinked colored multi-faceted acrylic beads set in a fan shape held together by rose gold tone facets. The lower right hand corner features a hand enameled bumble bee with fuchsia crystals.
Buy from:
www.1928.com/pages-productinfo/category-22_31_538/product...
Kamera: Zenza Bronica SQ-Ai
Linse: Zenzanon PS 50mm + extension tube
Film: Rollei Retro 400S @ ISO 400
Kjemi: Rodinal (1:25 / 10:30 min. @ 20°C)
-Monday 19 February 2024: I have just watched the whole proceedings of today’s opening statements by Palestine in the International Court of Justice in Den Haag, where in this new case the legality, policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are in question.
This is truly an historic moment. And the presentation today was immensely powerful. I was so impressed by the whole legal team and the entire presentation of the case. In particular, I was blown away by the sharp and precise presentation by the lawyer Paul Reichler and the emotional appeal of Riyad Mansour. This was monumental.
Together with South Africa’s separate genocide case against Israel, I am certain we are finally witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist regime and justice at last for the Palestinian people. Today Palestine had 3 hours of presentation. In the next few days, more than 50 additional countries will also present their statements.
Here is history in the making.
International Court of Justice: Opening hearing on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories (publ. 19 February 2024) [Video]
International Court of Justice: Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem [Transcripts and Documents]
Mr REICHLER:
3. THE ILLEGALITY OF ISRAEL’S PROLONGED OCCUPATION, ANNEXATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
1. Mr President, Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before you, and a privilege to speak on behalf of the State of Palestine.
2. I will address the legality of Israel’s prolonged occupation, annexation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In so doing, I will identify the elements that determine whether, and in what circumstances, a belligerent occupation is, or becomes, unlawful under international law; I will then review the evidence to assess whether those elements are present here; and I will show that, based on the applicable law and the well-established and undisputed facts, Israel’s 56-year occupation of Palestinian territory is manifestly and gravely unlawful, and that international law requires that it be brought to an end, completely and unconditionally.
I. The applicable rule of law
3. The applicable rule of law is straightforward. As Pictet wrote in 1958, “occupation . . . is essentially a temporary . . . situation”. This remains the law. In December 2022, the General Assembly, in resolution 77/126, recognized that “the occupation of a territory is to be a temporary, de facto situation, whereby the occupying Power can neither claim possession nor exert its sovereignty over the territory it occupies”. This rule is neatly explained in the Written Statement of Switzerland:
“The laws of occupation are built on the idea that occupation is only a temporary situation. They are based on four fundamental principles . . .: 1) the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the territory it occupies . . . 2) the occupying power must maintain the status quo ante and must not take any measures which might bring about permanent changes”.
The law is thus crystal clear: occupation can only be a temporary state of affairs. A permanent occupation is a legal oxymoron.
II. The permanent character of the Israeli occupation
4. Mr President, what makes Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territory unlawful is precisely its permanent character, and what demonstrates its permanence are:
(i) Israel’s de jure and de facto annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank;
(ii) its claims of sovereignty over these areas, which it refers to by their biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and considers integral parts of the State of Israel;
(iii) its establishment of hundreds of permanent Israeli settlements, with over 700,000 Israeli settlers, who have been promised by successive Israeli governments that they will never be removed; and
(iv) the multitude of official statements and documents that openly declare Israel’s intention to incorporate all of the occupied territory east of the Green Line into the State of Israel as a permanent part of a single Jewish State extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
A. Declarations of permanence by Israel’s highest authorities
5. As I will show you, the evidence is overwhelming and leaves no room for serious dispute about Israel’s actions or its intentions. As Israel’s Cabinet Secretary wrote in June of last year:
“Judea and Samaria were not seized from a sovereign state recognized by international law, and the State of Israel has a right to impose its sovereignty over these areas as they comprise the cradle of history of the Jewish people and are an inseparable part of the Land of Israel.”
As purported legal authority, the Cabinet Secretary invoked the First Book of Maccabees, written in the year 100 BC, chapter 15, verse 33:
“It is not a foreign land we have taken nor have we seized the property of foreigners, but only our ancestral heritage, which for a time had been unjustly occupied by our enemies.”
6. This was followed in August of last year by a message broadcast on Israel’s Army Radio by Israel’s Heritage Minister:
“Sovereignty must be extended within the borders of the West
Bank . . . and in the most prudent way, to create international recognition that this place is ours . . . There is no Green Line, it is a fictitious line that creates a distorted reality and must be erased.”
7. In September 2023, Israel’s Prime Minister literally erased the Green Line, in his presentation to the United Nations General Assembly. As you saw earlier, he depicted the State of Israel as extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, eliminating not only the Green Line but all traces of Palestine. This was no oversight; it was an act of the Head of Government, with all the attribution that it implies. The same message was delivered by Israel’s Finance Minister in Paris, six months earlier, when he denied the existence of Palestine and declared that Palestinians do not constitute a people. Previously, he said:
“We are here to stay. We will make it clear that our national ambition for a Jewish State from the river to the sea is an accomplished fact, a fact not open to discussion or negotiation.”
This has been Israel’s consistent position. Here is the map of Israel produced by its armed forces and published by the Government in 2021. One State, Israel, from the river to the sea. There is no Green Line; there is no Palestine. Instead, Palestine has been replaced by “Judea” and “Samaria”, which, according to Israel’s highest officials, are now integral parts of the State of Israel.
B. Annexation and settlement of Jerusalem
8. As these official statements and maps demonstrate, Israel makes no secret of its intention to retain permanently the entire area east of the Green Line. Its annexation of occupied Palestinian territory began in 1967 with legislation annexing East Jerusalem, which Israel increased eleven-fold in size to incorporate not only the Holy City but also vast areas of the West Bank surrounding the City. Its Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, declared at the time:
“The Israel Defence Forces have liberated Jerusalem . . . We have returned to this most sacred shrine, never to part from it again.”
In 1990, the Israeli Cabinet instructed the Foreign Minister to notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations that
“Jerusalem is not, in any part, ‘occupied territory’; it is the sovereign capital of Israel”.
In June 1996, the Guidelines of the incoming Israeli Government stated:
“Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is one city, whole and undivided, and will remain forever under Israel’s sovereignty.”
More recently, in assuming office in December 2022, the current Prime Minister declared that
“[t]he Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land nor occupiers in our eternal capital Jerusalem”.
