Tuesday, July 8, 2014

CNN.com - Top Stories

Start Running App Marketing Campaigns That Increase Revenue & Engagement
From our sponsors
 

 

CNN.com - Top Stories
CNN.com delivers up-to-the-minute news and information on the latest top stories, weather, entertainment, politics and more.

Q&A: What is Boko Haram?
7/7/2014 5:06:29 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Boko Haram's aim is to impose strict enforcement of Sharia law in Nigeria
  • The name translates to "Western education is sin"
  • The group was founded 12 years ago by Mohammed Yusuf, a charismatic cleric
  • Nigerian police killed him in 2009 in an incident captured on video and posted online

CNN anchor Isha Sesay will be live from Abuja on CNN International, Monday to Thursday at 5pm, 7pm, 8.30pm and 9pm CET.

(CNN) -- Boko Haram's escalating danger is indisputable.

The militant group has bombed schools, churches and mosques; kidnapped women and children; and assassinated politicians and religious leaders alike.

It made headlines again recently with the abduction of 230 schoolgirls in the town of Chibok in northeastern Nigeria. After a fierce gunbattle with soldiers, the militants herded the girls out of bed and onto buses, and sped off. Only a few dozen of the girls have escaped.

What exactly is Boko Haram, and why has it turned into a Nigerian synonym for fear and bloodshed?

What does 'Boko Haram' mean?

The name translates to "Western education is sin" in the local Hausa language.

The militant group says its aim is to impose a stricter enforcement of Sharia law across Africa's most populous nation, which is split between a majority Muslim north and a mostly Christian south.

In recent years, its attacks have intensified in an apparent show of defiance amid the nation's military onslaught. Its ambitions appear to have expanded to the destruction of the Nigerian government.

How long has it been around?

The group was founded 12 years ago by Mohammed Yusuf, a charismatic cleric who called for a pure Islamic state in Nigeria. Police killed him in 2009 in an incident captured on video and posted to the Internet.

The crackdown, some say, made Boko Haram more violent and defiant.

Abubakar Shekau took control of the group and escalated the attacks. It murdered and kidnapped Westerners, and started a bombing campaign that targeted churches, mosques and government buildings.

Why not just kill Abubakar Shekau?

One word: elusive.

Questions have swirled about Shekau, including whether he's dead or alive. Even his age is unknown -- estimates range between 35 and 44.

In recent years, the Nigerian military has touted his death, only to retract its claim after he appeared alive and vibrant in propaganda videos.

He uses the alias Darul Tawheed, and analysts describe him as a ruthless loner and master of disguise. He does not speak directly with members, opting to communicate through a few select confidants.

Why would an Islamist militant group target the Muslim north?

Despite its religious fanaticism, Boko Haram does not consider all Muslims as supporters and allies.

There have been suggestions that it attacks certain mosques because members have spoken out against it and helped federal officials with their crackdown. Its attacks are aimed at striking fear at the heart of the local population to prevent cooperation with the government, analysts say.

Does the north support the group?

Although the northern populace mostly abhors the violence, there is considerable local sympathy and support for Sharia law, seen by many as the only way to end what is widely regarded as a corrupt and inept government. Poverty is prevalent in the northern region, and as the military struggles to halt Boko Haram's attacks, the militant group is winning perhaps its most important battle: making Nigerians question government competency.

Rights groups have accused local authorities of human rights violations in the fight against the group, adding to the anti-government sentiment.

What's the West doing to help?

The United States has put a $7 million bounty on Shekau's head. It also designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist network last year. Though it has provided technical and financial support to the Nigerian teams battling the insurgency, there has been a reluctance to put boots on the ground unless there's a direct national security threat to the West. Boko Haram's attacks have been limited primarily to Nigeria.

I don't live in Nigeria, so why should I care?

With a population of 175 million, Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and is considered a political and economic powerhouse in the continent. The key U.S. partner is rich in oil, a major trading partner with China, and is the hub of global business in the region.

And as we've learned with Mali, any unresolved local Islamist insurgency has the potential of spiraling into a world problem.

Last year, Shekau released a statement vowing to attack the United States and Europe.

"Our strength and firepower is bigger than that of Nigeria. Nigeria is no longer a big deal to us, as far as we are concerned. We will now comfortably confront the United States of America," he said.

Does it have ties to al Qaeda?

The U.S. says Boko Haram has links to the al Qaeda affiliate in West Africa and to extremist groups in Mali.

What other attacks has the group conducted?

Just this week, a massive explosion ripped through a bus station in the Nigerian capital, killing at least 71 people. In a video, Shekau said the group was behind the attack.

In November, the group abducted dozens of Christian women, most of whom were later rescued by the military. Some were pregnant or had children, and others had been forcibly converted to Islam and married off to their kidnappers.

In 2011, a Boko Haram suicide attack on the United Nations building in Abuja killed at least 25 people.

A year of attacks linked to Nigeria's Boko Haram

Boko Haram: The essence of terror

 

Google stalling 'right to be forgotten'?
7/7/2014 9:23:31 AM

Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that Google was responsible for personal data revealed by searches.
Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that Google was responsible for personal data revealed by searches.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Thousands of people request removal of information about them from Google searches
  • Appeals follow court ruling that members of the public have a "right to be forgotten"
  • High profile journalists have questioned why their stories have been blocked
  • Paul Bernal says Google may be sticking to letter of law to undermine ruling

Editor's note: Paul Bernal is a lecturer in Information Technology, Intellectual Property and Media Law at the University of East Anglia Law School, and a specialist in data privacy issues. He is a blogger and the author of the recently published Internet Privacy Rights -- rights to protect autonomy. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.

(CNN) -- Earlier this year, a European court ruled that search engine operators such as Google could be held responsible for personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties and found through their searches.

As thousands of people ask for their information to be removed, is Google is trying its best to provide a workable solution or trying to undermine a ruling that, from the very start, it really did not like?

In the commentary I wrote for CNN the day after the ruling in the Google Spain case, I suggested the result created a headache -- and potentially huge costs -- for Google, and that it could open the door to a flood of cases, each of which would need a resolution.

I wrote that how Google responded to the ruling would be critical -- and the initial signs are that the company's response has already caused problems.

Paul Bernal
Paul Bernal

As predicted, Google received a huge volume of requests to have links removed -- more than 40,000 in the first four days after the ruling. The company has now begun the process of responding to them.

If the request appears valid -- and how that is determined is one key issue -- there seem to be three parts to their response:

First is the removal of the search result -- and it must be remembered that it is only search results when a particular name is searched for that are removed, not the source material nor search results for that material when searched for in any other way.

Second is that search results for individuals using European versions of Google (that is, google.co.uk rather than google.com) will now often include a message at the bottom that reads: "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe." The curious are then offered the chance to "learn more" on the company's privacy and terms page.

This alert does not, however, mean that search results have been removed -- it appears if any search is made for an individual's name where there are no "public figures" with that same name.

Thirdly comes the part of the response which has triggered the most dramatic results: If a link to an article is blocked as a result of a request, notification is sent to the publisher of that article. When journalists receive that notification they are, quite naturally, upset.

Two particular examples involving prominent journalists in the UK have highlighted this -- and both have written about it. The first was James Ball in the Guardian, the second Robert Peston for the BBC. Both wrote pieces about the experience; Peston's had an understandably dramatic headline: "Why has Google cast me into oblivion?"

In both Ball's and Peston's cases, many of the stories that they had been notified about did not seem to fall into categories covered by the Google Spain ruling: old, irrelevant stories about people who were not public figures. Ball's stories included pieces from 2010 and 2011 -- scarcely old -- while Peston's covered critical events in the banking world in 2007 -- the ousting of banker Stan O'Neal from Merrill Lynch -- something that cannot be described as irrelevant or not in the public interest.

It looked as though this was exactly what the opponents of the right to be forgotten were worried about: censorship and the rewriting of history.

Peston, however, was not quite convinced, hence his headline that Google was casting him into oblivion, not the European Court of Justice.

Was it, in fact, that Google were overreacting -- either that they were, as Peston put it, "clumsy" or that, perhaps, they were deliberately attempting to undermine the ruling by making it seem either unworkable or a dangerous form of censorship.

That Google might be deliberately undermining the ruling seems possible; all three parts of their response could contribute to this view.

Firstly, they seem to be erring on the side of the people wishing for things to be blocked -- and hence they do create more censorship.

Secondly, by alerting about far more search results than are actually affected by the rulings, they create an atmosphere in which people feel more censored.

Thirdly, by the form which their notification to journalists takes, they make journalists feel censored -- and might make strong, important and expert journalists into allies in their attempts to undermine the ruling.

The combination of these three is a potent one.

On the other hand, it is possible that it is simply clumsy, and that these are teething troubles.

Peston says: "Google insists it is simply complying with the relevant articles in the European Court of Justice's ruling."

In a message to those seeking to have content removed, Google itself acknowledges it is still "working to finalize our implementation of removal requests."

The individual cases that have made the headlines have begun to unravel a little: Google has reversed its decisions on James Ball's pieces, recognising there is a public interest. Peston's piece is more interesting.

The assumption Peston made, reasonably enough, was that the link would be blocked when people search for Sean O'Neal, since his was the only name that appeared in the article in question.

But in fact, it turns out that the request to block the story related to a member of the public whose name appeared in the comments on the piece -- the link removed relates to searches for that person. Searching for Sean O'Neal still brings up the article.

Google's response is in line with the law -- but it looks far worse than it is.

That, indeed, may be true of the whole story surrounding the right to be forgotten. It looks worse than it is.

I hope that is the case, and that these events are just teething troubles, and that better, more workable solutions will appear, and a more appropriate balance between privacy and freedom of expression can be struck.

How Google's response develops in the weeks and months to come is the key -- and whether they really want to find a way to make it work will determine that.

