EDITOR: Even lying needs to be done professionally…
You would have thought that Israel would be the world expert in lying and creative fictions. It seems, however, that like the rest of their operations in the last decade, the lying operations have also got less and less professional. It will be impossible to enumerate here all the lies spouted by the Creative Writing dept. of the IOF, but one by one, the chickens come home to roost. One of the more disgusting fictions was the cooking of the Mavi Marmara recording, to include the line “Go back to Auschwitz”. That someone thought that this was either acceptable to lie like that, or that it would be accepted, id in itself a mark of the moral and social degradation of this criminalised and militarised society, and its deeply psychotic behaviour.
Israel is adept at inventing antisemitism in situation where it is not on offer freely. This time, it exceeded itself – Israel is actually acting to produce antisemitism the world over, not just by its continuing and escalating war-crimes, but also by the ‘efficient’ Habara – the lie machine; by exposing more and more of the lies and false accusations, Israel is producing an atmosphere in which Jews will automatically be identified with those crimes and their coverup by foul means. This poses grave danger to Jewish communities everywhere, a danger they are not yet fully cognisant of, or prefer to ignore for the time being.
For Israel, this emerging anti-Israel sentiment, which can easily become antisemitic if used by right wing elements, is most welcome. After all, Zionism is based on the single premise that Jews cannot, and should not, live amongst non-Jews. No doubt some Zionist leaders in Israel are looking forward to the increase in immigration to Israel as a result of the rise in antisemitism. Antisemitism has always been the Recruiting Sergeant for Zionism.
Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla: The Guardian
Israeli government press office distributed video link featuring Arabs and activists singing
The Israeli government has been forced to apologise for circulating a spoof video mocking activists aboard the Gaza flotilla, nine of who were shot dead by Israeli forces last week.
The YouTube clip, set to the tune of the 1985 charity single We Are the World, features Israelis dressed as Arabs and activists, waving weapons while singing: “We con the world, we con the people. We’ll make them all believe the IDF (Israel Defence Force) is Jack the Ripper.”
It continues: “There’s no people dying, so the best that we can do is create the biggest bluff of all.”
The Israeli government press office distributed the video link to foreign journalists at the weekend, but within hours emailed them an apology, saying it had been an error. Press office director Danny Seaman said the video did not reflect official state opinion, but in his personal capacity he thought it was “fantastic”.
Government spokesman Mark Regev said the video reflected how Israelis felt about the incident. “I called my kids in to watch it because I thought it was funny,” he said. “It is what Israelis feel. But the government has nothing to do with it.”
The clip features a group led by the Jerusalem Post’s deputy managing editor Caroline Glick, wearing keffiyehs and calling themselves the Flotilla Choir. The footage is interspersed with clips from the recent Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound aid ship, the Mavi Marmara.
The clip has been praised in Israel, where the mass-circulation daily Yediot Aharonot said the singers “defended Israel better than any of the experts”.
But Didi Remez, an Israeli who runs the liberal-left news analysis blog Coteret, said the clip was “repulsive” and reflected how out of touch Israeli opinion was with the rest of the world. “It shows a complete lack of understanding of how the incident is being perceived abroad,” he said. Award-winning Israeli journalist Meron Rapoport said the clip demonstrated prejudice against Muslims. “It’s roughly done, not very sophisticated, anti-Muslim – and childish for the government to be behind such a clip,” he said.
A similar press office email was sent to foreign journalists two weeks ago, recommending a gourmet restaurant and Olympic-sized swimming pool in Gaza to highlight Israel’s claim there is no humanitarian crisis there. Journalists who complained the email was in poor taste were told they had “no sense of humour”.
Last week, the Israel Defence Force had to issue a retraction over an audio clip it had claimed was a conversation between Israeli naval officials and people on the Mavi Marmara, in which an activist told soldiers to “go back to Auschwitz”. The clip was carried by Israeli and international press, but today the army released a “clarification/correction”, explaining that it had edited the footage and that it was not clear who had made the comment.
The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida “mercenaries” aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson’s website with the headline: “Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries”, was later changed to “Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers,” with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation.
While the debate over accounts of the flotilla raid continues, Israel is facing more boycotting. In the past week, three international acts, including the US rock band the Pixies, have cancelled concerts in Tel Aviv.
Best-settling authors Alice Walker and Iain Banks have backed the boycott campaign, with Banks announcing his books won’t be translated into Hebrew. Dockworker unions in Sweden and South Africa have refused to handle Israeli ships, while the UK’s Unite union just passed a motion to boycott Israeli companies.
• This article was amended on 7 June 2010. The original referred to Didi Remez as a female. This has been corrected.
Israel and the aid convoy: How to make enemies: The Guardian
Israel’s defiant reaction to the raid on the Gaza aid convoy is almost as appalling as the attack itself
When sovereign states make mistakes, they promise impartial inquiries, they express remorse to the families of the bereaved, they apologise. Not Binyamin Netanyahu’s government. Almost as appalling as the commando raid itself, in which nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed on an aid convoy bound for Gaza, has been Israel’s official reaction to it. The policy was to shoot first and discredit the victims later. On a video posted online by the Jerusalem Post, Mr Netanyahu said: “This wasn’t a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren’t pacifists, they weren’t peace activists, these were violent supporters of terrorism.” The government press office emailed foreign journalists a satirical clip entitled “Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World”, before withdrawing it and saying the film’s content did not reflect the official stance of Israel. To cap it all, the Israeli prime minister yesterday rejected calls for an international inquiry.