As these official statements make clear, Israel’s dominion over Jerusalem and the incorporated area of the West Bank is not intended to be temporary. It has been repeatedly proclaimed by Israel’s highest authorities to be “eternal”.
9. In furtherance of this end, more than 230,000 Israeli Jewish settlers - encouraged, subsidized and protected by the Israeli Government and occupation forces - have been installed in East Jerusalem, dramatically altering the demographic composition of the Holy City by creating an Israeli Jewish majority.
C. Annexation and settlement of the West Bank
10. Israel has been equally clear in declaring its permanence in the West Bank, where more than 465,000 Israeli Jewish settlers have been implanted with the support of every Israeli government since 1967, in over 270 ever-expanding settlements, spread throughout this territory, in what can only be described as a vast colonial enterprise. These settlements, whose accelerated growth and distribution over the years are illustrated on your screens now, are a key instrument of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank; this is both their purpose and their effect.
11. As the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly in 2015:
“Occupation is supposed to be temporary because the annexation or acquisition of territory by force is strictly prohibited under international law . . . In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the establishment and maintenance of the settlements amount to a slow, but steady annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory.”
12. Israel has made no secret of the intended permanence of these settlements. In 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu told Israeli settlers in the West Bank:
“Our message is clear. ‘We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of the State of Israel for eternity.’”
In August 2019, the Prime Minister announced that:
“The time has come to apply Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and to also arrange the status of all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria . . . They will be part of the State of Israel.”
In January 2020, Israel’s Defence Minister, Naftali Bennett, declared:
“Our objective is that within a short amount of time . . . we will apply sovereignty to all of Area C, not just the settlements, not just this bloc or another.”
13. This area, which is depicted in red on your screens now, comprises over 61 per cent of the West Bank. The Defence Minister proclaimed:
“I solemnly declare that Area C belongs to Israel.”
This area includes the Jordan Valley, which is the water reservoir, the breadbasket and the source of life for the entire West Bank.
14. In December 2022, the Guiding Principles of the incoming Israeli Government declared:
“The Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The Government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel - the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria.”
The coalition agreement between the political parties that formed the Government included this pledge:
“[T]he Prime Minister will lead the formulation and promotion of policy in which sovereignty will be applied in Judea and Samaria, while choosing the timing and weighing all the national and international interests of the State of Israel.”
III. Israel’s defiance of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Court
15. General Assembly resolution 77/126 was adopted on 12 December 2022, just as the current Israeli Government was assuming office. The resolution pointedly recalled:
“[T]he principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and therefore the illegality of the annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a breach of international law” and the resolution condemned Israel’s “annexation of land, whether de facto or through national legislation”.
16. Israel has thoroughly disregarded resolution 77/126, just as it disregarded all prior General Assembly and Security Council resolutions declaring illegal the annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the establishment of Israeli settlements there. These include but are by no means limited to:
* - Security Council resolution 252 of 1968, declaring Israel’s acquisition of territory by military conquest “inadmissible”;
* - resolution 476 of 1980, which “[r]eaffirm[ed] the overriding necessity for ending the prolonged occupation of Arab territories” in 1980 and “[s]trongly deplore[d] the refusal of Israel . . . to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly”;
* - resolution 478 of 1980, which “determine[d] that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel . . . to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”;
* - resolution 2334 of 2016, which “reaffirm[ed] . . . the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”, and condemned “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 . . . including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians”; and
* - at least 28 General Assembly resolutions, which expressly condemned Israel’s “annexation” of Jerusalem and the West Bank.
* 17. Israel has also blatantly disregarded the obligations reflected in the Court’s 2004 Advisory Opinion in the Wall case. Since then, instead of dismantling the wall, Israel has extended it from a length of 190 km to more than 460 km38, encompassing hundreds of additional square kilometres of Palestinian land, and incorporating it into the State of Israel. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court expressed concern lest
“the construction of the wall and its associated régime create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation”
18. And that is precisely what has happened over the past 20 years, not only within the expanded confines of the wall, but all across the West Bank, most of which has now been annexed de facto by Israel. In 2022, the report of the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry concluded:
“Israel treats the occupation as a permanent fixture and has - for all intents and purposes - annexed parts of the West Bank . . . The International Court of Justice anticipated such a scenario in its 2004 advisory opinion . . . This has now become the reality.”
19. The Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory reached the same conclusion:
“The occupation by Israel has been conducted in profound defiance of international law . . . Its 55-year-old occupation burst through the restraints of temporariness long ago. Israel has progressively engaged in the de jure and de facto annexation of occupied territory.”
IV. Recent acceleration of Israel’s annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
20. Mr President, Israel’s ongoing annexation of the West Bank accelerated in 2023, with the largest ever expansion of settlements in the territory. Twenty-two new settlements were authorized and more than 16,000 new housing units were built, funded or planned by Israeli authorities. As explained by Israel’s Finance Minister:
“The construction boom in Judea and Samaria and all over our country continues . . . We will continue to develop the settlement[s] and strengthen the Israeli hold on the territory.”
21. In developing its settlements, Israel has invested heavily in the infrastructure needed to supply them with water and electric power, as well as a network of roads and highways to connect them to one another and to Israel itself. These investments, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, attest to the intended permanent character of the settlements. The roads, which Palestinians are forbidden to use, and a pervasive system of roadblocks and checkpoints, prevent Palestinians - but not Israeli settlers - from moving from place to place in the West Bank, and they isolate Palestinian communities by cutting them off from one another. Israel’s settlement expansion has thus both uprooted Palestinians from their homes to make room for new settlements, and forced them to live in disconnected and non-contiguous enclaves, which the Special Rapporteur has called
“a fragmented archipelago of 165 disparate patches of land”. This achieves the fundamental objective of the occupation: permanent acquisition of the maximum amount of Palestinian territory, with the minimum number of Palestinians in it.
22. In furtherance of this objective, and with increasing frequency, armed groups of settlers, supported by Israel’s occupation forces and encouraged by government ministers, have violently expelled thousands of peaceful Palestinian civilians from their ancestral villages and lands. A United Nations Fact Finding Mission confirmed:
“[T]he motivation behind this violence and the intimidation against the Palestinians and their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in March 2023:
“[S]ettler violence further intensified, reaching the highest levels ever recorded by the United Nations.”