This whole affair demonstrates the huge power that Google already wields. Because, ultimately, it is Google carrying out this "censorship," not the court.

Google does similar things already, though without such a fanfare, in relation to copyright protection, links to things like obscene or illegal content and so forth. They are already acting as censors -- and as they tailor search results to the individual anyway, they are already choosing what people see and read -- and what they don't see and read.

The most important thing that Google can do in response to the court ruling is to engage positively and actively with the ongoing reform process of the Data Protection Regime.

A well-executed reform, with a better written, more limited and more appropriate version of the right to be forgotten could be the ultimate solution here. If that can be brought in soon -- rather than delayed or undermined -- then we can all move on from the Google Spain ruling, both legally and practically. Everyone might benefit from that.

 

Americans still live in Watergate era
7/7/2014 8:27:03 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Julian Zelizer: The Watergate scandal had a devastating effect on American politics
  • We still live in the era of Watergate, the scandal still reverberates today
  • He says current politics is filled with accusations, scandals with the suffix "gate"
  • Watergate created a climate where Americans don't really trust government

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America." This January, Penguin Press will publish his new book, "The Fierce Urgency of Now." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Former Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker passed away recently. Although he was known for many things, Baker's most enduring moment came in the middle of the Watergate scandal, when he asked: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

The scandal happened 40 years ago. It started with a break-in at the Democratic headquarters in Washington, D.C. and it was followed with subsequent efforts to obstruct an investigation into whether the White House had been involved.

In July 1974, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the White House had to turn over recorded presidential conversations to the investigators. The House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the three articles of impeachment, charging President Richard Nixon with obstruction of justice.

Julian Zelizer
Julian Zelizer

The Watergate scandal had a devastating effect on American politics. In his riveting forthcoming book, "The Invisible Bridge," Rick Perlstein skillfully recounts the era that was shaped by the scandal and the way in which the sordid activities of the Nixon administration unfolded on a day-by-day basis.

Each revelation gave voters another reason not to trust their elected officials and to believe the worst arguments that people made about government. Americans could never look at government the same way again.

The scandal continues to reverberate today throughout the political spectrum. We still live in the era of Watergate.

For Democrats, who many thought would have been the beneficiaries of a scandal that brought down a Republican president, the level of distrust that the scandal generated among the public has been an ongoing challenge.

At the most basic level, Democrats argue that the federal government offers the best solution to the problems of the day. But if the public does not trust its elected officials, Democrats are left in a position of having to constantly defend the legitimacy of the institutions of government and to convince voters that bureaucrats really will do their job.

The intense skepticism surrounding the Affordable Care Act, Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service scandal have revealed how easy it is for opponents of government to stoke these kinds of fears.

Republicans have suffered too, even after the party separated itself from Nixon as its figurehead. The truth is that Republicans promote government as well, just for different reasons. Their programs have, likewise, been subject to constant scrutiny as a result of the lingering distrust from Watergate.

For conservatives, national security programs have been a centerpiece of their agenda. Republicans have pushed for expanding the military budget and since 9/11 many have called for an aggressive response to terrorism that includes sweeping surveillance programs and enhanced interrogation techniques.

Revelations about what government officials do without public accountability -- such as torture or snooping into e-mails -- have deepened public distrust and created strong pushbacks.

Politicians in both parties must operate in a political environment filled with investigations, or accusations of another scandal looming with the suffix "gate" attached to it. Whenever some kind of scandal breaks, it doesn't take long for the story to escalate and for questions to arise as to whether this will end up as big as Watergate.

View my Flipboard Magazine.

Often, this outlook has salutary effects by encouraging politicians to make sure that similar levels of corruption don't happen again.

But, too often, as many would say has been the case with the IRS, stories of administrative mismanagement are blown out of proportion, consuming Washington's time and taking their attention away from major problems.

The worst effect of Watergate is that it created a climate where Americans fundamentally don't trust their government. It is one thing to be suspicious, another to reject altogether. Recent approval ratings for Congress tanked to 7% and for the President 29%. This is part of the broader trend we have seen since the 1960s.

It is extremely difficult for government to do its job or for voters to have the kind of faith in government, which is necessary for a healthy society.

When Howard Baker asked his famous question, his hope was not to disparage government but to make it better. He wanted to find the corruption, to seek the reform so that government could do its job once again. Unfortunately, the kind of faith that Baker had in government never returned.

To really banish the memories of Watergate and set the government on a better course, reforming politics is the most important solution.

Improving our campaign finance system by curbing the influence of private money and imposing stronger restrictions on lobbying, such as the revolving door between the government and lobbying groups, is an essential first start.

Until we take those kinds of steps, voters will always be seeing the shadow of Richard Nixon when they look at their elected leaders.

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

 

Race to bottom of ocean must end
7/7/2014 8:28:30 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • The health of the ocean is in decline, and it's up to us to clean up our act, writes Yoriko Kawaguchi
  • Chronic overfishing, illegal fishing and worsening pollution are pushing fish stocks to point of collapse
  • Governments should phase out $30B high seas fishing fuel subsidies
  • Plastic use should be minimized and recycling incentivized

Editor's note: Yoriko Kawaguchi is a former Foreign Minister and Environment Minister of Japan, and is now a Visiting Professor at the Meiji Institute for Global Affairs in Tokyo. She is a commissioner at the Global Ocean Commission, an independent international group addressing the threats facing the ocean.

(CNN) -- The human footprint on the ocean, from the shoreline to the deepest abyss, is growing.

It is evident in over-exploited and collapsing fish stocks, it washes up as oil and garbage on our beaches, and even ends up contaminating the fish on our plates.

The idea that our seas are so vast that they will absorb anything we throw into them and replenish anything we take out of them must be consigned to history.

Today, the health of the ocean is in decline. We urgently need to clean up our act, and restore and protect the ocean.

Understanding the depth of the problem

The high seas are responsible for 50% of the biological productivity of the ocean, and what happens here affects the entire marine ecosystem, and every one of us, according to the Global Ocean Commission.

Previously invisible services such as the storage of 500 million tons of carbon every year, which our studies estimate is worth up to $222 billion annually, are now being seen and understood. The value of the ocean is far greater than just the fish we catch. We rely on it for the air we breathe, to provide protein and energy, and to maintain our weather systems.

With agricultural land under threat from climate change, it has never been more vital to our long term food security that we combat chronic overfishing, illegal fishing and worsening pollution that are pushing fish stocks to the point of collapse.

Evidence of the consequences of fisheries mismanagement is not hard to find. Overfishing in the Philippines has caused a steady drop in the fish protein available to local people according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

Globally, illegal fishing takes 20% of the total marine catch, deprives communities of food and income, and connects with other heinous crimes including slavery.

On the high seas, two-thirds of the fish caught are from stocks that are already dangerously depleted, and this lawless race to the bottom also affects coastal fisheries.

Unless we take decisive action to turn the tide on ocean decline we risk a future where the essential services provided by the ocean are threatened.

This is not a future anyone should accept.

How to stem the ocean's decline

The Global Ocean Commission put forward a set of eight proposals for action tackling the main drivers of ocean decline.

This offers a way forward to ensure the ocean is able to provide a growing global population with a healthy, safe source of nutrition for generations to come.

It focuses on the long-neglected high seas -- the 64% of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction -- where governance is weak and fragmented, and resources are vulnerable to over-exploitation.

The action plan calls for a five-year phase-out of government high seas fishing fuel subsidies from a handful of nations -- including the U.S., EU, Japan and China -- that fuel overfishing to the tune of $30 billion.

It also calls for all high seas fishing vessels to carry mandatory identification numbers to prevent illegal fishing, and for seafood retailers to insist on full traceability of the products from "bait to plate."

High seas fishing needs to be brought into line before we irreversibly squander our last great common resource, and lose the fish so vital to our diets and our culture. It is equally important that the fish that reaches our markets is not only sustainably caught, but safe to eat.

The situation is critical as millions of tons of plastics end up in the ocean and enter the food chain every year.

Experts believe that up to 33 billion tons of plastic will accumulate by 2050, a large percentage of which will find its way to the ocean. Much of it -- 70 percent - will sink to the ocean floor and some of the rest break down to form a soup-like mass of tiny microplastic particles.

We know that plastics ingested by marine species cause the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals higher up the food chain. Larger species consume both plastics and other animals that are already contaminated. Microplastics have been found in mussels, oysters and lobsters, among other species. We must address this problem before it spreads as a danger to human health, food security, and the fishing industry.

As 80% of the plastic in the ocean originates on land, increased recycling and environmentally sound waste management is at the core of any solution. The Commission is calling for a host of measures, including minimizing single-use plastics by direct government intervention and creating incentives to boost recycling.

Japan is rightly proud to lead the world in plastic recycling rates. Reaching 77% in 2010, Japan's rate is about twice that of the UK, and nearly four times the 20% figure for the U.S., though there is room for improvement, particularly in the over-use of plastic food packaging, according to Japan's Plastic Waste Management Institute.

This is an area where all citizens can take direct responsibility. By reducing our personal plastic footprint, we can reduce the footprint on the ocean and help eliminate a growing threat to our food safety.

The Global Ocean Commission invites everyone, from governments, to businesses, scientists and citizens, to join Mission Ocean and help put our ocean on the path to recovery and health.

READ MORE: U.N. report: Our oceans are trashed with plastic

 

What is legacy of Asiana Flight 214?
7/7/2014 8:26:49 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • In pilot lounges and aviation blogs, the verdict is in: Asiana's pilots screwed up
  • The crew over-relied on automation
  • It also did not pay attention to the plane's slowing speed

Washington (CNN) -- It's been true since the Wright Brothers first took flight: Bad plane accidents can lead to good safety improvements.

A deadly fire on an Air Canada flight in 1983, for instance, led to lavatory smoke detectors.