The format of the inquiry proposed by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon would have favoured Israel, because Israeli and US representatives would have sat alongside Turkish ones, whose nationals were the commando raid’s principal victims. The proposed chairman of the inquiry would have been the former prime minister of New Zealand, Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law. No Richard Goldstone he. But even this proposal was too much for Mr Netanyahu, who along with his defence minister Ehud Barak, refused point blank to allow any foreigner to interrogate Israeli officers and soldiers.
As the Winograd commission showed in its investigation into the 2006 Lebanese war, Israeli judges are more than capable of bringing their politicians and military to book. But this is not an internal Israeli matter. The commando raid was carried out in international waters, 77 miles off the coast of Gaza, where Israel has no legal entitlement. Its fatal victims were eight Turkish and one US national, and 30 other nationalities were involved as well.
There are real questions to answer, such as testimony that shots were fired before the commandos hit the deck of the Mavi Marmara, that the victims had multiple gunshot wounds to the head, apparently contradicting the claim that commandos only fired in self-defence. There is also testimony that backs the claim that soldiers were seized and stripped of their weapons before others stormed aboard. This evidence is unlikely to be tested by an Israeli inquiry and the rest of the world, particularly the Muslim one, will conclude that it is because Israeli commanders have something to hide.
Turkey is unlikely to take the shooting of its citizens lying down. Even less so, now that the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman has branded the Turkish prime minister Reccep Erdogan an Islamic extremist. This week Istanbul will host a Eurasian security summit, attended by eight presidents, which will rapidly turn into an international forum for condemning Israel and its illegal siege of Gaza. Alienating not only 72 million Turks, but the only Muslim member of Nato, will have repercussions for Israel that spread far and wide. Day by day, Israel is isolating itself both from international law and world opinion.
The cost of underwriting the self-destructive behaviour of its strategic partner in the Middle East is starting to mount exponentially in Washington. Both Barack Obama and General David Petraeus have adversely linked the Arab-Israeli conflict to America’s own security interests. First came Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to stop construction in Arab East Jerusalem; now Israel has picked a fight with a key Muslim ally. Israel’s refusal to accept an international inquiry will only add weight to the view that it has become a strategic liability to the interests of the country that guarantees its survival. Mr Netanyahu would be foolish to assume that Mr Obama is not drawing the same conclusion.
Israel rejects multinational inquiry into flotilla attack: The Guardian
UN-proposed commission into flotilla raid is dismissed as global pressure grows for Israel to ease its blockade of Gaza
Israeli soldiers stand behind a Turkish flag, held by activists during a protest against the Israeli naval commando raid on a flotilla attempting to break the blockade on Gaza. Photograph: Abed Al Hashlamoun/EPA
Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, today dismissed a UN proposal for an international commission to investigate last week’s assault on a flotilla of aid ships.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, proposed a commission of inquiry headed by the former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, who is an expert in maritime law. The commission would include representatives of Israel, the US and Turkey. All nine activists killed in the operation were Turkish; one held joint US citizenship.
Ban discussed the plan with Netanyahu, who later briefed party colleagues on the call, saying: “We need to consider the issue carefully and level-headedly while monitoring Israel’s national interests.”
Israel would not react or take decisions under the pressure of events, an official who was present at the meeting said.
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was more explicit: “We are rejecting an international commission. We are discussing with the Obama administration a way in which our inquiry will take place,” he said.
Despite global condemnation of last week’s raid and demands for a thorough and impartial investigation and an easing of Israel’s blockade on Gaza, there was no discussion of the issues at today’s cabinet meeting.
Important decisions relating to security issues are usually taken by a smaller security council, rather than full Israeli cabinet. However, according to the official, there are no firm plans for the smaller group to meet.
Israel is also pursuing compromise measures to deflect growing pressure to relax the blockade. Significantly, the US has added its voice to calls for a new policy, with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, describing the current siege as “unsustainable”.
Signs of divergent views within the cabinet came from Israel’s welfare minister, Isaac Herzog, who called for the siege policy to be reconsidered. “The time has come to do away with the blockade, ease the restrictions on the inhabitants and find another alternative,” he said.
The government claims it has indicated a willingness for greater flexibility in the amount and type of aid it allows into Gaza through land crossings, but insists it will maintain its naval blockade for security reasons.
“The policy was not static. It was moving anyway [before the flotilla] and we will continue to move,” an official said.
Aid agencies say any relaxation of the blockade has been minimal and the current situation is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the 80% of Gazans dependent on international aid.
Britain’s shadow foreign secretary, David Miliband, described the isolation of Gaza as “a stain on policy right across the Middle East”. “I think there have been a series of deadly and self-defeating actions by successive Israeli governments in respect of Gaza,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
The UK today announced a £19m donation of aid to Gaza.
Israel’s hard line on future shipping aid convoys could be as tested as early as this week after two organisations pledged to send boats carrying aid to Gaza in the next few days. Reporters Without Borders was attempting to assemble 25 European activists and 50 journalists for a boat leaving Beirut. The Free Palestine Movement was planning a similar operation.
