11 killed in mass shooting in Virginia; suspect gunned down

London: There will be no normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel until an independent Palestinian state is established, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the former head of the Kingdom’s intelligence services, has warned. 

During a talk at London-based think tank Chatham House, the former Saudi ambassador to the US also discussed Washington’s role in the peace process as the Gaza war approaches its first anniversary, and how talks before the outbreak of hostilities had been broadly positive.

He said the US is keen on the resumption of talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia to strengthen regional security and to forge economic ties, but Riyadh’s position is that “if there’s a Palestinian state that Israel accepts to come (into) existence, then we can talk about normalization with Israel.”

The prince added: “Before Oct. 7 … talks not only progressed along those lines, but also the Kingdom invited a Palestinian delegation to come and talk directly to the Americans about what it is that might bring about a Palestinian state.

“I’m not privy to those talks so I don’t know what happened between the Palestinians and the Americans, but the Kingdom’s position has always been we won’t speak for the Palestinians. They have to do it for themselves. Unfortunately, of course, the Oct. 7 (Hamas attack against Israel) put an end to those talks.”

Prince Turki said the establishment of a Palestinian state is not only crucial for Israeli ties with Saudi Arabia but with the rest of the Muslim world as well.

“A Palestinian state is a primary condition for Saudi Arabia to have normalization with Israel, but … on the Israeli side, the whole government is saying no Palestinian state,” he added.

Prince Turki said for Saudi Arabia, an independent Palestine would encapsulate the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.

He added that the Kingdom has led the way in trying to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict, citing the 1981 King Fahd Peace Plan and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative proposed by King Abdullah.

During the current Gaza war, “the Kingdom led the Muslim world, and not only summits with the Arabs but with the (rest of the) Muslim world, and also … the diplomatic missions that have been taking place to convince the world that there must be an end to the fighting, led by the Saudi foreign minister,” Prince Turki said.

“The Kingdom has been in the forefront of condemning the Israeli onslaught on the Palestinians, not just in Gaza but equally in the West Bank.”

He criticized the US and other Western nations for not applying more pressure on Israel to end the war, citing how the UK had only recently begun to suspend certain arms export licenses to Israel following the election of a new government in July.

“I’d like to see more done by the UK,” he said. “I think, for example, the UK … should recognize the state of Palestine. It’s long overdue.”

Prince Turki said the US could apply direct pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the actions of his government and military, and should address funding and lobbying by groups and individuals sympathetic to Israel.

“I think the US has enormous tools to affect Israel which it isn’t using, not just simply … denial of supply of weapons and material to the Israelis,” the prince added.

“A lot of financial help goes to Israel from the US. If some of the privileges that (the) Israeli lobby, for example, in America, enjoys — of tax-free contributions to Israel — can be withdrawn from those Israeli lobbyists, that will (put) great pressure on Israel.”

In the US, “you have to register as a lobbyist for a specific country, or be prosecuted, if you want to talk for that country, but a lot of organizations in America do that for Israel and still enjoy a tax-free status because they’re considered not representing Israel per se, but simply as philanthropic or humanitarian groupings,” he said.

“There are many tools that are available to the US, not simply harsh talk, which seems to have gotten us nowhere. But is America ready to do that? As I said, I’m not too optimistic about that.”

New Delhi, Sep 12: Madrasas are "unsuitable" places for children to receive "proper education" and the education imparted there is "not comprehensive" and is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has told the Supreme Court.

The child rights body told the top court that children, who are not in formal schooling system, are deprived of their fundamental right to elementary education, including entitlements such as midday meal, uniform etc.

The NCPCR said madrassas merely teaching from a few NCERT books in the curriculum is a "mere guise" in the name of imparting education and does not ensure that the children are receiving formal and quality education.

"A madrassa is not only a unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'proper' education but also in absence of entitlements as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act," it said.

"Further, madrasas do not only render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working which is wholly in absence of a standardised curriculum and functioning," the NCPCR said in its written submissions filed before the top court.

The child rights body stated that due to the absence of provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the madrassas are also deprived of entitlement as in Section 21 of the Act of 2009.

"A madrassa works in an arbitrary manner and runs in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It cannot be overlooked that a child getting education in such an Institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum which is provided in a school.

"A school is defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, 2009, which means any recognised school imparting elementary education. A madrassa being out of this definition has no right to compel children or their families to receive madrassa education," the NCPCR said.

It said most of the madrassas fail to provide a holistic environment to students, including planning social events, or extracurricular activities for 'experiential learning.

In a breather to about 17 lakh madrassa students, the apex court on April 5 had stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court that scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had issued notices to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the pleas against the high court order.

The top court said had the high court "prima facie" misconstrued the provisions of the Act, which does not provide for any religious instruction.

The high court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system.

The high court had declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore.

It had said the state has "no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it."

"We hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution," the high court had said.

The petitioner had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrassas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice Srishananda during a recent court hearing. Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.