And the in-flight rupture of an Aloha Airlines fuselage five years later led to increased scrutiny of aging aircraft.

But what will be the legacy of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, which crashed one year ago this weekend?

CNN talked to safety experts and combed National Transportation Safety Board records for lessons learned in the Asiana crash.

Man vs. Machine

In pilot lounges and aviation blogs, the verdict is in: Asiana's pilots screwed up. The crew over-relied on automation, unintentionally disabled the plane's auto-throttle, did not pay attention to the plane's slowing speed, and failed at basic piloting skills.

That opinion is shared by the NTSB. Last month, the board concluded that the Asiana 214 crash resulted from the "crew's mismanagement of the airplane's descent" into San Francisco International Airport. It outlined a series of mistakes that led to the crash, which killed three teenage girls and seriously injured 49 of the 307 people aboard.

In layman's language, Asiana 214 was caused by pilot error.

But to blame the accident solely on pilot error is to miss the real lesson of Flight 214, past and present NTSB leaders say.

The "one change that I would like to see: Improving the human-machine interface," said former NTSB chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman, who oversaw the crash investigation.

"The Asiana crash involved an inherently safe aircraft that performed as designed and a very experienced crew," Hersman said.

"But it demonstrated that commercial pilots are trained to rely heavily on sophisticated automation, which can become a trap if they don't understand what the system is doing behind the control panel."

At a December hearing, the safety board heard evidence that the Asiana pilots were confused by autopilot modes, believing the auto-throttle would maintain the plane's speed.

"Automation has unquestionably made aviation safer and more efficient. But the more complex automation becomes, the more challenging it is to ensure that the pilots adequately understand it," current safety board acting chairman Christopher Hart said last month.

"In this instance, the flight crew over-relied on automated systems that they did not fully understand. As a result, they flew the aircraft too low and too slow and collided with the seawall at the end of the runway."

The NTSB ruled that "complexities of the auto-throttle and autopilot" systems contributed to the accident.

It recommended that Boeing revise the B-777's operating manual to prevent confusion about the auto-pilot modes.

Boeing says it's faultless

"Boeing respectfully disagrees with the NTSB's statement that the 777's auto-flight system contributed to this accident," it said in a statement. "The auto-flight system has been used successfully for over 200 million flight hours across several airplane models, and for more than 55 million safe landings," it said. "All the airplane's systems performed as designed."

Boeing said it will review the NTSB's recommendations.

MIT aeronautics Professor R. John Hansman Jr. said the most likely outcome of the Asiana 214 crash: "an increased focus on pilot training to maintain basic piloting skills and not become too dependent on automation."

Emergency response

Experts say first responders performed heroically in racing to the damaged aircraft and removing trapped occupants. But about half of the NTSB's recommendations involve suggestions to improve emergency responses.

Improvement is needed in coordination and communications, said Jeff Price, professor of aviation at aerospace at Metropolitan State University of Denver. "I kind of relate it to putting a lot of all-stars on the field, but not have a common game plan."

During the Asiana 214 response, an incident commander placed an officer who had not received aircraft firefighting training in charge, the NTSB said. No injuries could be attributed to the officer, it noted.

The airport fire department also had two vehicles equipped with turrets that could pierce a plane's fuselage. But while the Federal Aviation Administration had given guidance on how to pierce a fuselage, it had not given guidance on when to pierce a plane, the NTSB said.

And two emergency medical buses failed to arrive at the scene, the NTSB said. The buses were not physically deployed during monthly drills, the board said, likely playing a role in the failure to use them during the crash.

"It's those types of things you need to exercise, so that when it's game time, you understand the realities of what you have to do," Price said. "I think it's up to the FAA to raise the standards for airports," he said.

The safety board said the airport initially deployed seven vehicles to the crash, exceeding the FAA-required minimum of three vehicles. And some 23 rescuers were initially deployed, though the FAA has no minimum staffing level. That means victims of crashes at smaller airports "may not be afforded the same level of protection that the passengers of flight 214 had," the board said.

What went right

Experts say the crash could have been much worse; passengers benefited from safety improvements.

"I've watched that (crash) video time and again," Price said. "The structural integrity of that plane remained amazingly intact for what it went through. It was extraordinary. It protected the occupants very well."

"If there's anything good to be had from all the accidents in the past and all the lives lost, it's made for amazing changes in the design of an aircraft," Price said.

The main landing gear sheared away from the wings, by design. Passenger seats withstood the brutal g-forces. Luggage bins did not fall on the passengers or block their evacuation. The jet fuel did not erupt on impact.

And when a fire finally broke out -- the result of leaking oil from the plane's right engine, which came to rest next to the fuselage -- it did not spread quickly. Fifteen minutes passed before black smoke was seen pouring from the plane's left door.

Authorities note that 99% of the plane's occupants survived -- a rate that would have seemed impossible only a decade or two ago.

Indeed, two of the three deaths may have been avoidable, the NTSB said. Two girls ejected from the plane had not buckled their seatbelts, investigators said, and likely would have survived if they had. A fire truck rolled over one of the ejected girls in the chaos of the crash scene.

The third girl had on a seatbelt, but died at the hospital six days later of injuries suffered in the crash.

A year later, survivors recall Asiana Flight 214 crash

Pilots blamed for Asiana crash

 

Can Brazil cope without Neymar?
7/7/2014 2:37:33 PM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Hosts Brazil face Germany in World Cup semifinal on Tuesday
  • Brazil is without injured Neymar and suspended captain Thiago Silva
  • Germany come into match following 1-0 over France in quarterfinals
  • Mexican referee who missed Luis Suarez bite earlier in tournament to officiate match

(CNN) -- Four days after Neymar was kneed in the back, Brazil face the real possibility of being booted out of their own World Cup when they take on Germany in the semifinal at Belo Horizonte on Tuesday.

The hosts will have to manage without their star striker after he sustained a fractured vertebra in the 2-1 quarterfinal win over Colombia in Fortaleza.

It's not just in attack that Brazil have problems -- captain and key defender Thiago Silva is suspended after picking up his second yellow card of the tournament in the same match.

Neymar's injury is a huge blow to the hosts who, under coach Luiz Felipe Scolari are looking to reach the final for the first time in 12 years in their hunt for a sixth world crown.

Tweets by @CNNFC

Wild celebrations following Friday's win became more muted when news filtered through that Neymar -- scorer of four goals in five matches in Brazil's campaign --would play no further part in the tournament.

"It's like we have lost today," a female Brazilian fan in Rio de Janeiro told CNN after hearing of the seriousness of Neymar's injury.

"It's terrible, terrible. I'm so sad. But let's go on."

Sympathy also came flooding in from fans and arch rivals -- old and new.

"It concerns not only the Brazilian people but all of us who love football," Argentine legend Diego Maradona told the Venezuela-based Telesur TV network.

"It was his World Cup, in his country. He had great hopes."

The Albicelestes current playmaker Lionel Messi also responded, posting a message for his Barcelona teammate on his Facebook page.

"Neymar, I hope you recover very soon, friend!" Messi wrote while German midfielder Mesut Ozil tweeted: "Neymar, I am unhappy. get well soon."

Such is the fevered speculation surrounding Neymar there were even suggestions the Barcelona star could play if he had painkilling injections or underwent emergency surgery.

That speculation was quickly put to rest by the Brazilian Football Association Monday who said such treatment would not happen as it would would endanger Neymar's future career.

Dreams of a miraculous return were perhaps fueled by Brazil's obvious reliance on their stricken star.

The 22-year-old talisman has scored 35 goals in 54 international appearances -- three more than the combined totals of the squad's other forwards -- Fred, Hulk and Jo -- have managed in total in matches for the Selecao.

"Brazil are too dependent on Neymar," former Brazil midfielder Juninho told CNN following the group stages.

"If Neymar plays well, Brazil plays well. If he doesn't, nobody can do his job. It's a worry. It's like Portugal with Ronaldo."

A member of Brazil's last World Cup winning squad in 2002, Juninho also queried whether the current side have the experience to sustain their challenge.

"When you wear a Brazilian shirt you are under pressure even now when you play in your country. I think the players need to know how to deal with that.

"All of the players have a lot of experience in European competition but not in the national team and in the World Cup -- for a lot of them this is their first World Cup."

Brazil's winning captain in 1970, Carlos Alberto, struck a more positive note ahead of the Germany clash when he recalled the impact Garrincha made when he deputized for the injured Pele 52 years ago.

"In the 1962 World Cup, we lost Pele," Alberto told Sportv.

"Maybe someone will wake up and become the Garrincha of 1962."

Another Brazilian great -- former midfielder Zico -- hopes a Neymar-less Brazil can prosper if Scolari deploys more "combative" midfielders.

"In my mind, fast players like Willian and Bernard need to be considered ..." Zico wrote in UK newspaper The Observer on Sunday.

"Above all, the Brazilian players have the chance to draw energy from Neymar's sacrifice ... they need to leave their souls on the pitch as a tribute for this kid whose dreams have been shattered because of one horrific tackle," Zico concluded.

Three-time champions Germany come into Tuesday's crunch match buoyed by a typically robust 1-0 win over France in the quarterfinals.

Joachim Low's side are seeking a first World Cup win in 24 years after narrow misses in the last three tournaments.

Two World Cup heavyweights lock horns

Both Germany and Brazil have scored 10 goals so far in the tournament making them joint-third highest scorers.

Germany's Thomas Muller and the injured Neymar have both scored four goals in five matches in Brazil.

Brazil have won the tournament five times (1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002).

Germany have been crowned champions three times (1954, 1974 and 1990).

Germany has only failed to reach the quarterfinal stage just once (1938) since 1934.

Brazil has reached the semifinals 10 times, Germany 12.

The teams have met just once before at the World Cup -- Brazil winning 2-0 at the 2002 final in Japan.