In November 2023, the High Commissioner warned that the situation had further deteriorated with “a sharp increase in settler violence and takeover of land across the West Bank. Since 7 October,” he continued, “nearly 1,000 Palestinians from at least 15 herding communities have been forced from their homes”.
23. The Secretary-General, in his most recent report, issued on 25 October 2023, expressly linked the expansion of Israeli settlements to the permanent acquisition of Palestinian territory:
“[S]uccessive Israeli Governments have consistently advanced and implemented policies of settlement expansion and takeover of Palestinian land.
The policies of the current Government in this regard are aligned, to an unprecedented extent, with the goals of the Israeli settler movement to expand long- term control over the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and, in practice, to further integrate those areas within the territory of the State of Israel.”
V. Application of the law to the facts
24. Mr President, Members of the Court, taking account of this evidence, as well as that described in the State of Palestine’s two written submissions, I turn to the law and how it applies to this occupation. The Written Statement of Switzerland is, once again, directly on point. It highlights the distinction between the law of occupation and the legality of a particular occupation:
“The law of occupation and the legality of occupation are two different questions. The law of occupation applies independently of the question of the legality of the occupation. Occupation is a situation subject to international humanitarian law, whereas its legality is covered by the United Nations Charter.”
25. In relation to the legality of the occupation under the Charter, Switzerland observes:
“The United Nations has consistently reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and condemned Israeli measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition, the character and the status of Jerusalem and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole, notably the construction and extension of settlements, the transfer of Israeli settlers, the confiscation of land, the demolition of homes and the displacement of Palestinian civilians.”
In Switzerland’s view:
“The measures taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory lead to fundamental changes, particularly demographic changes, that can have a permanent character.” In such circumstances, Switzerland expressly invites the Court “to rule on the consequences of the permanent character of the measures taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as to the status of the occupation under general international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations”.
26. Many States agree with this approach. France, too, underscores the temporary character of lawful occupation. This is a requirement that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory plainly fails to meet. As France states:
“[I]f the restrictions authorised by a regime of occupation were justifiable in the period following the military operations, they are not any more today. These points have been reiterated by the Security Council and the General Assembly on numerous occasions concerning Israel’s obligation to withdraw from the ‘occupied’ territories.”
27. France calls out, in particular, Israel’s annexation of occupied territory:
“The status of occupying power does not confer any legal title justifying annexation . . . The passage of time is not sufficient, as regards the acquisition of territory by force, to render lawful a situation that is gravely unlawful.”
On Israel’s vast network of settlements and hundreds of thousands of settlers in the occupied territory, France states:
“These permanent establishments are obviously incompatible with the necessarily temporary character of the occupation.”
28. Thirty-five of the States and international organizations that submitted written statements have addressed the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Only two of these 35, to which I will come, argued that the occupation is not unlawful. Key excerpts reflecting the views expressed by the overwhelming majority - that the occupation is unlawful as a whole and must be brought to an end - are collected in Chapter 2 of the State of Palestine’s Written Comments. Here are three brief but emblematic examples:
29. The African Union
“invites the Court to conclude that the prolonged Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is, in itself, unlawful . . . [T]he policies and practices associated with it amount to de facto and de jure annexation of the Palestinian territories, which violates the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.”
30. Brazil observes that:
“Occupation is inherently temporary. This is the basic distinction between occupation and annexation.”
Brazil, here, hits the nail right on the head: unlike occupation, annexation is intended to be permanent, and it makes the occupation itself unlawful. In Brazil’s words, Israel’s policies and practices
“render the occupation unlawful as a whole, inasmuch as it would be tantamount to the acquisition of territory by force”.
31. Japan, too, emphasizes that the annexation of occupied territory is unlawful, referring to Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter:
“As the ICJ clarified in the Wall Advisory Opinion, the illegality of the acquisition of territory by force is a corollary of the prohibition of use of force incorporated in the UN Charter”,
which Japan calls
“the most fundamental rule of the post-war regime for peace based on the rule of law among nations”.
VI. The indefensibility of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory
32. The two outliers are Fiji and the United States. Of all the States that submitted written statements to the Court, only Fiji attempted to defend the occupation as lawful. But even Fiji conceded that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem de jure and that the application of an occupying Power’s laws to the occupied territory, which is the case in the West Bank, constitutes an annexation de facto. Nor did Israel itself deny its annexations of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Its abbreviated written statement is mainly an attack on the General Assembly for its alleged bias. It makes no attempt to defend the legality of its occupation under international law.
33. The only State besides Fiji to defend Israel is the United States. This is not surprising. Whatever offences against international law Israel commits, the United States comes forward to shield it from accountability. Here, the United States attempts to defend Israel, not by arguing that the occupation is lawful, but that it is neither lawful nor unlawful. To reach this conclusion, the United States argues that belligerent occupation is governed exclusively by international humanitarian law and not by the United Nations Charter or general international law. In its own words:
“Although international humanitarian law imposes obligations on belligerents in their conduct of an occupation, it does not provide for the legal status of an occupation to be lawful or unlawful.”
34. Even assuming, arguendo, that this is a correct reading of international humanitarian law, which we dispute, it does not lead to the conclusion that an occupation cannot be unlawful under international law. What about Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, and general international law, including the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force? For the United States, apparently, this peremptory norm does not exist when it comes to Israel’s annexation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Only in such a lawless - and United Nations Charter-less - world could the Israeli occupation be described as “not unlawful”.
35. Notably, the United States ignores the part of the General Assembly’s request that the Court determine the legal status of the occupation under the United Nations Charter, in addition to international humanitarian law and other sources of law; and the United States fails to mention, let alone respond to, Switzerland’s Written Statement, asserting that belligerent occupation is covered both by international humanitarian law and by the United Nations Charter and general international law; and that the legality of the occupation itself is governed by the latter. The United States also ignores the written statements of the many other States which conclude that the Israeli occupation is unlawful as a whole, precisely because its annexation and settlement of the occupied territory constitute a permanent acquisition of territory by force in violation of Article 2 (4) and general international law.