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who was the subject of fresh vitriol in the Israeli media today – had raised the idea of personally joining an aid ship to Gaza, according to Lebanese media reports. Turkey last week recalled its ambassador to Israel.
Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, today insisted that “it is inconceivable that we should apologise to the Turkish government”. He hinted that Turkey was heading in the same direction as Iran, saying Iran had been a “good friend” to Israel in the 1970s. This was echoed by his deputy, Danny Ayalon, who said: “If they sever relations, it is clear they are switching sides in the direction of extremist Islam.”
The 19 passengers and crew who were on board the aid ship the Rachel Corrie when it was forcibly diverted to the Israeli port of Ashdod are due to arrive in Ireland tomorrow after being deported from Israel.
The Israeli government, still battling for the dominance of its version of events surrounding the flotilla assault, attempted to draw a distinction between the Rachel Corrie and the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish vessel that was the scene of last week’s bloodshed. “The entire world saw the difference between a humanitarian flotilla and a hate flotilla by violent, terrorism supporting extremists,” Netanyahu told party colleagues.
The US rock band Pixies cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv in protest at last week’s bloodshed. The decision followed similar moves by Klaxons and Gorillaz. Authors Alice Walker and Iain Banks have backed the boycott, with Banks saying his books will not be translated into Hebrew.
Dockworker unions in Sweden and South Africa have refused to handle Israeli ships, while the UK’s Unite union passed a motion to boycott Israeli companies.
EDITOR: A voice in the wilderness…
The editorials in Haaretz have become more and more desperate, and more radical than ever. Unfortunately, this exception proves the rule – the Israeli media is, on the whole, servile and unprofessional, and accepts the IDF’s pronouncements as facts, when most of the time those are crude fabrications. In time, this attitude of the Israeli media, like that of the rest of the social elites, will bring about its decomposition and breakdown. For now, the flag-waving is going on.
Dangerous incitement: Haaretz Editorial
Arab citizens may be the direct victims of government policy and the atmosphere in the Knesset, but all of society will pay the price of the devastation that will result.
Of all the damage done by the botched takeover of the Mavi Marmara, one aspect is particularly serious: the further erosion of the relationship between the State of Israel and its Arab citizens, and between Jews and Arabs in Israel in general.
While decisions were made concerning the flotilla to Gaza, the prime minister, his ministers and his spokesmen knew that on board the Mavi Marmara were a number of Arab Israeli public figures, including a Knesset member and a political-religious leader. However, they took no particular precautions. Apparently, no voice of reason was heard, asking that MK Hanin Zuabi and Sheikh Ra’ad Salah not be turned into heroes. But the intimidation and incitement against them were even more egregious.
Even sworn opponents of Zuabi and her political path should be deeply concerned by Interior Minister Eli Yishai’s proposal to revoke her citizenship and by the formulation of a bill demanding her expulsion from the legislature. The very wording of the bill – calling for “ousting a sitting Knesset member if the member was involved in the action of an enemy country or in incitement against the State of Israel” – shows ignorance with regard to the limits of protest in a democracy (Turkey is not an enemy country; political critique is not incitement ) and, at worst, reflects a trend aimed specifically at silencing Arabs.
This trend is surfacing in most of the parties in the Knesset, with the enthusiastic encouragement of most ministers, above all Yishai, who continually lashes out against Arabs. Some of the unrestrained statements by lawmakers on the right and the center and their distorted initiatives – such as the attempt to deny pensions to Arab MKs who are seen as “betraying the state,” even if they were not tried – are enough to persuade one that the flotilla debacle served those people as a pretext to ratchet up the delegitimization of Israel’s Arab citizens and brand them as traitors.
Avigdor Lieberman is not alone: His work, of inciting against Israel’s Arab community, is now being done by many of the MKs who signed the “Zuabi bill.” In addition to the dubious loyalty legislation that has been proposed, this instance of incitement brings Israel to an unprecedented low. Arab citizens may be the direct victims of government policy and the atmosphere in the Knesset, but all of society will pay the price of the devastation that will result.
Israeli navy kills four Palestinians off Gaza coast: The Guardian
Men wearing diving suits were on their way to carry out an attack in Israel, claims military spokesman
At least four Palestinians were killed when Israeli navy commandos opened fire on what they said was a squad of militants in diving suits off the coast of Gaza today.
The Palestinians “were on their way to carry out an attack in Israel”, a military spokesman said.
The spokesman declined to give any further details about how the military had identified the men or what they had been doing in the sea.
The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a militant offshoot of Fatah, said the men killed were members of its marine unit and had been training. One Palestinian was missing, and there were no Israeli casualties.
The attack follows a week in which the Israeli navy has faced international criticism for its assault on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship in a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, in which nine activists were killed.
An anonymous military official told Israel’s army radio yesterday: “This will be a shot in the arm for the commandos after the hard week they have been through.”
Today’s incident was followed by an air strike on what the military spokesman described as “terrorists trying to fire rockets into Israel” from the northern Gaza Strip.
He could not confirm casualties, although at least one Palestinian was believed to have been seriously injured.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said: “The bloody escalation today is a desperate attempt by the occupation government to divert the world attention away from the massacre committed against the flotilla.”