In 2002, Germany were runners up to Brazil -- the only World Cup meeting between the teams -- before losing at the semifinal stage to eventual winners Italy and Spain in 2006 and 2010 respectively.

A hugely experienced squad -- five players have 100 caps or more -- must quietly fancy their chances against an under-strength Brazil.

Not that anyone is saying that publicly.

"We're all sad that Neymar can't play, it's always better when the opponent has all their best players on the pitch," Germany midfielder Bastian Schweinsteiger told FIFA.com.

"It'll bring the (Brazil) team together and they'll want to win the title for him."

Schweinsteiger also pointed to the pedigree of Brazil's coaching team -- noting both Scolari and technical director Carlos Alberto Parreira have previously managed Brazil to victory (in 2002 and 1994 respectively) -- and that home advantage shouldn't be underestimated.

"Their coaches have a lot of experience of this kind of situation. It's an honor and a challenge to play against the hosts, but it have would be better to play Brazil in the final," Schweinsteiger said.

"It doesn't matter how much experience you have, to play the hosts in this football-crazy country, I mean that in a positive sense, is something special."

The task of officiating this clash of two World Cup titans has been handed to Marco Rodriguez.

Players from both sides will be hoping that he is alert to all incidents -- the 40-year-old Mexican failed to spot Luis Suarez's bite on defender Giorio Chiellini when Uruguay played Italy in the group stages last month.

Referring to Carlos Velasco Carballo's leniency in officiating Brazil's win over Colombia -- only two Brazilians were booked by the Spanish referee despite the Selecao's 31 fouls -- Schweinsteiger urged Rodriguez to be watchful.

"The Brazilians here aren't the magicians of old, the team has changed and so has their playing style," said the Bayern Munich midfielder.

"Hard challenges are definitely are part of their game, it's something we have to be careful of and the referee too."

 

Now, Pope must act on sex abuse
7/8/2014 4:37:30 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Heidi Schlumpf: Pope Francis met with victims of clergy sexual abuse, begged forgiveness
  • She says apology good, but he must do more to make amends with victims, all Catholics
  • She says Vatican steps positive; Pope should remove Kansas City bishop who covered up
  • Schlumpf: Victims' groups want more action; if they can forgive, they are ones to be commended

Editor's note: Heidi Schlumpf is a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter and teaches communication at Aurora University. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- After meeting Monday with six victims of sexual abuse by clergy members, Pope Francis apologized for the crimes committed against them and begged forgiveness "for the sins of omission on the part of church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse."

Apologies are all well and good, but this one brings to mind two trite but true sayings: "Too little, too late" and "Actions speak louder than words." Unfortunately, Francis has more to do so that future popes won't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" for these crimes and the Catholic Church's cover-up.

Heidi Schlumpf
Heidi Schlumpf

This is not to downplay the important symbolism of public apologies from the church's top leader. Indeed, Francis seems sincere and acknowledges the complicity of the institutional church in the cover-up, not just the actions of individual men.

But Francis is not the first pope to meet with sex abuse victims or even the first to offer an official apology for what has to be one of the gravest evils in the church. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, met on several occasions with victims, including during a trip to the United States. After one such meeting, he also issued a formal apology, saying he was "deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured."

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

In comparison, Francis' apology, given during a lengthy homily, was more extensive, emphasizing the psychological and spiritual pain victims have endured and noting that these "despicable actions" had been "camouflaged with a complicity that cannot be explained."

It also was better than his, "Yes, but ..." apology earlier this year, when he mentioned that abusers were "quite a few in number, though not compared to the total number" of priests, after earlier complaining about how the church had been unfairly singled out for the problem of sexual abuse of minors.

Given the enormity of this problem facing the Catholic Church, however, victims' rights groups are correct in expressing disappointment with how long it took for the new Pope to meet with them (16 months into his pontificate). In March, editors of the National Catholic Reporter, which has been covering sex abuse by clergy for nearly three decades, implored the Pope in an open letter to make meeting with victims a priority.

As someone who clearly understands the significance of his actions -- everything from his choice of attire to whose feet he washes on Holy Thursday -- Francis should have met with victims much sooner than this.

Still, Monday's apology seems to be part of more significant movements in the Vatican, including the naming of a victim to a new panel to address sex abuse and the recent defrocking of a Polish archbishop and papal ambassador accused of paying for sex with minors.

But there is much more to be done, starting with the removal of Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn, who has been found guilty of failing to report suspicions of child abuse to police or state child welfare authorities. The diocese has recently been ordered to pay $1.1 million for violating terms of an earlier contract of reparations.

Of course, a good apology includes not only acknowledgment of personal and/or corporate responsibility for the victim's pain, but also a promise to fix things, or at least to not continue to inflict that pain. The church is finally, after decades of denying or minimizing victims' pain, accepting responsibility. But we're not yet there on fixing things.

That's why victims' rights groups are understandably frustrated by the molasses-like pace of the church on this issue. Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, applauded the courage of the victims who met with Francis on Monday but complained about the need for more decisive action.

"The Pope says the church should 'make reparations' to victims. That's secondary. Stopping abuse and protecting children comes first. And sadly, no child on earth is safer today because of this meeting," she wrote in a statement.

Here's another saying: "To err is human; to forgive, divine." If that's true, it will be the victims who will be the real saints, not the apologizers.

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

 

Would Iraq be more stable if it split?
7/8/2014 4:38:09 AM

The main obstacle to a peaceful settlement in Iraq is the absence of oil in Sunni areas in the west.
The main obstacle to a peaceful settlement in Iraq is the absence of oil in Sunni areas in the west.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Division of Iraq into ethnic regions looks more likely than ever before
  • Iraq experts say cycle of violence is hardening sectarian divide -- wrecking chance of negotiated separation
  • Sunni areas in west would not be economically viable unless they received oil revenues from other regions
  • Independent Sunni region, free from discrimination by majority Shia government, might escape extremist rule

(CNN) -- Iraq is tearing itself apart. Its government has lost control of large parts of the country; intercommunal violence is rife and al Qaeda is resurgent. A description not of 2014 but 2006 -- and a situation that led Joseph R. Biden, then a U.S. Senator and now Vice President, to argue that it was time to split Iraq into three parts: Kurdish, Shia and Sunni.

Biden and Leslie Gelb, in an op-ed for the New York Times, looked to Bosnia as the modern precedent, which they asserted had been preserved by "paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies."

It was a formula, they believed, that could work in Iraq.

"The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues." So ran the argument.

The Biden/Gelb plan was endorsed by the U.S. Senate in 2007 but ignored by the Bush Administration. Seven years later, the division of Iraq into ethnic regions looks more likely than ever. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) holds much of western and northern Iraq, including the city of Mosul, and the Kurdish leadership is pressing ahead with plans for a referendum as a likely step towards a unilateral declaration of independence.

Ramzy Mardini, an Iraq expert at the Atlantic Council, says: "The basic equation is this: ISIS provokes Shiites, Shiites overreact and generalize their response against Sunnis, and more Sunnis come to support ISIS. It's a vicious circle, with each cycle hardening the sectarian divide."

For that reason, the chances of a negotiated separation have evaporated.

"Biden often saw Iraq through the lens of the former Yugoslavia, [but] borders can't come from pencil and paper," Mardini told CNN. "It would have to come out of ethnic war."

"Iraq is a state that has always been governed under authoritarian rule. Assuming it can suddenly pivot to a federal, democratic system is naive, not only about the history of Iraq, but about the political system of federalism in general. Federalism is a complicated and sophisticated framework."

Taking aim at ISIS: Women train with AK-47s to defend streets

Among the many obstacles to a negotiated break-up, Sunni areas in the west would not be economically viable unless they received a share of oil revenues from other regions; theirs is the only part of Iraq not sitting on lakes of oil.

There are also few natural borders, and plenty of areas -- especially Baghdad and Diyala province -- where the different communities live cheek by jowl. Sunnis would not agree to Kurdish rule of the mixed city of Kirkuk.

"For a decade now, they have been unable to pass a revenue-sharing and oil law," Mardini says. "How will you get Shiite Iraq to share their revenues with Sunni Iraq? And how do you get the Iraqis to agree on the borders of the regions? That would require political settlements on all disputed territories - and we know how hard it has been to do that for the last decade."

The orphans of Iraq

Iraq is a state that has always been governed under authoritarian rule
Iraq expert Ramzy Mardini

A redrawing of the map, whether at a conference or through conflict, would have a huge impact on the region. Turkey, Iran and Syria -- all of which have their own Kurdish minorities -- would be wary of an oil-rich Kurdish state on their borders.

The Shiite part of Iraq would most likely become closely integrated with Iran, giving Tehran much more leverage over Iraq's oil industry. "The unity of Iraq has been a major core interest for the United States for a reason," Mardini says. "Without the Sunnis and Kurds as a part of Iraq, then there's not much to help balance out the influence Iran has in the country's national oil politics."

On the other hand, an independent Sunni region -- one that no longer felt discriminated against by a majority Shia government -- might be saved from falling into extremist hands. The Sunnis would have no incentive to turn to a jihadist group like ISIS as an ally if they had no enemy in Baghdad. Equally, they might make common cause with Syria's Sunnis. Many of the tribes live both sides of the border.

The collapse of Iraq raises the specter of mass migration and violence of the sort that accompanied the birth of India and Pakistan. It is a real danger, but the current situation has already driven thousands of people from their homes; hundreds more have been killed.

Some historians argue that Iraq was never really a country anyway, more a colonial confection like British India, and we are now seeing the inevitable consequence.