36. Instead, in a single footnote, the United States responds only to those States which submitted that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under Articles 40 and 41 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Remarkably, the United States contends that neither of those two articles reflects general international law. This is truly stunning! A persistent failure of a State to fulfil an obligation arising under a peremptory norm is not unlawful under general international law, as provided in Article 40? The injunction in Article 41 - that no State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm - is not part of general international law? Just how far in disregarding the international legal order will the United States go to exempt Israel from the consequences of its ongoing violation of peremptory norms, including the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force?
37. Apparently, very far indeed. According to former US President Barack Obama, in the
memoir he published in 2020:
“[J]ust about every country in the world considered Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories to be a violation of international law. As a result, our diplomats found themselves in the awkward position of having to defend Israel for actions that we ourselves opposed.”
This is exactly what the United States is doing - again - in these proceedings.
VII. The occupation is unlawful and must be brought to an end
38. Mr President, Members of the Court, the evidence is before you - in the written submissions of the State of Palestine and dozens of other States and international organizations, and in the voluminous materials supplied to you by the Secretary-General - and it is indisputable. Under the umbrella of its prolonged military occupation, Israel has been steadily annexing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and it continues to do so. Its undisguised objective is the permanent acquisition of this territory, and the exercise of sovereignty over it, in defiance of the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force.
39. The evidence is not only indisputable, it is of the highest probative value: investigative reports of authoritative United Nations agencies; reports of the Secretary-General; resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; legislative and administrative acts by the Israeli Government; and public statements against interest by the most senior government officials admitting that Israel’s objective is sovereignty over all the territory east of the Green Line and its incorporation into a single Jewish State from the river to the sea. In this case, there is no reason not to take them at their word, because their deeds have been entirely consistent with it.
40. For Israel, as its successive governments have made clear, there is no Palestine. It simply does not exist. In November 2023, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that his Government would never agree to a Palestinian State in the occupied territory. He later declared:
“I will not compromise on full security control over all the territory west of Jordan - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.”
Israel’s intransigence was confirmed by its staunchest ally in December 2023, when US President Joe Biden publicly lamented that Israel’s leaders “don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution”.
41. That is the very solution demanded by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the overwhelming majority of States and the State of Palestine itself. It is, in fact, the only solution that can lead to lasting peace and security for the Israeli people as well as the Palestinian people. And it is this very solution that has been frustrated by Israel’s defiant insistence on maintaining its dominion over Palestinian territory in perpetuity. This is why the Court’s advisory opinion is so critical and so urgent. The best, and possibly the last, hope for the two-State solution that is so vital to the needs of both peoples is for the Court to declare illegal the main obstacle to that solution - the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine - and for it to pronounce, in the clearest possible terms, that international law requires that this entire illegal enterprise be terminated: completely, unconditionally and immediately.
42. Mr President, the law is clear and it demands nothing less. A permanent occupation - one that is founded upon annexation and massive settlement of the occupied territory, and which aims to exercise sovereignty over it - is manifestly and gravely unlawful; it is an ongoing international wrong that must be brought to an immediate end. As the Court ruled in 1971:
“[T]he continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory”.
43. The Secretary-General applied this principle directly to Palestine in his remarks to the Security Council one month ago:
“Palestinians must see their legitimate aspirations for a fully independent, viable and sovereign State realized, in line with United Nations resolutions, international law and previous agreements. Israel’s occupation must end.”
44. Mr President, the proverbial ball is now in your court. The General Assembly has asked you the critical questions. It is now your responsibility to answer them. Silence is not an option. As the immortal Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, wrote: “In silence we become accomplices.” But, he assured us, when we speak: “Every word has the power to change the world.”
45. Mr President, Members of the Court, your words have such power. In 2004, the Court affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In 2024, it is time for you to enable them finally to exercise that right, by freeing them from the unlawful Israeli occupation of their territory, so that they may live in a sovereign and fully independent State of their own, in peaceful and secure coexistence with all their neighbours, including Israel. By upholding international law, which is all the State of Palestine asks you to do, your powerful words will change the world.
46. I thank you Mr President, Members of the Court, for your kind courtesy and patient attention. We are in your hands, Mr President, whether you would like to take the mid-morning break now or call our next speaker.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr Reichler. I will invite the next speaker to take the floor after a coffee break of ten minutes. The sitting is suspended.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 a.m. to 11.45 a.m.
The framed "artist's statement" from my first-ever photographic exhibit now showing at the Roti Roti Art Center of Buchanan's Hess Library Gallery, now through February 18th.
08/07/2020. London, United Kingdom. Summer Statement Cabinet. The Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak brief members of the cabinet at the weekly Cabinet meeting inside No10 Downing Street, on the day the Chancellor delivers his summer statement to the House during the coronavirus. Picture by Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street
Dress: A Grecian Turn Dress, Rubber Ducky via ModCloth
Cardigan: Charter School Cardigan in Raspberry via ModCloth
Bracelets: Nordstrom (blue bracelet), Talbots (orange and pink bracelet), and vintage (gold bangles)
Necklace: Statement of the Art Necklace in Sun via ModCloth
Laptop Bag: Marc by Marc Jacobs via Nordstrom
Photo by Pat Zimmerman
It is a long, long way to the north of Kent to see a group of green orchids that even when they do flower, the flowers do not open much, if at all, and are always a disappointment. So, to sugar the trip, we could either visit Hever or Lullingstone.
Lullingstone won out as we had English Heritage Cards so would be "free".
----------------------------------------------
The significance of Lullingstone primarily derives from the importance of the Christian evidence from the site – the least equivocal from any Roman site in Britain. The preservation of elements of the structure of the villa-house is also exceptional, particularly the mosaic floors, which raise questions about the intentions, beliefs and background of the owners.
The evidence of the Christian house-church is a unique discovery for Roman Britain and the wall-paintings are of international importance. Not only do they provide some of the earliest evidence for Christianity in Britain, but they are also almost unique. The closest parallels come from a house-church in Dura Europus, Syria.
These paintings represent an overt and unequivocal statement of Christianity by Lullingstone’s owners. Persecution of Christians officially ceased in the Roman Empire after the adoption of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in AD 313.
The fact that the paintings date from some 40 years after this could be explained in a number of ways. The owners of Lullingstone may not have adopted Christianity until well after it was officially accepted.
Alternatively, while the Bellerophon mosaic illustrates a well-known myth, at Lullingstone it may also have been intended as an allegory for the triumph of good over evil and, as the mosaic could pre-date the house-church by a few years, it could be a Christian-inspired message disguised as an expression of classical learning.