Israel today released a list of five passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara whom it accused of having links with al-Qaida, Hamas and other militant organisations.
A statement from the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) named Ken O’Keefe, who it said was a US and British citizen, as a “radical anti-Israel activist and operative of the Hamas terror organisation”.
“He attempted to enter the Gaza Strip in order to form and train a commando unit for the Palestinian terror organisation,” the statement said.
The British Foreign Office said O’Keefe did not have UK citizenship, while his website says he renounced his US citizenship on 1 March 2001.
O’Keefe, due to be deported to Ireland by Israel after attempting to reach Gaza on the Mavi Marmara, rejected the charges as “slanderous”.
The IDF said the other passengers with alleged terrorist links were Fatimah Mahmadi, a US resident; two Turkish citizens, Hassan Iynasi and Hussein Urosh; and a French citizen, Ahmad Ummimon.
According to Israeli media reports, the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has held at least half a dozen telephone conversations with world leaders over the past few days. He has faced intense pressure to agree to an international commission of inquiry into the assault on the aid flotilla.
The Israeli government is keen to deflect an international investigation, preferring an internal inquiry, possibly with limited US representation.
EDITOR: Israel is moving fast to a fully-fledged fascist regime
In deciding to recommend this undemocratic act, Israel is now fast moving away from the last vestiges of the show of democracy, towards a racist and fascist apartheid regime.
Knesset panel recommends revoking Arab MK’s privileges: Haaretz
Decision to strip Balad MK Hanin Zuabi of privileges over Gaza flotilla participation passed by a majority of seven to one; Zuabi to Haaretz: We are victims of a witch hunt.
The Knesset’s House Committee on Monday recommended revoking the privileges of Israeli Arab MK Hanin Zuabi, after she participated in last week’s Gaza-bound aid flotilla which resulted in an IDF raid that killed nine activists.
The decision was passed by a majority of seven to one, with MK Ilan Gilon of Meretz opposing.
The Knesset committee recommended rescinding from Zuabi three key privileges usually granted to Knesset Members. One is the privilege to exit the country – which is supposed to prevent Zoabi from fleeing Israel if she commits a felony or has debts in Israel.
Another privilege is carrying a diplomatic passport, which according to the Knesset’s legal adviser, is a privilege that does not grant diplomatic immunity so revoking it would not make it more difficult for Zuabi to fulfill her duties.
The third privilege is the right to have the Knesset cover litigation fees of an MK if he or she is put on trial.
The revocation of Zuabi’s privileges is conditional on the approval of the Knesset plenum.
Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin decided to hold off on discussing the issue in next week’s Knesset plenum. Rivlin, who has opposed the move from the beginning, said he wants to study the decision and to receive the advice of the Knesset’s and government’s legal advisers.
The Balad party on Monday condemned the Knesset’s decision to strip Zuabi of her privileges.
“The decision is racist and anti-democratic,” Balad said in a statement. “The MKs who incite against Zuabi spill her blood – they are calling on the public to harm her and following their decision, her life will be threatened. These MKs will be responsible for any harm that may be caused to her.”
Earlier on Monday, Zuabi told Haaretz that the members of her Israeli Arab party have been victims of a witch hunt following the Gaza flotilla affair.
Zuabi told Haaretz that the Knesset discussion, which she and members of her party boycotted, erodes the boundaries of democracy. Zuabi said, however, that the Israeli media emphasizes the protests against her, while in reality, she has received wide support from the Israeli public.
“I receive messages from people that I don’t even know who understand what I have been saying for months – that Balad party members have been victims of a witch hunt,” Zuabi told Haaretz.
Likud MK Yariv Levin, who serves as chairman of the Knesset House Committee, said before the discussion that Hanin Zuabi betrayed the State of Israel and she must be put on trial.
“What Zuabi did crossed the line and even in a democracy there must be red lines. Whoever sails to Hamas is a supporter of terror,” said Levin.
EDITOR: And after passing this resolution, they all celebrated with drinks. Unbelievable footage, looking like an antisemitic invention. But it is true…
The Committee members having a drink to celebrate
Ilan Pappé: The deadly closing of the Israeli mind: The Independent
The decline in Israel’s reputation since the brutal attack on the Gaza flotilla is unlikely to influence the country’s leaders
Sunday, 6 June 2010
At the top of Israel’s political and military systems stand two men, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, who are behind the brutal attack on the Gaza flotilla that shocked the world but that seemed to be hailed as a pure act of self-defence by the Israeli public.
Although they come from the left (Defence minister Barak from the Labour Party) and the right (Prime Minister Netanyahu from Likkud) of Israeli politics, their thinking on Gaza in general and on the flotilla in particular is informed by the same history and identical worldview.
At one time, Ehud Barak was Benjamin Netanyahu’s commanding officer in the Israeli equivalent of the SAS. More precisely, they served in a similar unit to the one sent to assault the Turkish ship last week. Their perception of the reality in the Gaza Strip is shared by other leading members of the Israeli political and military elite, and is widely supported by the Jewish electorate at home.