How Iran is pushing U.S. aside in Iraq

The Rest Is History

In the early 20th century, tribes were paramount in the vast Arabian deserts. The arbitrary carve-up of Arabia began with the Sykes Picot agreement in 1916, with the French taking the mandate to govern Syria and Lebanon, and the British what was then Palestine and Iraq. In 1919 the League of Nations rubber-stamped French and British administration of vast areas of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

Iraq's borders were created at a conference in Cairo in 1921, largely thanks to Winston Churchill and T E Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia), who were among about 40 British officials gathered at the Semiramis Palace on the Nile. They effectively invented Iraq, setting up Faisal bin Hussein as the king of a new country. Faisal was a Sunni and a Hashemite who wasn't even from Iraq. British policy was to promote the interests of the Sunni and other minorities as a counter-balance to the Shia majority -- and expel troublesome Shia clergy, all tools that Saddam Hussein would find useful a half-century later.

Against the advice of several experts, the new Iraq included the Kurdish-dominated province of Mosul, as a buffer against both Turkey and Russia (soon to become the Soviet Union.)

One of the senior advisers at the Cairo Conference was Gertrude Bell, an indomitable traveler who knew many of the region's tribal sheikhs. Bell -- and many since -- underestimated the power of the Shia clergy. And she over-estimated the power of British rule. She told Jafar al Askari, who would become Prime Minister of the young Iraq, that "complete independence is what we ultimately wish to give."

"My lady," al Askari replied, "complete independence is never given; it is always taken" -- words that may have a new resonance in Iraq today.

READ: How ISIS is overshadowing al Qaeda

READ: Europe's threat from jihadists in Iraq and Syria

 

Israeli airstrikes pound Gaza: Is all-out war next?
7/8/2014 4:08:06 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: 15 have been killed in Gaza, and Palestinian officials say at least nine are militants
  • Overnight airstrikes hit about 50 targets, including militant houses, an official says
  • Israeli operation "will probably not end within several days," defense minister says
  • Israel says it is aiming to recruit more reservists to strengthen forces

Jerusalem (CNN) -- An Israeli security operation against the militant group Hamas "will probably not end within several days," Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said Tuesday.

The development appeared to confirm fears that the conflict would continue to escalate.

"We will not tolerate rocket fire and we are prepared to expand the operation and to exact a heavy toll on Hamas," he said.

Militants have fired more than 100 rockets at Israel since Monday night, the Israeli military said on Twitter on Tuesday.

Overnight, Israel ramped up its airstrikes on Hamas in Gaza.

The Israeli military's Operation Protective Edge against Hamas has entered a "substantial phase," with airstrikes hitting around 50 targets, including militant houses and military compounds, Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told CNN.

"We are determined to restore a state of security," he said.

Hamas security sources reported at least 60 Israeli airstrikes across Gaza, including from F-16s, Apache helicopters and drones. At least 24 people were wounded, Palestinian medical sources in Gaza said.

Seven people have been killed in Gaza since Monday afternoon, including five in an airstrike on a vehicle, Palestinian medical sources said. Officials identified at least one as a Hamas militant. The latest deaths bring the total killed in Gaza since Sunday to 15, at least nine of them militants, according to Palestinian officials.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called on Israel to immediately stop its strikes, warning the operation would drag the region into instability.

Abbas said a truce was needed to "spare the innocent from mass destruction."

The two sides have been trading fire over Gaza's border with southern Israel as tensions spiral upward in the region.

The Israeli military has already called up several hundred reservists and is planning to recruit many more to strengthen its positions around Gaza "with a view to possible ground maneuvers," Lerner said Tuesday.

During the last offensive on Gaza in November 2012, 30,000 reservists were called up.

Flare-up in Israeli-Palestinian violence: Why now?

Long-range threat

Lerner said that Israel is prepared for the possible threat of long-range rocket fire.

Hamas is estimated to have 10,000 rockets of varying ranges, he said, including some that can reach as far as north as Tel Aviv and beyond.

"They have substantial armaments which can strike the soft underbelly of Israel," Lerner said.

Israel says the aim of its offensive is to strike Hamas in Gaza and stop rocket fire into Israel that threatens civilians.

"It's an unacceptable situation," Lerner said. "We're not willing just to let it go by, and we have to operate in order to protect them."

He said at an earlier news briefing that the Israel Defense Forces' position had changed from focusing on deescalation to preparing for a deterioration of the situation.

'Red lines' crossed

The conflict between the two sides has worsened in the past few days.

"The enemy has crossed the red lines and will be made to pay the price for its crimes," Mushir Al-Masri, a Hamas leadership figure and member of the Palestinian parliament, wrote on his Facebook page Monday. "The blood of our martyrs is precious ... and is fuel for the intifada and the resistance."

After that statement, the barrage of rockets from Gaza into Israel increased, with Hamas claiming responsibility.

Political strains

The conflict is creating strains within the governing coalition of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said in a news conference Monday that he told Netanyahu of his intention to dissolve his party's joint faction with Netanyahu's Likud party, saying it was "not working."

Lieberman criticized Netanyahu's handling of Gaza.

Tensions are also increasing between Hamas, which controls Gaza, and the more moderate Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Has the Middle East crisis reached a tipping point?

Killings of teenagers

The Gaza situation has deteriorated amid anger over the kidnappings and killings of Israeli and Palestinian teenagers.

The bodies of three Israeli teenagers, who had been missing for nearly three weeks, were found last week in a field in the West Bank. The Israeli government blamed Hamas for their deaths. The militant group had praised the kidnappings but denied it was responsible.

Two days after the Israelis' bodies were discovered, a Palestinian teenager, Mohammed Abu Khedair, was abducted near his home in east Jerusalem. His charred body was later found in a forest.

Israeli police have said there is a "strong indication" the Palestinian teenager's killers may have been motivated by a desire for revenge.

Suspects questioned

His death, condemned by leaders from both sides, sparked clashes between Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces in several areas of Jerusalem.

Police have questioned six suspects about what they did "before and during the murder" of Abu Khedair, Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said Monday.

Israeli authorities announced over the weekend that a taxi driver had confessed to killing an Israeli Jewish teen in May. Shelly Dadon, 19, was kidnapped, stabbed to death and left in an abandoned parking lot. The suspect's motivation was believed to be Palestinian nationalism, police said.

READ: Was teen's death a revenge killing?

READ: Palestinian teen burned alive, autopsy shows

READ: Relatives accuse Israeli forces of attacking, detaining U.S. teen

CNN's Diana Magnay reported from Jerusalem, and Ed Payne wrote from Atlanta. CNN's Kareem Khadder, Ben Wedeman and Jethro Mullen contributed to this report.

 

Five things you need to know
7/8/2014 5:21:16 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • "The blood is up. You have got retaliation," a Middle East expert warns
  • Analysts say the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas appears set to continue
  • But a broader Palestinian uprising against Israel seems less likely
  • Both sides are sinking into a confrontation they don't necessarily want, analysts say

(CNN) -- The violent cycle of retribution and retaliation only seems to be worsening.

As militants fire volleys of rockets from Gaza, Israel is responding with waves of airstrikes.

As Hamas vows to make its enemy pay the price, Israel is calling up hundreds of recruits and strengthening its positions around Gaza.

Tensions between Palestinians and Israelis have always simmered in plain view, erupting periodically into deadly spasms.

Could it be happening again?

"I do not want to over-dramatize, but the last few hours may have been, God forbid, the tipping point," Ari Shavit, a prominent Israeli author and journalist, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Monday night.

"What we see is different sides who do not want escalation ... they are dragged into something that is becoming very violent, very dangerous."

Israel prepared to expand operation against Hamas in Gaza

'The blood is up'

Long-standing resentments have boiled over in recent weeks following the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank, which Israel blamed on Hamas. The militant group praised the abductions but denied responsibility.

Israel responded by cracking down on Hamas operations in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of activists and conducting widespread searches of homes.

When the three teenagers' bodies were found last week in a field in the West Bank, anger erupted in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Hamas would pay.

The mood darkened further when a Palestinian teenager was abducted and killed in Jerusalem in what police say could be a revenge killing. The news sparked clashes between protesting Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces in Jerusalem.

Throughout that grim week, Israel and Hamas continued to trade fire across the Gaza border.

"You have got politics. The blood is up. You have got retaliation," said Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

'Clouds are getting dark'

The region has many depressing precedents when it comes to violence.

In recent decades, Palestinians launched two armed uprisings against Israel, known as Intifadas, that each went on for years.

In late 2008 and early 2009, Israel carried out airstrikes and then a ground offensive against Hamas in Gaza that killed hundreds of Palestinians.

In November 2012, the two sides fought a bloody eight-day conflict that ended in a cease-fire.

The region appears to be careering toward another confrontation.

"It's difficult to see how this stops. At what point does one of the sides say, 'You know what? Let's have a moment where we make a preemptive concession, we do some kind of peace talks,'" said CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

"That's not in the cards right now."

The Israeli military is nonetheless gathering its forces near the border with Gaza.

"They are talking about an escalation," said CNN's Ben Wedeman. "Perhaps not on the scale of November 2012 or the war at the end of 2008, beginning of 2009, but definitely there's a feeling that the clouds are getting dark over Gaza and things could get much worse."

On Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said the security operation against Hamas "will probably not end within several days." And the Israeli military was gathering its forces near the border with Gaza.

"They are talking about an escalation," said CNN's Ben Wedeman. "Perhaps not on the scale of November 2012 or the war at the end of 2008, beginning of 2009, but definitely there's a feeling that the clouds are getting dark over Gaza and things could get much worse."

'I still think no'

There are reasons why violence may not engulf the whole region.

Although clashes flared in some areas of Jerusalem after the killing of the Palestinian teenager last week, the unrest doesn't so far appear to be spreading.

The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz reported that "many East Jerusalem officials expect the turmoil to die down." It noted that West Bank cities have not joined the violent protests.

"Are we on the tipping point of a third Intifada? A major sustained escalation?" Miller asked in a conversation with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I still think no."

