Residents of the South and Midwest braced for another round of severe weather on Wednesday, only hours after at least 14 people were killed in a series of storms that struck portions of Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, including a tornado that killed five people near Oklahoma City.

“We are looking for a widespread tornado outbreak,” said Walt Zaleski, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. “There is the very high potential for tornadoes, hail and damaging winds.”

Mr. Zaleski said tornadoes could reach speeds of 200 miles per hour in an area that includes western Tennessee, northeastern Arkansas, southern Illinois, western Kentucky, southeastern Missouri and southern Indiana.

Because the storms are expected to hit after nightfall, officials warned residents they should not wait to see a tornado before taking cover. In addition to tornadoes, the storm system is likely to bring with it hail the size of golf balls or larger and straight line winds in excess of 60 miles per hour, Mr. Zaleski said.

The previous round of storms, which started Tuesday and did not let up until early Wednesday, were the latest in a spate of violent weather that has ravaged much of the Midwest and South this spring and killed several hundred people.

The Oklahoma tornado, the largest and most severe of the most recent storms, struck around midday Tuesday, touching down in Caddo County before sweeping into Canadian County, where it devastated El Reno, a town of 15,000 people about 25 miles west of downtown Oklahoma City, officials said.

At least five people were killed and officials said the number could rise Wednesday as rescue teams searched through the rubble of houses, businesses and churches in the area. Among the dead was a 15 month old, officials said.

Five people died in Canadian County, two in Logan County and one in the Grady County town of Chickasha, where a woman died when a tornado hit a mobile-home park, said Cherokee Ballard, a spokeswoman for the Oklahoma medical examiner. Each of the three counties is in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area.

At least 60 people were injured across central Oklahoma, many along the Interstate 40 corridor that runs past El Reno. The tornado left a trail of shredded and overturned cars along I-40, destroyed livestock, set off a gas line explosion and spurred people across El Reno to evacuate their homes.

On Wednesday, about 70,000 people remained without electricity in Oklahoma.

Amy Brandley, the Canadian County flood plain manager, said emergency crews had only just begun to assess the damage.

“Our county commissioner’s crews are out with heavy equipment clearing roads right now so search and rescues can take place,” she said.

In Kansas, two people died when winds blew a tree into their van near St. John, about 100 miles west of Wichita, the authorities said..

And in Arkansas, at leas four people died in storms, including one killed by a tornado in Franklin County, said Tommy Jackson, spokesman for the state Department of Emergency Management. Other tornadoes were reported in Texas near Springtown and Azle, just northwest of Fort Worth, and near Muenster, 65 miles north of Fort Worth. The Texas tornadoes caused no injuries.

Even the National Weather Service was not immune to the danger. Earlier in the day, its Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla., about 20 miles south of downtown Oklahoma City, had to be evacuated as one of the day’s tornadoes approached.

• German champion did not use the Kers system
• Lewis Hamilton lines up third with Jenson Button fifth

WASHINGTON — Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama on Thursday publicly called for the borders prevailing before the 1967 Israeli-Arab war to be the baseline for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the first time an American president has explicitly taken that position.

“At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent that ever,” he said.

Although Mr. Obama said that “the core issues” dividing Israelis and Palestinians remained to be negotiated, including the searing questions of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, he spoke with striking frustration that efforts to support an agreement had so far failed. “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome,” he said.

His decision to put the United States formally on record as supporting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state marks a subtle — but, for the contentious Israeli-Palestinian peace process, potentially important — shift by the United States a step closer to the position of the Palestinians.

The shift is vital to the Palestinians because it means the Americans implicitly back their view that new Israeli settlement construction would have to be reversed — or compensated for — in talks over the borders for a new Palestinians state.

The outline for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement came in what the president called “a moment of opportunity” after six months of political upheaval that has at times left the administration scrambling to keep up. The speech was an attempt to articulate a cohesive American policy to an Arab Spring that took a dark turn as the euphoria of popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gave way to violent crackdowns in Bahrain and Syria, a civil war in Libya and political stalemate in Yemen.

It required a delicate balance, reaffirming support for democratic aspirations in a region where America’s strategic interests have routinely trumped its values. While Mr. Obama pushed for Hosni Mubarak’s exit in Egypt, he has backed up the Bahraini royal family’s effort to cling to power. While he called for the resignation of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and supported a bombing campaign against Libya with that ultimate goal, he vacillated as Bashar al-Assad of Syria turned tanks and troops on his people, authorizing sanctions against him only on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama said the events in the region reflected an inexorable desire for democracy that nations — both friend and foe of the United States — could not suppress. He bluntly warned Mr. Assad that Syria would face increasing isolation if he did not respond to those demanding a transition to democracy, though again, he stopped short of explicitly calling for his removal.