And it is a simple take on reality. Hamas, although the only government in the Arab world elected democratically by the people, has to be eliminated as a political as well as a military force. This is not only because it continues the struggle against the 40-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by launching primitive missiles into Israel – more often than not in retaliation to an Israel killing of its activists in the West Bank. But it is mainly due to its political opposition for the kind of “peace” Israel wants to impose on the Palestinians.
The forced peace is not negotiable as far as the Israeli political elite is concerned, and it offers the Palestinians a limited control and sovereignty in the Gaza Strip and in parts of the West Bank. The Palestinians are asked to give up their struggle for self-determination and liberation in return for the establishment of three small Bantustans under tight Israeli control and supervision.
The official thinking in Israel, therefore, is that Hamas is a formidable obstacle for the imposition of such a peace. And thus the declared strategy is straightforward: starving and strangulating into submission the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the densest space in the world.
The blockade imposed in 2006 is supposed to lead the Gazans to replace the current Palestinian government with one which would accept Israel’s dictate – or at least would be part of the more dormant Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. In the meantime,Hamas captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and so the blockade became tighter. It included a ban of the most elementary commodities without which human beings find it difficult to survive. For want of food and medicine, for want of cement and petrol, the people of Gaza live in conditions that international bodies and agencies described as catastrophic and criminal.
As in the case of the flotilla, there are alternative ways for releasing the captive soldier, such as swapping the thousands of political prisons Israel is holding with Shalit. Many of them are children, and quite a few are being held without trial. The Israelis have dragged their feet in negotiations over such a swap, which are not likely to bear fruit in the foreseeable future.
But Barak and Netanyahu, and those around them, know too well that the blockade on Gaza is not going to produce any change in the position of the Hamas and one should give credit to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who remarked at Prime Minister’s Questions last week that the Israelis’ policy, in fact, strengthens, rather than weakens, the Hamas hold on Gaza. But this strategy, despite its declared aim, is not meant to succeed or at least no one is worried in Jerusalem if it continues to be fruitless and futile.
One would have thought that Israel’s drastic decline in international reputation would prompt new thinking by its leaders. But the responses to the attack on the flotilla in the past few days indicate clearly that there is no hope for any significant shift in the official position. A firm commitment to continue the blockade, and a heroes’ welcome to the soldiers who pirated the ship in the Mediterranean, show that the same politics would continue for a long time.
This is not surprising. The Barak-Netanyahu-Avigdor Lieberman government does not know any other way of responding to the reality in Palestine and Israel. The use of brutal force to impose your will and a hectic propaganda machine that describes it as self-defence, while demonising the half-starved people in Gaza and those who come to their aid as terrorists, is the only possible course for these politicians. The terrible consequences in human death and suffering of this determination do not concern them, nor does international condemnation.
The real, unlike the declared, strategy is to continue this state of affairs. As long as the international community is complacent, the Arab world impotent and Gaza contained, Israel can still have a thriving economy and an electorate that regards the dominance of the army in its life, the continued conflict and the oppression of the Palestinians as the exclusive past, the present and future reality of life in Israel. The US vice-president Joe Biden was humiliated by the Israelis recently when they announced the building of 1,600 new homes in the disputed Ramat Shlomo district of Jerusalem, on the day he arrived to try to freeze the settlement policy. But his unconditional support now for the latest Israeli action makes the leaders and their electorate feel vindicated.
It would be wrong, however, to assume that American support and a feeble European response to Israeli criminal policies such as one pursued in Gaza are the main reasons for the protracted blockade and strangulation of Gaza. What is probably most difficult to explain to readers around the world is how deeply these perceptions and attitudes are grounded in the Israeli psyche and mentality. And it is indeed difficult to comprehend how diametrically opposed are the common reactions in the UK, for instance, to such events to the emotions that it triggers inside the Israeli Jewish society.
The international response is based on the assumption that more forthcoming Palestinian concessions and a continued dialogue with the Israeli political elite will produce a new reality on the ground. The official discourse in the West is that a very reasonable and attainable solution is just around the corner if all sides would make one final effort: the two-state solution.
Nothing is further from the truth than this optimistic scenario. The only version of this solution that is acceptable to Israel is the one that both the tamed Palestine Authority in Ramallah and the more assertive Hamas in Gaza could never ever accept. It is an offer to imprison the Palestinians in stateless enclaves in return for ending their struggle.
Thus even before one discusses either an alternative solution – a single democratic state for all, which I support – or explores a more plausible, two-state settlement, one has to transform fundamentally the Israeli official and public mindset. This mentality is the principal barrier to a peaceful reconciliation in the torn land of Israel and Palestine.
Professor Ilan Pappé directs the European Centre for Palestine Studies at Exeter University and is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Pixies cancel Israel gig following Gaza raid: The Guardian
US band call off their debut performance in Israel, saying ‘events beyond our control have conspired against us’
‘We extend our deepest apologies to fans’ … Black Francis of Pixies. Photograph: Nigel Treblin/AFP/Getty Images
Pixies have cancelled their first-ever performance in Israel, citing “events beyond our control”. Although the US band did not give a reason for the cancellation, organisers said it was linked to Israel’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last week.
“The decision was not reached easily,” the band said. “We all know well the Israeli fans have been waiting for this visit for far too long. We’d like to extend our deepest apologies to the fans but events beyond all our control have conspired against us.”