Debate still surrounds the intentions behind the inscription associated with the Europa mosaic. It has been suggested[1] that it hides the villa owner’s name, which could be Avitus (starting with the last letter of the first word, and then taking every seventh letter to the end of Aeolias); or, more intriguingly, that it contains a covert reference to Jesus (starting with the first letter in the second line, and then taking every eighth letter and the final letter of the inscription).
If the mosaic is broadly of the same date as the house-church, it would seem strange that a reference to Jesus would be so disguised, but it could be a way of imposing a Christian message on a pagan scene.
Another possibility is that like the Bellerophon pavement, the Europa mosaic could pre-date the house-church by about ten years, before the owner came out openly as a Christian.
If the mosaics do contain coded Christian inscriptions and messages, it could be that Christians at Lullingstone feared the return of the old habits of intolerance and persecution, despite Constantine’s sanctioning of their religion, and so preferred to worship covertly for a time. Had the brief resurgence of paganism under Julian ‘the Apostate’, Emperor from 355 to 363, been sustained, such caution might have been seen as shrewd.
Perhaps almost as remarkable as the discovery of the house-church is the possibility that pagan worship may have continued in the cult room below it.
What is not clear is whether this represented the family hedging their bets, trumpeting their apparent acceptance of Christianity, while trying to keep the old gods happy, or whether it represents some members of the family clinging to old beliefs in the face of the adoption of Christianity by others.
Alternatively, it might represent an expression of traditional Roman pragmatic polytheism, which accommodated a variety of gods. Such an attitude, however, would have been unacceptable to genuinely devout Christians, whose refusal to acknowledge other gods had been a major factor in their persecution, as it was for the Jews.
The Roman villa at Lullingstone represents a remarkable survival, both in terms of the preservation of some structural elements of the main villa-house, but also, and more significantly, with respect to the evidence for Romano-British Christianity that it produced. Built perhaps as early as the AD 80s, Lullingstone Villa reached the peak of luxury in the mid-4th century when its spectacular mosaics were laid. It is also important for its possible imperial associations, as well as the enigmatic nature of the wider site and the challenges that presents to our interpretation and understanding.
The first building for which we have evidence was certainly constructed by AD 100 and perhaps as early as AD 80–90. However, finds and soil horizons, not associated with any structures, suggest that there may have been earlier occupation on the site.
The first known structure is a so-called winged-corridor house, a type of villa-house commonly found in Britain.
The house faced the river to the east and on that side a corridor or verandah linked wings on either side of a central accommodation block, which contained at least four main rooms. A second corridor ran along the back of the building.
The northern wing room was built over a cellar, or ‘deep room’, which may have been used simply for storage but, judging from the number of access routes from within the house and outside, may have been from its inception a cult room, as it is known to be from the later 2nd century.
Little is known about this phase of the structure as it is obscured by later modifications and reconstructions.
Early in the 2nd century a circular building 5.4 metres in diameter, possibly a shrine, was built to the north of the house and there may also have been a bath-house, although no certain evidence of it has been found. However, an early wall containing opus signinum (pink waterproof concrete) – on the southern side of the first phase villa-house, and underlying the known bath suite built in the 2nd century – may have been part of it.
In the second half of the 2nd century, possibly about AD 150 but perhaps as late as AD 180, the simple winged-corridor house was substantially enlarged. Such development normally suggests increasing prosperity on the part of the owners.
To the south, a bath suite was built onto the villa-house, separated from it by a corridor with an external doorway at its western end, suggesting perhaps that the bath suite was used by people other than the immediate family of the owner.
The position of the bath suite may have been determined by the site of an earlier bath house or bath suite if there was one, and also by the presence of a water supply represented by a well to the south. Additional rooms were built on the northern side of the villa-house.
By this date the cellar was certainly being used as a cult room, probably relating to a water deity or the veneration of water nymphs, with a small well or cistern located in the middle of the floor.
The room had wall-paintings, including a picture of three water nymphs in a niche, which was protected from damage when the niche was later filled with stone and mortar.
The two entrances into the cellar from within the house and the east verandah were blocked, and access was now only by steps at the north-west corner of the cellar, which were in turn reached by three sets of steps. Two of these gave access from outside the building on the western and eastern sides, while the third originated within the new northern range.
The external access suggests that people from outside the immediate family were involved in the cult practised here.
At some point during the 3rd century the entrance steps were blocked, and two high-quality marble busts appear to have been placed on or near the lowest steps that protruded into the room.
Access to the cult room was now only from above, presumably through a trap door, and the busts may suggest the emphasis changed to the veneration of ancestors, or the Imperial cult.
A more intriguing idea is that the busts may provide us with evidence relating to the ownership and function of the villa-house, as it has been suggested[1] that one can be identified as Publius Helvius Pertinax, the son of a freedman who rose to become a Senator and Governor of Britannia in AD 185–6. Though he was soon forced to leave Britain, he went on to become Emperor, reigning for 87 days in AD 193, before being murdered by soldiers of the Praetorian Guard.
The second bust has been identified as his father, Publius Helvius Successus, and it is possible that Lullingstone represented the country retreat of the provincial governor.
Further support for the association of the site with Pertinax is provided by Martin Henig who identified a cornelian intaglio from the excavations as the personal seal of the then governor.[2]
If Lullingstone were the country retreat of the governor, rather than a fully working villa-farm, it might explain the lack of known agricultural buildings, although clearly other structures may remain to be found.
In the later 3rd century, the northern range was demolished and replaced with a narrower range of five rooms, three of which incorporated an underfloor heating system. Other than the bath suite, these were the only rooms with underfloor heating in the villa-house. The other rooms must have been heated using movable braziers.
At this time the existing veranda was widened and converted into an audience chamber, and a new verandah constructed to the east, with steps that probably led to a riverside garden.
The bath suite was modified, the main change being the provision of a larger cold plunge bath beside the original one; the latter may now have been used as a cistern, to store water for the villa. This change may, in part, reflect wider modifications to the villa’s water supply.
Two external buildings – the granary and the temple-mausoleum – also date to this period.
At 24.4 metres (80 feet) by 10.06 metres (33 feet), the granary is one of the largest known from a civilian site in Roman Britain. Unusually for a civilian granary, it was provided with underfloor vents, to help prevent the grain from spoiling.