“President Assad now has a choice,” Mr. Obama said. “He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.”

He was no less blunt in the case of Bahrain, a close ally that has brutally cracked down on protests there. “The only was forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail,” he said in one of the few phrases that drew applause from an audience that included State Department officials, lawmakers, military commanders and Arab diplomats.

Mr. Obama, in his remarks, reaffirmed that the Middle East is a complex place, where different countries demand different responses, though he affirmed that America’s support for democracy should undergird its policies. It was a marked contrast to his landmark speech in Cairo in June 2009, when he addressed himself to the Islamic world as a whole, trying to heal a rift with the United States.

He conceded bluntly that the United States had not been a central actor in the uprisings, but he sought to cast America’s role in the Middle East in a new context now that the war in Iraq is winding down and Osama bin Laden has been killed, in part, a primary goal of the war that began in Afghanistan nearly a decade ago.

Mr. Obama’s aides and speechwriters labored on his remarks until the last hours before he delivered it in the stately Benjamin Franklin Dining Room on the eighth floor of the State Department.

Until the end, for example, his aides debated how Mr. Obama would address the conflict that has fueled Arab anger for decades: the division between Israelis and Palestinians. A senior administration official said that Mr. Obama’s advisers remained deeply divided over whether he should formally endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state.

A sweeping Israeli victory over Egypt and other Arab neighbors in a six-day war that year expanded Israeli control over territory in the West Bank and Gaza inhabited by millions of Palestinians, creating a greater Israel, including all of the capital, Jerusalem, but one overseeing a resentful occupied population.

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” he said. “The Palestinian must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in sovereign and contiguous state.”

Mr. Obama’s words were a strong signal that the United States expected Israel — as well as the Palestinians — to make concessions to restart peace talks that have been stalled since September.

“Precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel, too, must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”

At the same time, he emphasized that no peace agreement should be allowed to jeopardize Israel’s security, to which he declared the United States had an “unshakable commitment.”

Mr. Obama is to meet Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the White House on Friday against the backdrop of the region’s tumult, which reached Israel itself on Sunday when thousands of Palestinians stormed border crossings from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. The Arab uprisings have sharpened security concerns in Israel, intensified animus toward it and given momentum to global recognition of a Palestinian state.

In a statement issued in Jerusalem after the speech, Mr. Netanyahu called the pre-1967 borders of Israel “indefensible,” The Associated Press reported.

Much of the president’s dwelt on the security threats to Israel, and his specific reference to a “nonmilitarized” Palestinian state seemed likely to dismay Palestinians, who have long said that such matters should be decided in negotiations. He also warned Palestinians that their campaign to seek recognition in a vote of the United Nations General Assembly in September would not be constructive.

And he warned that the recent unity agreement between two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, raised “profound and legitimate questions from Israel.”

“How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist,” he said, referring to Hamas, which the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. “In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”

American and Israeli officials are struggling to balance national security interests against the need to adapt to a transformative movement in the Arab world. Mr. Netanyahu prepared to arrive in Washington with a package that he hoped would shift the burden of restarting the peace process to the Palestinians.

The debate around Mr. Obama’s remarks, which the White House has billed as a major address, is made even more significant since the speech will serve as the beginning of what promises to be several intense days of debate over American policy in the region, its support for Palestinian statehood, and how far Mr. Obama is willing to push Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr. Netanyahu plans to spend four days in Washington, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, on Sunday and a joint session of Congress next week. Mr. Netanyahu, his aides say, is planning to tell Mr. Obama that Israel wants to keep a military presence along the Jordan River and sovereignty over Jerusalem and the settlement blocs — three major stumbling blocks for the Palestinians — but that it would be willing to negotiate away the rest of the West Bank, more territory than Mr. Netanyahu has been willing to specify in the past.

It might have been dismissed practically out-of-hand by F1 commercial rights-holder Bernie Ecclestone, but News Corporation’s purported interest in gaining control of the sport from current majority owners CVC Capital Partners has seemingly revved up another gear with the revelation that an American ’boutique merchant bank’ has come on-board. 