Palestinian people are "far more interested in social-economic issues," Miller said.

"They know the pain and suffering caused by the second Intifada that achieved very little. And even Hamas, I suspect, weakened by the fact that they don't have much support from Egypt or Turkey, bad governance, economic mismanagement in Gaza, I'm not sure they are prepared for sustained battle either."

'No angels here'

Shavit said that since the collapse of U.S.-sponsored peace talks earlier this year, Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have failed to halt the descent into crisis.

"What we see in recent months is that the extremists on both sides are taking the agenda and are actually cornering these two leaders and actually dragging us into conflict," he said.

He faulted Netanyahu for failing to control hardliners in his government and not acting in time against violent Jewish nationalists.

But Shavit also criticized Abbas for agreeing to a pact with Hamas after years of divisions between the two factions.

"There are no angels here," Shavit said.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also has to face tough questions about the unraveling situation.

"Some of us here warned a few months ago ... that the moment you try to have peace in this land, the way Secretary Kerry did in a courageous way, you cannot step back," Shavit said.

"And from the moment that negotiations collapsed in late March, this illusion that you can go back to Washington, deal with China and Ukraine and ignore the Middle East, was a dangerous illusion."

Role for U.S.?

Now, it appears tricky for the United States to play a role in calming the situation.

"I'm not sure, frankly, that the Secretary of State wants or should put himself in a situation right now of trying to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas," Miller said. The U.S. government lists Hamas as a terrorist organization.

During the 2012 conflict in Gaza, Egypt brokered the cease-fire.

But that was under Islamist-backed former President Mohamed Morsy, who has since been ousted and replaced by the country's former military chief Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

The new Egyptian president has "very poor" relations with Hamas, according to Zakaria. And in the current climate, "I don't think an outside mediator is going to help," he said.

Even Hamas has been losing support to more radical elements in recent years, Zakaria said, which has put the movement under pressure to act.

"On both sides, there is an internal compulsion, an internal dynamic which is pushing them to a confrontation that maybe they don't rationally want," he said.

And those who will pay the price for the unwanted conflict are likely to be the civilians of Gaza and southern Israel.

Why is this flare-up happening now?

 

Inside Operation Protective Edge
7/8/2014 5:06:44 AM

Israel Defense Forces say they are are targeting Hamas and calling the action "Operation Protective Edge."

If your browser has Adobe Flash Player installed, click above to play. Otherwise, click below.

 

How to be a World Cup referee
7/7/2014 10:12:34 AM

Australia's Tim Cahill appeals to the linesman after a disallowed goal during the Group B match between Chile and Australia at Arena Pantanal on June 13, 2014 in Cuiaba, Brazil.
Australia's Tim Cahill appeals to the linesman after a disallowed goal during the Group B match between Chile and Australia at Arena Pantanal on June 13, 2014 in Cuiaba, Brazil.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Aden Marwa is Kenya's first linesman to officiate at a World Cup
  • He reveals the levels of fitness referees must have in order to officiate at the highest level
  • When not on the pitch, he can often be focuses on technical training, match analysis
  • "Football is my life, football has made my life change a big deal," he tells CNN

Editor's note: African Voices is a weekly show that highlights Africa's most engaging personalities, exploring the lives and passions of people who rarely open themselves up to the camera. Follow the team on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Kenya's national football team may not have made it to the World Cup Finals in Brazil -- but one man will be there for his African nation.

Stepping into the role of representing Kenya is Aden Marwa, the country's first linesman to officiate at the beautiful game's biggest event.

"Football is my life, football has made my life change a big deal," Marwa tells CNN.

Like many a young boy, Marwa became obsessed with football, often walking vast distances so he could get to a TV to watch a match. Yet despite his passion for the game, he wanted nothing to do with refereeing and for good reason.

"Those times it was hard because a match would hardly finish without a referee being beaten," he explains. "The fans were rowdy and you know, the facilities were not very good."

Read: Rwanda's first female pilot takes off

"You were playing in open fields so the referee could be attacked anytime so when I could see that as a young boy, I didn't love it. So I was scared."

However, by the time Marwa became a linesman in 1998 at the age of 21, the game had changed dramatically as more resources and education had been funneled into the sport.

"Once you decide you want to become a football referee there are three pillars. One is your medical fitness, two is your physical fitness and then three, the technical fitness, so these can not be compromised."

READ: Tanzania's most decorated athlete

The challenge that we have as referees, the biggest one, is how to place yourself at the right position and the right moment to make that very important, crucial decision.
Aden Marwa, Kenyan referee

By 2006, the ambitious referee got his big break refereeing a game in the Kenyan Premier League before making his international debut as an assistant referee for FIFA just two years later.

Today he holds the accolade of "best assistant referee" in the Kenyan Premier League and his talent has taken him to sun-kissed shores of South America for the 2014 World Cup, where he has been performing as a reserve assistant referee.

The 37-year-old knows this will be the biggest test of his career so far and is prepared to have the eyes of millions of football fans scrutinizing his every decision.

"Referees have to make decisions in the shortest time possible. I see it once but you, on TV, will see it and see a replay and you can even pause with technology and even review," he says.

"As a referee I only have one angle to look at that ... so the challenge that we have as referees, the biggest one, is how to place yourself at the right position and the right moment to make that very important, crucial decision."

Check out the video below to find out how Marwa prepared for his greatest moment to date and earned his dream job officiating at this year's World Cup.

READ: Rwanda's first female pilot takes off

READ: Tanzania's most decorated athlete

 

Now, Pope must act
7/7/2014 5:28:45 PM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Heidi Schlumpf: Pope Francis met with victims of clergy sexual abuse, begged forgiveness
  • She says apology good, but he must do more to make amends with victims, all Catholics
  • She says Vatican steps positive; Pope should remove Kansas City bishop who covered up
  • Schlumpf: Victims' groups want more action; if they can forgive, they are ones to be commended

Editor's note: Heidi Schlumpf is a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter and teaches communication at Aurora University. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- After meeting Monday with six victims of sexual abuse by clergy members, Pope Francis apologized for the crimes committed against them and begged forgiveness "for the sins of omission on the part of church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse."

Apologies are all well and good, but this one brings to mind two trite but true sayings: "Too little, too late" and "Actions speak louder than words." Unfortunately, Francis has more to do so that future popes won't have to keep saying "I'm sorry" for these crimes and the Catholic Church's cover-up.

Heidi Schlumpf
Heidi Schlumpf

This is not to downplay the important symbolism of public apologies from the church's top leader. Indeed, Francis seems sincere and acknowledges the complicity of the institutional church in the cover-up, not just the actions of individual men.

But Francis is not the first pope to meet with sex abuse victims or even the first to offer an official apology for what has to be one of the gravest evils in the church. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, met on several occasions with victims, including during a trip to the United States. After one such meeting, he also issued a formal apology, saying he was "deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured."

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

In comparison, Francis' apology, given during a lengthy homily, was more extensive, emphasizing the psychological and spiritual pain victims have endured and noting that these "despicable actions" had been "camouflaged with a complicity that cannot be explained."

It also was better than his, "Yes, but ..." apology earlier this year, when he mentioned that abusers were "quite a few in number, though not compared to the total number" of priests, after earlier complaining about how the church had been unfairly singled out for the problem of sexual abuse of minors.

Given the enormity of this problem facing the Catholic Church, however, victims' rights groups are correct in expressing disappointment with how long it took for the new Pope to meet with them (16 months into his pontificate). In March, editors of the National Catholic Reporter, which has been covering sex abuse by clergy for nearly three decades, implored the Pope in an open letter to make meeting with victims a priority.

As someone who clearly understands the significance of his actions -- everything from his choice of attire to whose feet he washes on Holy Thursday -- Francis should have met with victims much sooner than this.

Still, Monday's apology seems to be part of more significant movements in the Vatican, including the naming of a victim to a new panel to address sex abuse and the recent defrocking of a Polish archbishop and papal ambassador accused of paying for sex with minors.

But there is much more to be done, starting with the removal of Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn, who has been found guilty of failing to report suspicions of child abuse to police or state child welfare authorities. The diocese has recently been ordered to pay $1.1 million for violating terms of an earlier contract of reparations.

Of course, a good apology includes not only acknowledgment of personal and/or corporate responsibility for the victim's pain, but also a promise to fix things, or at least to not continue to inflict that pain. The church is finally, after decades of denying or minimizing victims' pain, accepting responsibility. But we're not yet there on fixing things.

That's why victims' rights groups are understandably frustrated by the molasses-like pace of the church on this issue. Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, applauded the courage of the victims who met with Francis on Monday but complained about the need for more decisive action.

"The Pope says the church should 'make reparations' to victims. That's secondary. Stopping abuse and protecting children comes first. And sadly, no child on earth is safer today because of this meeting," she wrote in a statement.

Here's another saying: "To err is human; to forgive, divine." If that's true, it will be the victims who will be the real saints, not the apologizers.

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

 

Iraq: Stability from split?
7/7/2014 1:35:32 PM

The main obstacle to a peaceful settlement in Iraq is the absence of oil in Sunni areas in the west.
The main obstacle to a peaceful settlement in Iraq is the absence of oil in Sunni areas in the west.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Division of Iraq into ethnic regions looks more likely than ever before
  • Iraq experts say cycle of violence is hardening sectarian divide -- wrecking chance of negotiated separation
  • Sunni areas in west would not be economically viable unless they received oil revenues from other regions
  • Independent Sunni region, free from discrimination by majority Shia government, might escape extremist rule

(CNN) -- Iraq is tearing itself apart. Its government has lost control of large parts of the country; intercommunal violence is rife and al Qaeda is resurgent. A description not of 2014 but 2006 -- and a situation that led Joseph R. Biden, then a U.S. Senator and now Vice President, to argue that it was time to split Iraq into three parts: Kurdish, Shia and Sunni.