The temple-mausoleum took the form of a typical square Romano-Celtic temple. This had an outer wall that was 12.2 metres (40 feet) square, enclosing an ambulatory, or walkway, surrounding the central room (or cella), measuring 6.4 metres (21 feet) by 5.18 metres (17 feet).
Although probably built originally as a religious shrine or place or worship, the cella was later used for the burial of two people – one a young man and the other probably a young woman. The lead coffin of the male had survived intact and was decorated with scallop shells and a cable pattern.
Despite the actions of grave robbers, an impressive range of grave goods was found with the burials. These included flagons made of pottery and of bronze, glass bottles and bowls, two silver spoons, and 30 glass gaming counters, standing on the remains of a gaming board. A bone roundel decorated with the head of Medusa, together with a group of small pieces of bone, may have belonged to a box that contained the game.
Around the middle of the 4th century some remarkable changes took place that distinguish Lullingstone from many of the other villas known in Roman Britain.
First, the central core of the house was radically altered when an apsidal dining room or triclinium was built across the line of the western corridor, splitting it in two. This dining room, with its attached audience chamber, and the mosaics within the rooms, demonstrates the increasing prosperity of the villa.
Within the triclinium, the mosaic tells the mythical story of the Rape of Europa, who was abducted by the god Jupiter disguised as a bull.
The main mosaic panel in the audience chamber tells the story of Bellerophon, Prince of Corinth, on the winged-horse Pegasus, killing the Chimæra, a fire-breathing she-monster.[3] The scene is surrounded by four roundels containing representations of the seasons.
A Latin couplet above the Europa image reads:
INVIDA SI TA[URI] VIDISSET IUNO NATATUS
IUSTIUS AEOLIAS ISSET AD USQUE DOMOS
which translates as ‘If jealous Juno [Jupiter’s wife] had seen the swimming of the bull she would with greater justice have gone to the halls of Aeolus.’
The passage alludes to an episode in the first book of Virgil’s Aeneid, in which Jupiter’s wife, Juno, demands that Aeolus, the god of the winds, drowns Aeneas and his fleet at sea; but here it is transferred ironically to Jupiter’s abduction of the princess Europa, famously described in Ovid’s Metamorphoses
Perhaps even more remarkable, however, were the changes above the deep room involving the creation of a house-church. The wall-paintings from this room set the villa apart, as they are the only known paintings in Roman Britain that contain clear Christian symbolism.
The material from the house-church was found collapsed into the cult room below it. The excavators found many thousands of fragments of painted wall plaster which, when painstakingly pieced together, revealed the images that once adorned the walls.
Although the surviving elements of the scenes depicted are fragmentary, enough remains to suggest that a large Chi-Rho – an early Christian symbol formed by the first two letters of Christ’s name in Greek, chi ( χ)and rho (ρ) – was painted on the south wall.
Six near-life size standing figures with their hands raised in the attitude of early Christian prayer – the orantes position, still used by priests when saying mass and by modern evangelical Christians – were represented on the west wall. A further Chi-Rho appeared on the east wall, and on the north wall there were more figures, as well as pictures of buildings.
The house-church had a narthex, or ante-chamber, which was possibly used by those who had not yet been formally admitted to the Church through baptism and who could not take part in the Mass. The painted wall plaster from the ante-chamber provided clear links to the church.
www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/lullingstone-rom...
More of me in my fashionable dollar store Tee-shirt. It's navy blue and not black. As you can see. I made it to the park. It's a warm 80 degrees with a clear sky. Not bad for December.
Available for purchase from www.ballaratheritage.com.au
VHR - springthorpe
Statement of Significance
What is significant?
The Springthorpe Memorial within the Boroondara Cemetery (VHR0049)commemorates Annie Springthorpe, and was erected in 1897 by her husband Dr John Springthorpe. It was designed by Harold Desbrowe Annear and includes Bertram Mackennal sculptures. It contains twelve columns of deep green granite from Scotland supporting a Harcourt granite superstructure, and a glass dome roof of lead lighting.
How is it significant?
The Springthorpe Memorial is of historic and architectural significance to the State of Victoria
Why is it significant?
The Springthorpe Memorial is historically important in demonstrating nineteenth century social and cultural attitudes to death, and for reflecting the ideals of the Victorian Garden Cemetery movement which aimed at providing comfort for mourners. The memorial is important in demonstrating uniqueness, no other example being known of such aesthetic composition, architectural design and execution, or scale. It is important in exhibiting good design and aesthetic characteristics and for the richness and unusual integration of features. The Springthorpe Memorial is also important in illustrating the principal characteristics of the work of a number of artists including Desbrowe Annear, Mackennal, the glass manufacturers Auguste Fischer and the bronze work of Marriots.
VHR Statement of Significance
What is significant?
Boroondara Cemetery, established in 1858, is within an unusual triangular reserve bounded by High Street, Park Hill Road and Victoria Park, Kew. The caretaker's lodge and administrative office (1860 designed by Charles Vickers, additions, 1866-1899 by Albert Purchas) form a picturesque two-storey brick structure with a slate roof and clock tower. A rotunda or shelter (1890, Albert Purchas) is located in the centre of the cemetery: this has an octagonal hipped roof with fish scale slates and a decorative brick base with a tessellated floor and timber seating. The cemetery is surrounded by a 2.7 metre high ornamental red brick wall (1895-96, Albert Purchas) with some sections of vertical iron palisades between brick pillars. Albert Purchas was a prominent Melbourne architect who was the Secretary of the Melbourne General Cemetery from 1852 to 1907 and Chairman of the Boroondara Cemetery Board of Trustees from 1867 to 1909. He made a significant contribution to the design of the Boroondara Cemetery
Boroondara Cemetery is an outstanding example of the Victorian Garden Cemetery movement in Victoria, retaining key elements of the style, despite overdevelopment which has obscured some of the paths and driveways. Elements of the style represented at Boroondara include an ornamental boundary fence, a system of curving paths which are kerbed and follow the site's natural contours, defined views, recreational facilities such as the rotunda, a landscaped park like setting, sectarian divisions for burials, impressive monuments, wrought and cast iron grave surrounds and exotic symbolic plantings. In the 1850s cemeteries were located on the periphery of populated areas because of concerns about diseases like cholera. They were designed to be attractive places for mourners and visitors to walk and contemplate. Typically cemeteries were arranged to keep religions separated and this tended to maintain links to places of origin, reflecting a migrant society.