The grand prix paddock has been abuzz in recent weeks with talk that Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire is evaluating making a bid to seize the F1 reins, and News Corp has confirmed the speculation – adding that a somewhat controversial partner in the consortium is Exor, an Italian financial holding majority-owned by the same Agnelli family as wields a controlling stake in FIAT and therefore, by extension, Ferrari. There have also been rumours about the possible involvement of TELMEX billionaire Carlos Slim. 

The latest development, according to SPEED.com, is that the New York-based Raine Group LLC is interested in joining the potential buy-in. Co-founder and CEO Jeff Sine was previously associated with F1 sponsor UBS, and Sky News reports that he has made contact with News Corp and Exor regarding a possible investment. The Financial Times claims Raine – affiliated with similarly New York-based global sports and media company IMG – has $500 million available to spend on sports, media and entertainment acquisitions. 

One of Raine’s investors, intriguingly, is Abu Dhabi-based Mubadala, which owns a sizeable stake of Mercedes Grand Prix and has links to Ferrari – making it a powerful backer indeed. Amongst Raine’s most prominent financiers include Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, former Facebook president Sean Parker, ex-Yahoo chief executive Terry Semel and Netscape founder Marc Andreesen. Erstwhile Goldman Sachs partner Joe Ravitch is also a key player, whilst several Hollywood stars have investments in the bank. 

Leading representatives from F1 2011 front-runners Red Bull Racing, McLaren-Mercedes, Ferrari and Mercedes Grand Prix are all expected to meet with News Corp and Exor in Stuttgart tomorrow (Saturday) – but FIA President Jean Todt has admitted that he is somewhat bemused by the fact that the whole matter has been made so public and revealed that the governing body has the ability to veto any sale. 

“The FIA is the regulator of the sport and is not involved with commercial matters,” the Frenchman underlined. “F1 commercial rights belong to CVC, and from what I know, CVC has no intention to sell. If it will be true in five years, ten years, honestly it’s not a question for me, it’s a question for CVC. 

“If one day, CVC decide that they want to sell the rights they have for the commercial organisation of F1, as President of the FIA – if I am still by then the president – I need to speak with my people in the FIA to give the agreement whether we’re happy with the people who will take over or we are not happy. 

“I feel it’s strange [for someone] to say ‘we want to buy’ before [they] know it’s for sale. I think the first action would be for whoever is keen to take over the commercial rights to find out with CVC what is the situation. First, CVC must be willing to sell – and for the time being, CVC doesn’t want to sell.” 

As to Exor’s Ferrari link, meanwhile, the Scuderia’s former team principal was unequivocal – and in the wake of Ecclestone hitting out at teams for ostensibly being willing to entertain the prospect of new owners for F1, Todt stressed, simply, that ‘we would all be stronger if we worked together instead of against each other’.

“Exor is the family company of the major shareholder of the FIAT Group,” he explained. “You have other examples in F1 where you have some organisers who are shareholders of some teams. For me, as President of the FIA, we would all be stronger if we worked together instead of against each other. It’s a fact of life, and it’s what I’ve been trying to do since I am head of the FIA.” 

Meanwhile, sceptical ex-F1 team owner Eddie Jordan has echoed Ecclestone in casting doubt upon the sincerity of the News Corp/Exor bid, contending that the consortium would need to find some £7 billion to successfully complete a takeover – one of a whole series of obstacles. 

Whilst acknowledging that the interest is ‘complimentary to the sport’, the Irishman pointed out that Formula One Management (FOM) chief executive Ecclestone has ‘delivered to each and every one of the teams financial stability’ – and as such, Murdoch would need to demonstrate that he could do the same since at the end of the day, ‘F1 is fuelled by money’. 

Another potential stumbling-block, opined the BBC F1 pundit, is the present stipulation under the terms of the governing Concorde Agreement and European law that the sport must be broadcast on free-to-air television, whereas News Corp-owned BskyB operates according to a pay-per-view model. 

“Sky has got to put on the table where they think they can match the equivalent of the BBC, and at this moment in time, it’s hard to see where that is,” Jordan toldJeff Randall Live, adding in an interview with the Beeb: “I feel this is just a little bit of posturing. I’m still concerned as to how it can become effectual. The EU has been promised by Bernie Ecclestone in the past, and in the Concorde Agreement, that everything on TV would be free-to-air. 

“If News Corp can find a way around that, then possibly I’ll take this more seriously. [Also] there is no Concorde Agreement after 2012. That needs to be negotiated, because you’d have to say [to] the future purchasers, what are they actually buying? What rights do they have?” 

 

Copyright. 2011Crashnet.com  All Rights Reserved