Biden and Leslie Gelb, in an op-ed for the New York Times, looked to Bosnia as the modern precedent, which they asserted had been preserved by "paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies."

It was a formula, they believed, that could work in Iraq.

"The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues." So ran the argument.

The Biden/Gelb plan was endorsed by the U.S. Senate in 2007 but ignored by the Bush Administration. Seven years later, the division of Iraq into ethnic regions looks more likely than ever. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) holds much of western and northern Iraq, including the city of Mosul, and the Kurdish leadership is pressing ahead with plans for a referendum as a likely step towards a unilateral declaration of independence.

Ramzy Mardini, an Iraq expert at the Atlantic Council, says: "The basic equation is this: ISIS provokes Shiites, Shiites overreact and generalize their response against Sunnis, and more Sunnis come to support ISIS. It's a vicious circle, with each cycle hardening the sectarian divide."

For that reason, the chances of a negotiated separation have evaporated.

"Biden often saw Iraq through the lens of the former Yugoslavia, [but] borders can't come from pencil and paper," Mardini told CNN. "It would have to come out of ethnic war."

"Iraq is a state that has always been governed under authoritarian rule. Assuming it can suddenly pivot to a federal, democratic system is naive, not only about the history of Iraq, but about the political system of federalism in general. Federalism is a complicated and sophisticated framework."

Among the many obstacles to a negotiated break-up, Sunni areas in the west would not be economically viable unless they received a share of oil revenues from other regions; theirs is the only part of Iraq not sitting on lakes of oil.

There are also few natural borders, and plenty of areas -- especially Baghdad and Diyala province -- where the different communities live cheek by jowl. Sunnis would not agree to Kurdish rule of the mixed city of Kirkuk.

"For a decade now, they have been unable to pass a revenue-sharing and oil law," Mardini says. "How will you get Shiite Iraq to share their revenues with Sunni Iraq? And how do you get the Iraqis to agree on the borders of the regions? That would require political settlements on all disputed territories - and we know how hard it has been to do that for the last decade."

Iraq is a state that has always been governed under authoritarian rule
Iraq expert Ramzy Mardini

A redrawing of the map, whether at a conference or through conflict, would have a huge impact on the region. Turkey, Iran and Syria -- all of which have their own Kurdish minorities -- would be wary of an oil-rich Kurdish state on their borders.

The Shiite part of Iraq would most likely become closely integrated with Iran, giving Tehran much more leverage over Iraq's oil industry. "The unity of Iraq has been a major core interest for the United States for a reason," Mardini says. "Without the Sunnis and Kurds as a part of Iraq, then there's not much to help balance out the influence Iran has in the country's national oil politics."

On the other hand, an independent Sunni region -- one that no longer felt discriminated against by a majority Shia government -- might be saved from falling into extremist hands. The Sunnis would have no incentive to turn to a jihadist group like ISIS as an ally if they had no enemy in Baghdad. Equally, they might make common cause with Syria's Sunnis. Many of the tribes live both sides of the border.

The collapse of Iraq raises the specter of mass migration and violence of the sort that accompanied the birth of India and Pakistan. It is a real danger, but the current situation has already driven thousands of people from their homes; hundreds more have been killed.

Some historians argue that Iraq was never really a country anyway, more a colonial confection like British India, and we are now seeing the inevitable consequence.

How Iran is pushing U.S. aside in Iraq

The Rest Is History

In the early 20th century, tribes were paramount in the vast Arabian deserts. The arbitrary carve-up of Arabia began with the Sykes Picot agreement in 1916, with the French taking the mandate to govern Syria and Lebanon, and the British what was then Palestine and Iraq. In 1919 the League of Nations rubber-stamped French and British administration of vast areas of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

Iraq's borders were created at a conference in Cairo in 1921, largely thanks to Winston Churchill and T E Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia), who were among about 40 British officials gathered at the Semiramis Palace on the Nile. They effectively invented Iraq, setting up Faisal bin Hussein as the king of a new country. Faisal was a Sunni and a Hashemite who wasn't even from Iraq. British policy was to promote the interests of the Sunni and other minorities as a counter-balance to the Shia majority -- and expel troublesome Shia clergy, all tools that Saddam Hussein would find useful a half-century later.

Against the advice of several experts, the new Iraq included the Kurdish-dominated province of Mosul, as a buffer against both Turkey and Russia (soon to become the Soviet Union.)

One of the senior advisers at the Cairo Conference was Gertrude Bell, an indomitable traveler who knew many of the region's tribal sheikhs. Bell -- and many since -- underestimated the power of the Shia clergy. And she over-estimated the power of British rule. She told Jafar al Askari, who would become Prime Minister of the young Iraq, that "complete independence is what we ultimately wish to give."

"My lady," al Askari replied, "complete independence is never given; it is always taken" -- words that may have a new resonance in Iraq today.

READ: How ISIS is overshadowing al Qaeda

READ: Europe's threat from jihadists in Iraq and Syria

 

Iran pushing U.S. aside in Iraq?
7/7/2014 11:34:31 AM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Writers: Iran, Russia aid to Iraq imperils U.S. call for al-Maliki to make Iraq government inclusive
  • Thus Al-Maliki is less likely to leave or to stop shunning Sunnis, they say
  • They say Iran helps al-Maliki return "worst of the worst" to key positions to oppress Sunnis
  • Writers: Tehran will see reforms U.S. wants as limits on Iranian influence

Editor's note: Derek Harvey is a former senior intelligence official who worked on Iraq from 2003-09, including numerous assignments in Baghdad. Michael Pregent is a former U.S. Army officer and former senior intelligence analyst who worked on Iraq from 2003-11, including in Mosul in 2005-06 and Baghdad in 2007-10. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

(CNN) -- United States leaders have rightly said that defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and resolving Iraq's deepening civil war will require urgent political change in Baghdad. But the military assistance that Iran and Russia are speeding to Shiite groups in Iraq imperils that change.

It now appears that a majority of Iraq's political parties and Shiite religious authorities blame Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's authoritarian tendencies and exclusion of mainstream Sunni groups for the crisis, and they seek his replacement as the starting point for resolving it.

View my Flipboard Magazine.

But just as this political majority has begun to form against him, Iran and Russia have extended al-Maliki material and political support that insulates him from domestic political pressure and may even embolden him to try to stay on.

Iran now is in a position to direct Shiite militia mobilization and integration into Iraqi security operations and to shape Iraq's military and intelligence operations through Iran's Quds Force advisers. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin's decisive action to provide attack aircraft, trainers and advisers further bolsters the Prime Minister's position.

Now, al-Maliki can argue that he has international backing to rid his country of this "terrorist" threat by any means necessary. In fact, al-Maliki still enjoys more domestic and international legitimacy than Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, had when the Syrian civil war began three years ago.

Al-Maliki will surely amplify the significance of this weekend's purported public appearance of the notorious leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in Mosul to argue that the "Islamic caliphate" is a clear and present danger that supersedes the need to form a unity government. He will probably argue that only he can attack the caliphate threat as commander in chief and that it has to be done now, not after a protracted government formation process. He will also probably urge Iran to quiet Shiite opposition to his premiership so that he can perform the urgent work of commander in chief.

Already, the security and political situation is bleak, and unfortunately, the Prime Minister is in denial about his role in creating the Sunni Revolt and fostering the rise of the Caliphate, previously known as the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. After eight years in power, al-Maliki has not shown that he can distinguish between actual threats and imagined ones.

His often-irrational fear of a Baathist return to power led him to employ an authoritarian sectarian agenda and to marginalize constructive but squabbling Sunni Arab political elites, all of which alienated the broader Sunni community and set the stage for ISIS gains.

An unconstrained al-Maliki seeks to crush Sunni Arab communities, which is what he wanted to do in 2007-2008. During the "surge" period of 2007-08, al-Maliki repeatedly asked for U.S. air power and artillery capabilities to pound Sunni neighborhoods (both of which he was denied) while vehemently protesting the use of precision munitions in Shiite militia-controlled areas.

When the International Zone received mortar fire from Sunni neighborhoods, the Baghdad Operations commander, Gen. Abud Qanbar, told coalition advisers that the Prime Minister wanted to teach the Sunni neighborhoods not to let terrorists launch mortars and rockets from their streets. These brutal tendencies are sure to come into the open again now that al-Maliki has the backing of Iran, Syria and Russia, all known for harsh tactics against civilian populations.

If al-Maliki can survive the next few weeks in power, he will probably feel free to take harsh measures against the Sunni Arab community, as he believes that he is free of U.S. constraints for the first time. Given his inclinations and fears, al-Maliki may think that he has great latitude to see most problems as nails to be dealt with by Shiite hammers and that he only has to stop short of al-Assad's atrocities and abuses -- the use of chemical weapons or 200,000 casualties -- if the Syrian experience is an indicator of what will be tolerated by the U.S. and the international community.

A defiant al-Maliki -- with the support of Iran, Syria and Russia and absent U.S. constraints -- will aggressively target Sunni Arabs, who in his view are active supporters of ISIS.

Unfortunately, al-Maliki's removal would not diminish the influence of Iran and Tehran's Shiite militias. Iran will continue to be the key determinant of Iraqi policy and politics for Iraq's Shiite parties and Shiite militias regardless of the prime minister. Iran is skilled in power politics and in asserting Iranian prerogatives. Iranian strategic goals depend on an acquiescent and accommodating Iraqi government. If Iran were to pressure al-Maliki to step down, he would surely be replaced by someone Iran could influence.

One name that is on any short list to replace al-Maliki is Tariq Najim Abdullah, an al-Maliki loyalist who as a member of his State of Law party could be expected to continue the sectarian approach to security issues and the marginalization of his political rivals, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite alike.