Other developments included cast iron entrance gates, built in 1889 to a design by Albert Purchas; a cemetery shelter or rotunda, built in 1890, which is a replica of one constructed in the Melbourne General Cemetery in the same year; an ornamental brick fence erected in 1896-99(?); the construction and operation of a terminus for a horse tram at the cemetery gates during 1887-1915; and the Springthorpe Memorial built between 1897 and 1907. A brick cremation wall and a memorial rose garden were constructed near the entrance in the mid- twentieth century(c.1955-57) and a mausoleum completed in 2001.The maintenance shed/depot close to High Strett was constructed in 1987. The original entrance was altered in 2000 and the original cast iron gates moved to the eastern entrance of the Mausoleum.
The Springthorpe Memorial (VHR 522) set at the entrance to the burial ground commemorates Annie Springthorpe, and was erected between 1897 and 1907 by her husband Dr John Springthorpe. It was the work of the sculptor Bertram Mackennal, architect Harold Desbrowe Annear, landscape designer and Director of the Melbourne Bortanic Gardens, W.R. Guilfoyle, with considerable input from Dr Springthorpe The memorial is in the form of a small temple in a primitive Doric style. It was designed by Harold Desbrowe Annear and includes Bertram Mackennal sculptures in Carrara marble. Twelve columns of deep green granite from Scotland support a Harcourt granite superstructure. The roof by Brooks Robinson is a coloured glass dome, which sits within the rectangular form and behind the pediments. The sculptural group raised on a dais, consists of the deceased woman lying on a sarcophagus with an attending angel and mourner. The figure of Grief crouches at the foot of the bier and an angel places a wreath over Annie's head, symbolising the triumph of immortal life over death. The body of the deceased was placed in a vault below. The bronze work is by Marriots of Melbourne. Professor Tucker of the University of Melbourne composed appropriate inscriptions in English and archaic Greek lettering.. The floor is a geometric mosaic and the glass dome roof is of Tiffany style lead lighting in hues of reds and pinks in a radiating pattern. The memorial originally stood in a landscape triangular garden of about one acre near the entrance to the cemetery. However, after Dr Springthorpe's death in 1933 it was found that transactions for the land had not been fully completed so most of it was regained by the cemetery. A sundial and seat remain. The building is almost completely intact. The only alteration has been the removal of a glass canopy over the statuary and missing chains between posts. The Argus (26 March 1933) considered the memorial to be the most beautiful work of its kind in Australia. No comparable buildings are known.
The Syme Memorial (1908) is a memorial to David Syme, political economist and publisher of the Melbourne Age newspaper. The Egyptian memorial designed by architect Arthur Peck is one of the most finely designed and executed pieces of monumental design in Melbourne. It has a temple like form with each column having a different capital detail. These support a cornice that curves both inwards and outwards. The tomb also has balustradings set between granite piers which create porch spaces leading to the entrance ways. Two variegated Port Jackson Figs are planted at either end.
The Cussen Memorial (VHR 2036) was constructed in 1912-13 by Sir Leo Cussen in memory of his young son Hubert. Sir Leo Finn Bernard Cussen (1859-1933), judge and member of the Victorian Supreme Court in 1906. was buried here. The family memorial is one of the larger and more impressive memorials in the cemetery and is an interesting example of the 1930s Gothic Revival style architecture. It takes the form of a small chapel with carvings, diamond shaped roof tiles and decorated ridge embellishing the exterior.
By the 1890s, the Boroondara Cemetery was a popular destination for visitors and locals admiring the beauty of the grounds and the splendid monuments. The edge of suburban settlement had reached the cemetery in the previous decade. Its Victorian garden design with sweeping curved drives, hill top views and high maintenance made it attractive. In its Victorian Garden Cemetery design, Boroondara was following an international trend. The picturesque Romanticism of the Pere la Chaise garden cemetery established in Paris in 1804 provided a prototype for great metropolitan cemeteries such as Kensal Green (1883) and Highgate (1839) in London and the Glasgow Necropolis (1831). Boroondara Cemetery was important in establishing this trend in Australia.
The cemetery's beauty peaked with the progressive completion of the spectacular Springthorpe Memorial between 1899 and 1907. From about the turn of the century, the trustees encroached on the original design, having repeatedly failed in attempts to gain more land. The wide plantations around road boundaries, grassy verges around clusters of graves in each denomination, and most of the landscaped surround to the Springthorpe memorial are now gone. Some of the original road and path space were resumed for burial purposes. The post war period saw an increased use of the Cemetery by newer migrant groups. The mid- to late- twentieth century monuments were often placed on the grassed edges of the various sections and encroached on the roadways as the cemetery had reached the potential foreseen by its design. These were well tended in comparison with Victorian monuments which have generally been left to fall into a state of neglect.
The Boroondara Cemetery features many plants, mostly conifers and shrubs of funerary symbolism, which line the boundaries, road and pathways, and frame the cemetery monuments or are planted on graves. The major plantings include an impressive row of Bhutan Cypress (Cupressus torulosa), interplanted with Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum), and a few Pittosporum crassifolium, along the High Street and Parkhill Street, where the planting is dominated by Sweet Pittosporum.
Planting within the cemetery includes rows and specimen trees of Bhutan Cypress and Italian Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), including a row with alternate plantings of both species. The planting includes an unusual "squat" form of an Italian Cypress. More of these trees probably lined the cemetery roads and paths. Also dominating the cemetery landscape near the Rotunda is a stand of 3 Canary Island Pines (Pinus canariensis), a Bunya Bunya Pine (Araucaria bidwillii) and a Weeping Elm (Ulmus glabra 'Camperdownii')
Amongst the planting are the following notable conifers: a towering Bunya Bunya Pine (Araucaria bidwillii), a Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), a rare Golden Funeral Cypress (Chamaecyparis funebris 'Aurea'), two large Funeral Cypress (Chamaecyparis funebris), and the only known Queensland Kauri (Agathis robusta) in a cemetery in Victoria.
The Cemetery records, including historical plans of the cemetery from 1859, are held by the administration and their retention enhances the historical significance of the Cemetery.
How is it significant?
Boroondara Cemetery is of aesthetic, architectural, scientific (botanical) and historical significance to the State of Victoria.