Pixies were due to perform on 9 June, headlining the second night of the Pic.Nic festival. They are not the first group to call off their appearance at Tel Aviv’s Expo grounds. Both Klaxons and Gorillaz DJs pulled out last week, without giving reasons for their decision. Editorsand Israeli duo Carusella are still scheduled to perform, and English band Placebo went ahead with their show on Pic.Nic’s first night (5 June). “It’s important to [endorse] Israel these days,” an Israeli journalist remarked in a pre-concert interview with Placebo. “I suppose so,” joked frontman Brian Molko, with an awkward laugh, “You know, if you decide to go sailing.”
In the early hours of 31 May, Israeli commandos launched a raid on six ships carrying aid materials to Gaza. Nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed and dozens were injured in the melee, which took place in international waters, 40 miles from shore. Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the soldiers were defending themselves, but has opposed an international inquiry.
Even before the events of last week, Pixies were one of several western acts targeted by Israeli human rights activists advocating an artistic boycott of their country. “As much as some of us are huge fans and would love to hear your show, we won’t cross the international picket line … to come and see you,” wrote the group Boycott Israel on 1 March. Singer Elvis Costello cancelled two gigs in Israel last month, calling it “a matter of instinct and conscience”.
Shuki Weiss, promoter of the Pic.Nic festival, called on Israeli authorities to “fight against those who are doing everything they can to prevent artists from performing in Israel”. “We can only hope for better days, in which we will finally present the long-awaited visit of the Pixies in Israel,” she said. Refunds for Wednesday’s concert will be available.
Despite the recent spate of cancellations, several high-profile performers have performed in Israel, including Metallica, Rihanna and Kool and the Gang. Acts such as Elton John and Rod Stewart are scheduled to play the country later this summer.
Israel: the third strategic threat: Open Democracy
Thomas Keenan and Eyal Weizman, 8 June 2010
Subjects:Conflict International politics Israel middle east conflicts democracy & power israel & palestine – old roads, new maps
Israel’s assault on an aid flotilla heading to Gaza is a decisive episode in the country’s challenge to international humanitarian law and its advocates. But it may have unexpected results, say Thomas Keenan & Eyal Weizman
About the authors
Eyal Weizman is an architect and director of the Centre for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths College, London. Among his books is Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation (Verso, 2007)
Thomas Keenan is director of the Human Rights Project at Bard College, New York, where he is associate professor of comparative literature
Many details remain to be established about the Israeli commando assault on the Mavi Marmara – the lead ship in a flotilla intent on carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip – in the early hours of 31 May 2010. But whatever the investigation of the incident ultimately reveals, the killing of nine human-rights activists is indicative of a dramatic recent transformation in Israel’s relationship to such individuals and the organisations they belong to.
Since human-rights workers and humanitarian groups. emerged in the field of international conflict, they have been the targets of repressive regimes or violent militias, who often interpret the provision of relief and assistance to civilians as intervention on behalf of the enemy. Aid convoys to the ”other side” have routinely been attacked or hijacked, staff kidnapped or killed, hos
pitals and compounds seized and destroyed. When shelter, medicine, and food are seen as interventions, it means that control over the conditions of civilian life has become one of the weapons in the conflict.
Humanitarianism is in a strict sense grounded in the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and commitment, first and foremost, to the civilian victims of conflict. However, aid workers are not always successful in convincing fighters of their independence, and sometimes themselves blur the border between support for victims and support of a political cause. Furthermore, when the pursuit of a military strategy (such as a state of siege) entails and/or is designed to affect the quality of civilian life, the provision of aid can become an element in a politico-military calculation. When aid is thus politicised it can easily become a target for all parties in a conflict. As Toni Pfanner of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) noted i
n 2005: ”recent attacks on humanitarian organisations, including the ICRC, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan have shown that humanitarian relief may be contrary to the belligerents’ interests or, even worse, that attacks on humanitarian workers may foster their agenda.”
But with very few exceptions, direct and intentional attacks on aid workers or human-rights advocates have hitherto been largely the work of undisciplined militias, ragged armies, criminal gangs, and police-states. The perpetrators have included the Taliban, the Bosnian Serb army, Iraqi insurgents, and the organisers of Latin America’s “dirty wars”. Now, with the lethal raid on the Mavi Marmara, is Israel in this respect following in their footsteps?
The double logic
To answer this question, it is necessary to rewind. The attack in the Mediterranean – albeit it was followed on 5 June by a non-violent prevention of the later attempt to deliver supplies to Gaza via the MV Rachel Corrie – represents the violent culmination of a process in which the Israeli government, and various private proxy groups, have come to see humanitarian and human-rights groups, and even international humanitarian law itself, as an “enemy” of or a threat to the existence of the state (see “NGO Involvement in the Gaza Boat Flotilla”, NGO Monitor, 1 June 2010).
In this context, the fact that navy commandos used lethal force to “defend their nation” from a
n aid convoy should perhaps not be a surprise. Before the departure of the Mavi Marmara-led flotilla, Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon declared that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza” and therefore that the flotilla was not a relief mission in fact but “a provocation intended to delegitimise Israel” (the Israeli government press office even emailed copies of a Gaza restaurant menu to reporters.) After the attack, Ayalon’s description of the flotilla as an “armada of hate and violence in support of the Hamas terror organisation” was simply the ratification of this more general Israeli government interpretation of civil-society activists, at sea and on land.