Regardless of who the next Shiite prime minister will be, the sectarian actors responsible for executing al-Maliki's heavy-handed tactics against the Sunni population in 2006-09 are now back in key positions. We have seen a return of the "worst of the worst," the very same actors the U.S. urged al-Maliki to remove and charge criminally before 2010.

Although many maligned sectarian actors were reassigned or promoted out of key positions in Baghdad to safe positions in southern Iraq, it seems these sectarian enforcers have returned to the fight, with the al-Maliki government's blessing.

Meanwhile, U.S influence and leverage with al-Maliki and other Shiite leaders is waning, if not altogether gone. It began to wane in 2010 when the U.S. ceded our leverage in favor of "smart power," believing that reasonable Iraqi minds would prevail. The U.S. treated Iraq as a sovereign government and did not interfere with al-Maliki's decisions to use the Accountability and Justice Law (PDF) to marginalize and remove political rivals, to politicize the Iraqi Security Forces by replacing effective commanders with al-Maliki loyalists, and to renege on his promises to integrate the Sunni Awakening movement -- the so-called Sons of Iraq -- into the ministries and security forces.

While the U.S. watched, the Iranians pressured al-Maliki not to sign the 2011 Status of Forces Agreement and backed his sectarian agenda of sidelining and arresting political rivals.

Iran's strategic goals and dominant position, orchestrated by Quds commander Qassem Soleimani, will ensure that any Iraqi prime minister responds to Tehran's core interests. Tehran's steadfast support for Syria's al-Assad shows al-Maliki the reliability and commitment of Iran to its clients.

We should view Iranian statements about an inclusive government with Sunni and Kurdish politicians as mere window dressing. The reality is that Tehran will not permit the steps necessary for fundamental constitutional reforms, power-sharing and checks on the Prime Minister's control over the security forces and intelligence apparatus. Tehran will see any such reforms as limits on Iranian influence, something the Iranians will not let happen.

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

 

Germans cautiously optimistic
7/7/2014 8:06:00 PM

German fans are cautiously optimistic as they await their semi-final match against Brazil. CNN's Fred Pleitgen reports.

If your browser has Adobe Flash Player installed, click above to play. Otherwise, click below.

 

Rockets fly as Israel calls up extra reservists
7/7/2014 10:22:42 PM

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • "Operation Protective Edge is underway," says Israeli spokesman
  • IDF calls up several hundred reservists, is prepared to add 1,500 more
  • Eight Palestinians are killed by Israeli airstrikes, rocket attacks
  • Police have arrested six Israeli suspects over the killing of a Palestinian teenager

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Rockets flew between Israel and Hamas as tensions in the region continue their upward climb.

Hamas security sources reported at least 60 Israeli airstrikes across Gaza on Monday night into Tuesday, including from F-16s, Apache helicopters and drones. The sources said at least 10 people were injured.

"Operation Protective Edge is underway. Targeting #Hamas capabilities that are terrorizing #Israel," Israel Defense Forces spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner tweeted.

The position of the IDF has changed, the spokesman said at an earlier news briefing. Last week they were focused on de-escalation, but now Israel is preparing for a possible deterioration of the situation, he said.

Lerner said the IDF has already called up several hundred reservists and is prepared to add 1,500 more. During the last offensive on Gaza in November 2012, 30,000 reservists were called up.

Eight Palestinian militants were killed in more than 25 Israeli airstrikes and 39 rocket attacks across Gaza on Sunday night into Monday, said Ashraf Al-Qidra, a spokesman for the Health Ministry in Gaza. At least 15 people were injured, he said.

CNN originally reported nine killed but the death toll was lowered because one man believed to have been killed in a tunnel in Rafah was found to be alive and in critical condition.

"The enemy has crossed the red lines and will be made to pay the price for its crimes," Mushir Al-Masri, a Hamas leadership figure and member of the Palestinian parliament, wrote on his Facebook page. "The blood of our martyrs is precious ... and is fuel for the intifada and the resistance."

After that statement, 70 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, with Hamas claiming responsibility.

Israeli air raid sirens were heard near Yavne in central Israel as militants in Gaza stepped up their attacks. At least one person was wounded by shrapnel in Ashdod, according to Israeli rescuer services.

In another tweet, Lerner said that all summer camps, kindergartens and schools within a roughly 25 mile (40 kilometer) radius of Gaza have been forbidden because of the threat of rockets.

Suspects questioned

The escalation of military action comes after the slaying of a Palestinian teenager, which was perhaps an act of retaliation for the killing of three Israeli teens earlier.

Israeli police have questioned six suspects about what they did "before and during the murder" of the Palestinian teen who was abducted and burned to death, Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

Naftali Schwartzburger, the lawyer of one of the six suspects, said on CNN affiliate Israeli Channel 2 on Monday that Israeli police conducted re-enactments of the killing of Mohammed Abu Khedair.

Flare-up in Israeli-Palestinian violence: Why now?

The fallout from the slayings might damage Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political future.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beiteinu party, said in a press conference Monday that he told Netanyahu of his intention to dissolve his party's joint faction with Netanyahu's Likud party, saying it was "not working." Lieberman criticized Netanyahu's handling of Gaza.

Netanyahu on Monday spoke with the father of the Palestinian teenager who was burned alive in Jerusalem last week, expressing shock at what he called an "abhorrent" murder.

As anger continues to boil over the death of 16-year-old Abu Khedair, Netanyahu talked by phone with Hussein Abu Khedair, telling him that the killers will be brought to trial and "will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law."

Police have said there is a "strong indication" the attackers may have been motivated by a desire for revenge over the deaths of the three Israeli teenagers, whose bodies were found a week ago in a field in the West Bank.

"Israel stands thoroughly against this. We promised to investigate. We promised to bring the perpetrators of that crime to justice and guess what? We delivered. We've done exactly that," said Mark Regev, spokesman for Netanyahu.

The teen's father said later Monday that he did not recall speaking with the Prime Minister.

"I was up until 5 a.m. this morning and tried to go to sleep around then," Hussein Abu Khedair said. "Around 7 or 7:30, I started getting phone calls from many Hebrew speaking people. I was tired and could not make out what or who I spoke to. I can't recall speaking to Netanyahu."

In a region that has experienced decades of fighting and mistrust, the past week's events have still managed to shock -- and to further embitter relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Israeli police also announced Sunday a confession in the killing of a Jewish Israeli teen a month ago. Shelly Dadon, 19, was kidnapped and stabbed to death by an Arab Israeli taxi driver, who has now provided details of the killing, according to Rosenfeld.

'Stop this disgusting cycle of violence'

Meanwhile, the Abu Khedair family is irate over the treatment by Israeli police of one of the burning victim's cousins, an American high school student.

Relatives say Tariq Abu Khdeir, a 15-year-old high school sophomore from Florida, was beaten while being detained amid protests over his cousin's death. (The American branch of the family uses a different spelling of the family surname.)

Khdeir, who was in Jerusalem to visit family during his summer vacation, was released on bail Sunday. The magistrate court ordered that he stay under house arrest for nine days at a relative's house in a different neighborhood from the family home.

"We're extremely concerned that he's under house arrest right now without really facing any legitimate charges that have been made public, and that those who beat him apparently are walking free," his family attorney said Monday, speaking from Florida.

Senior State Department officials told CNN that the United States was instrumental in securing the release of the youth.

Senior officials in the Obama administration said they were shocked at two videos in which Khdeir was seen being held down and pummeled by men in the uniform of Israeli security forces, the officials said.

The officials said they expect Tariq will be able to return home to Florida with his family in the next few weeks.

Israeli authorities say Khdeir was part of a group of youths who attacked police.

Shelly Dadon, a 19-year-old Israeli Jew, was killed in May. Israel says an Arab taxi driver confessed.
Shelly Dadon, a 19-year-old Israeli Jew, was killed in May. Israel says an Arab taxi driver confessed.

"From what I understand about the facts of the case, this is not just an innocent bystander who was pulled off of a schoolyard," Israel's ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, told "Fox News Sunday." "He was with six other people. They were masked. They threw petrol bombs and Molotov cocktails at our police. Three of them had knives. ... That does not excuse any excessive use of force, and our Justice Ministry is opening an investigation."

But State Department officials questioned Dermer's remarks.

"They are investigating whether he was throwing rocks," another senior State Department official said. "Even if he was, the question is, was this the right response to that? Obviously we don't think so."

Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, agreed.

"This is no excuse for this sort of behavior and we're currently investigating it. It's not the police investigating themselves. We've initiated an impartial, objective, independent inquiry into exactly what happened," he said.

'Demolish their houses'

Abu Khedair's mother, Suha, said she wants equal justice for the people who abducted him in the early morning as he was heading from his home to a mosque for prayers. He died after being burned alive and hit on the head with a blunt object, authorities say.

"If they sentence them and demolish their houses and give them life sentences, it might satisfy me a little," Suha Abu Khedair said.

The Israeli military destroyed the homes of the two main suspects in the killings of the three Israeli teenagers. Those suspects are still at large.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has called on the United Nations to set up an international investigation into recent crimes against Palestinian people, including the killing of Abu Khedair, the Palestinian state news agency WAFA reported.

Officials from both sides have called for restraint amid fears that the cycle of horrific violence could continue.

READ: Was teen's death a revenge killing?

READ: Palestinian teen burned alive, autopsy shows

READ: Relatives accuse Israeli forces of attacking, detaining U.S. teen

CNN's Ben Wedeman and Kareem Khadder reported from Jerusalem; CNN's Jethro Mullen reported and wrote from Hong Kong. CNN's Michael Schwartz, Diana Magnay, Holly Yan, Jake Tapper, Josh Levs, Steve Almasy and Talal Abu Rahma contributed to this report.

 

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at feedmyinbox.com

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

No comments:

Post a Comment