Why is it significant?
The Boroondara Cemetery is of historical and aesthetic significance as an outstanding example of a Victorian garden cemetery.
The Boroondara Cemetery is of historical significance as a record of Victorian life from the 1850s, and the early settlement of Kew. It is also significant for its ability to demonstrate, through the design and location of the cemetery, attitudes towards burial, health concerns and the importance placed on religion, at the time of its establishment.
The Boroondara Cemetery is of architectural significance for the design of the gatehouse or sexton's lodge and cemetery office (built in stages from 1860 to 1899), the ornamental brick perimeter fence and elegant cemetery shelter to the design of prominent Melbourne architects, Charles Vickers (for the original 1860 cottage) and Albert Purchas, cemetery architect and secretary from 1864 to his death in 1907.
The Boroondara Cemetery has considerable aesthetic significance which is principally derived from its tranquil, picturesque setting; its impressive memorials and monuments; its landmark features such as the prominent clocktower of the sexton's lodge and office, the mature exotic plantings, the decorative brick fence and the entrance gates; its defined views; and its curving paths. The Springthorpe Memorial (VHR 522), the Syme Memorial and the Cussen Memorial (VHR 2036), all contained within the Boroondara Cemetery, are of aesthetic and architectural significance for their creative and artistic achievement.
The Boroondara Cemetery is of scientific (botanical) significance for its collection of rare mature exotic plantings. The Golden Funeral Cypress, (chamaecyparis funebris 'aurea') is the only known example in Victoria.
The Boroondara Cemetery is of historical significance for the graves, monuments and epitaphs of a number of individuals whose activities have played a major part in Australia's history. They include the Henty family, artists Louis Buvelot and Charles Nuttall, businessmen John Halfey and publisher David Syme, artist and diarist Georgiana McCrae, actress Nellie Stewart and architect and designer of the Boroondara and Melbourne General Cemeteries, Albert Purchas.
2nd Lt. Beau Benton of O’Fallon, Ill., assigned to 709th Military Police Battalion, 18th MP Brigade prepares a counseling statement during the Counseling Lane of U.S. Army Europe’s Best Junior Officer Competition at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany August 19, 2013. The Best Junior Officer Competition, unique to U.S. Army Europe, is a weeklong training event highlighting the best lieutenants and captains in Army units across Europe. These officers represent the best in their units and exemplify the USAREUR imperatives of teamwork, comprehensive fitness, leader development, training, discipline and standards. Competitors for the title of Best Junior Officer prove themselves in events testing physical stamina, leadership and technical knowledge. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jermaine Baker)
The parliament debates recent developments in the Ukraine conflict with EU Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini. On the agenda is the Merkel/Hollande peace initiative, Wednesday’s meeting of the presidents of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia in Minsk (Belarus), a possible US arms delivery to Ukraine and new EU sanctions against Russia.
www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/plenary/video?date=10-0...
ec.europa.eu/avservices/ebs/schedule.cfm?page=2&date=...
This photo is free to use under Creative Commons licenses and must be credited: "© European Union 2015 - European Parliament".
(Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives CreativeCommons licenses creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
For bigger HR files please contact: webcom-flickr(AT)europarl.europa.eu
Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne leaves HM Treasury with Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander on 05 December 2012.
08/07/2020. London, United Kingdom. Summer Statement Cabinet. The Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak brief members of the cabinet at the weekly Cabinet meeting inside No10 Downing Street, on the day the Chancellor delivers his summer statement to the House during the coronavirus. Picture by Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street
I took this shot in London in the early 1980's. That's the monument at Piccadilly Circus that these young people are sitting on. I believe that there are at least three women in this group. Most of these persons are close to 50 years old now, assuming that they have lived that long. It's interesting that they are all Caucasian. Perhaps there was a future Member of Parliament in this group (smile)...
A BBC video of the Exhibition from BBC World's 'Impact Asia' can be found here:
Exhibition and Charity Auction in aid of the British veterans of the Korean War.
A positive, dynamic and exciting exhibition of contemporary art by forty Korean Artists, reflecting on the Korean War and its legacy.
This exhibition thanked the men and women of Britain who came to Korea’s defence in the name of liberty in 1950.
Exhibition Dates: 16 June – 17 July 2010
The artworks were subsequently sold at a Charity Auction at the KCC with the kind support of Sotheby’s and The Royal British Legion.
The contributing artists for the exhibition PRESENT FROM THE PAST: The 60th Commemoration of the Korean War:
in alphabetical order:
Je BAAK, Seung Woo BACK, Chan-Hyo BAE, C Gene, Francesca CHO, Young-Jin CHOI, Sen CHUNG, Shan HUR, Yun Kyung JEONG, Eemyun KANG, KANG Yong Suk, Ayoung KIM, Hayoung KIM, Kira KIM, Dae Hun KWON, KWON Kyung-hwan, Changwon LEE, LEE Lee Nam, Sang Youp LEE, Sea Hyun LEE, Suejin LEE, Yongbaek LEE, NA Hyun, NANDA, Jae woo OH, Junggeun OH, Hyung Jin PARK, Jinhee PARK, PARK Jongha, PARK Jongwoo, PARK Sungsil, PARK Young Geun, SEO, Gunwoo SHIN, Meekyoung SHIN, Bada SONG, Yun-Hee TOH, Seungho YOO, YOO Hye-Sook, Jungu YOON
PRESENT FROM THE PAST: the 60th Commemoration of the Korean War
All Rights Reserved: The Korean Cultural Centre UK.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.
"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.
The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. See CNN viewers' reactions to the study »
The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.
Bush has consistently asserted that at the time he and other officials made the statements, the intelligence community of the U.S. and several other nations, including Britain, believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
He has repeatedly said that despite the intelligence flaws, removing Hussein from power was the right thing to do.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer each made 109 false statements, it says. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made 85, Rice made 56, Cheney made 48 and Scott McLellan, also a press secretary, made 14, the study says.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda," the report reads, citing multiple government reports, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the 9/11 Commission and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, which reported that Hussein had suspended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to revive it.
The overview of the study also calls the media to task, saying most media outlets didn't do enough to investigate the claims.
"Some journalists -- indeed, even some entire news organizations -- have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," the report reads. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."
The quotes in the study include an August 26, 2002, statement by Cheney to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."