The process is more complex, however. The vigorous current discussion around the politics of humanitarianism provides evidence for the case that aid can indeed be politically motivated and manipulated, by both its givers and its receivers.
It is in this connection that the apparently inverse phenomenon of attempts by powerful states to instrumentalise or monopolise the construction of humanitarian space and the delivery of aid can be understood. The Israeli government’s attempt to “manage” the humanitarian situation in the Gaza strip as an instrument of state policy belongs to this modern history of instrumentalisation (whose precedents include the refugee-camps across the border from Kosovo during the Nato air-campaign there in 1999).
This regulation of the flow of cross-border aid for political purposes has been been echoed, in reverse, in the increasingly partisan rhetoric of some aid organisations, as some of the statements from the activists on Gaza flotilla testify.
The closure policy of Gaza is regulated, after a decision in January 2008 by the Israeli high court of justice, by a policy through which the state assumes the responsibility of providing the inhabitants with a “humanitarian minimum” meant to forestall the possibility of a humanitarian crisis developing – but no more than that. Dov Weisglass, adviser to former prime minister Ehud Olmert, explained the rationale: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
In June 2009 the newspaper Ha’aretz published an Israeli document entitled “Red Lines” which specifies precisely the number of calories allowed to enter the strip, organised according to gender and age, at a level just above
the United Nations’s definition of hunger. The control of these supplies provides Israel with political leverage, but it can only be maintained if goods pass through its borders rather than through underground tunnels or from the sea.
In this sense, the attack on the Gaza flotilla obeyed a complex logic: it confirmed in practice the definition of humanitarian and human-rights activists as enemies of the state, and it reaffirmed the state’s attempt to manage the humanitarian situation in Gaza as a instrument of policy.
To Gaza: When is self defence not self defence: Free Radikal
June 7th, 2010 |Ronit Lentin
Everyone who saw the brutal treatment of the passengers of the freedom flotilla attempting to break the blockade of Gaza, and heard the Israeli propaganda machine claiming this was done in ‘self defence’ should understand that this self justification has a long history.
As an Israeli child, I grew up on myths of ‘self defence’ and of ‘the few against the many’, which were the building blocks of Israeli state and society from its very inception. Israeli literary scholar Nurit Gertz identifies three ‘ideological narratives’ aimed at conserving the hegemonic power relations. The first myth is the ‘few against the many’ narrative, according to which a Jewish ‘David’ was attacked by an Arab ‘Goliath’, the second is the struggle between the enlightened (Jewish) Europeans and the backwards (Arab) Orientals and the ensuing myth about Palestine being a ‘desert’ which the Zionists made ‘bloom’, and the third is the struggle between the isolated Jewish nation and an uncaring world, a narrative strengthened by the indifference of the world in face of the Nazi genocide. A fourth myth is that of Israel as European, and a fifth – perhaps the strongest myth – was the belief that all Israel’s wars and brutalities are fought in self defence.
Since the early days of the state, all Israel’s wars, including its participation in the imperialist 1956 Suez war, the invasions of Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, and the recent war against blockaded Gaza, were rationalised by the argument that after all, ‘peace loving’ Israel is only acting in ‘self defence’ and that if only the Palestinians agree to its conditions, they could have their tiny state albeit criss-crossed by walls and roadblocks, but that meanwhile, Israel has ‘no partner for peace’.
The fate of the Palestinians, 750,000 of whom were forced to flee or escape their homes during the 1948 war, was never part of the equation. Nor was the fate of those Palestinians exiled a second time, to the West Bank and Gaza in what was the expansionist 1967 war part of the equation. Throughout the occupation and the settlement of hundreds of thousands Jews in occupied West Bank and Golan Heights, Israel kept perpetuating the ‘self defence’ myth.
This is despite scholarship by Israeli and Palestinian historians and sociologists, exposing the extent of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, particularly, but not exclusively, during and after the 1948 war. Scholars describe Israel as a settler colonial society and a racial state, who colonised Palestine – the biblical birthplace of the Jewish people, but also of a variety of local tribes, including the Palestinians – and then ethnically cleansed as many of its indigenous people as was possible, confining the rest to life in besieged reservations.
Yet, when the occupied subjects try to resist, they are labeled ‘terrorists’, and Israel, the coloniser, claims that its brutal violence is merely ‘self defence’. After all, Israelis say to themselves, ‘the whole world is against us’ (as it has always been), and ‘we are the only Jewish state in a sea of Arab states’ and, of course, ‘the only democracy in the Middle east’.
The mantra of ‘self defence’ is so deeply ingrained that Israeli soldiers believe that stone throwing teenagers and international demonstrators (including Irish Nobel Prize winner Mairead Maguire who was hit by Israeli rubber bullets while demonstrating in Bil’in on 20 April) are fair game. After all, Israelis tell their teenage soldiers, we are only acting in ‘self defence’. Thus the propaganda stories about MV Marmara attacking the poor Israeli commandos while they were abseiling from helicopters – so ‘vulnerable’, according to Defence Minister Ehud Barak – make perfect sense to the Israeli psyche.
The heroic Gaza flotilla passengers and their supporters deserve our admiration and support. However, I am afraid that despite the universal condemnations, Israel will only lift the Gaza blockade if told to do so by the USA, or if deprived of US billions, self defence or no self defence.
To read the whole article, use link above
EDITOR: At last, names and pictures of the murdered nine on the Mavi Marmara. The Western media did not see fit to do this, as they were mere Moslems… Looking at their pictures, you can make your mind up if those are the dangerous Al Qaida terrorists described by the Fiction dept. of the IOF Propaganda Corps.
Putting Names To Faces
03 June 2010
A brief introduction to the nine people shot dead on 31 May 2010, by Israeli soldiers who attacked the Turkish vessel M.V. Mavi Marmara, as it attempted to transport humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip
1. Ibrahim Bilgen, 61, an electrical engineer from Siirt. Member of the Chamber of Electrical Engineers of Turkey. Ran as a Saadet (Felicity) Party candidate in the Turkish general election of 2007 and the Siirt mayoral election of 2009. Married with 6 children.
2. Ali Haydar Bengi, 39, ran a telephone repair shop in Diyarbakir. Graduate of Al-Azhar University, Cairo (Department of Arabic Literature). Married to Saniye Bengi; four children – Mehunur (15), Semanur (10) and twins Mohammed and Senanur (5, pictured below).
3. Cevdet Kiliçlar, 38, from Kayseri. A graduate of Marmara University’s Faculty of Communications; formerly a newspaper journalist for the National Gazette and the Anatolia Times. For the past year he was a reporter and webmaster for the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). Married to Derya Kiliçlar; one daughter, Gülhan, and one son, Erdem.
4. Çetin Topçuoglu, 54, from Adana. Former amateur soccer player and taekwondo champion, who coached Turkey’s national taekwondo team. Married to with one son, Aytek.
His wife, Çigdem Topçuoglu (above, right), was also aboard the Mavi Marmara, but survived.
5. Necdet Yildirim, 32, an IHH aid worker from Malatya. Married to Refika Yıldırım; one daughter, Melek, aged three.
6. Fahri Yaldiz, 43, a firefighter who worked for the Municipality of Adiyaman. Married with four sons.
7. Cengiz Songür, 47, from Izmir. Married to Nurcan Songür; six daughters and one son.
8. Cengiz Akyüz, 41, from Iskenderun. Married to Nimet Akyüz ; three children – Furkan (14), Beyza (12) and Erva Kardelen (nine).
9. Furkan Dogan, 19, in his senior year at Kayseri High School where he was awaiting the results of his university entrance exams; hoped to become a doctor. Loved chess. Son of Dr. Ahmet Dogan, Assoc Prof at Erciyes University. A Turkish-American dual national, with two siblings.
Mad Israelis section
EDITOR: Today’ section opens with the much loved nightclub bouncer, Avigdor Lieberman, who was recently elevated to the post of Chief Agitator of the Israeli regime. Lieberman’s task to make sure the world understands the Israelis better than in the past, when they used mock-intellectuals to represent them, and the world got the wrong idea. There is no such problem with Avigdor, he really dishes it out like it is, no problem.
Avigdor know the real problem is not killing people – this Israel does very well. The problem is in trying to expalin why and how killing more people is good for all of us. This is steep hill, but not a man like Avigdor will give up in the face of a challenge…
Public relations and interests: YNet
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman responds to criticism of Israel’s PR effort
Avigdor Lieberman
Published: 06.07.10, 18:01 / Israel Opinion
In every Israeli living room conversation for dozens of years now, the familiar claim is made at some point: Our problem in the world is Hasbara, public relations. We don’t know how to do it and therefore “the whole world is against us.”
However, the problem does not have to do with disseminating our views or recruiting successful PR professionals. The issue is much more complex than that and can be sub-divided into two levels: The positions of foreign governments, and the views of world citizens.
As to the official positions of states and foreign governments, one of Israel’s most prominent friends in the 1960s, Charles De Gaulle, said that states have no friends – they only have interests.
Expecting us to seek justice in the jungle known as the international community is absurd at best and naïve at worst. States operate only in line with their national interests, and these interests cannot be changed via Hasbara.
The main difficulty Israel must contend with in the international theater is the fact that it is one state, facing 57 Muslim states that control 70% of the world’s natural energy sources and boast 1.3 billion citizens – a huge market share that has an immense and immediate effect on the global economy.
When it comes to international bodies, it means that any state that wishes to be elected for any forum such as the Security Council, UNESCO, the Human Rights Council and so on, first seeks the support of this 57-member bloc.
Hence, we will never hear condemnation of the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia or a debate on the matter in the Human Rights Council in Geneva or in the national parliaments of advanced countries. No PR effort will change these facts, and for that reason, the global media will always report the latest UN condemnations of Israel and not against other countries.
Budgetary priorities
The situation is different among global citizens or specific population groups. There, in addition to interests, there are also notions of justice and morality, which are of course affected by the images we see on television and in newspapers. Here we cannot complain about others, but we must first examine the priorities set by Israeli governments over many years in order to highlight the failure to grasp the importance of the media battlefield.
Words are not enough – we need to make Hasbara a budgetary priority. Upon assuming the post of foreign minister I discovered that the budget earmarked for Israeli PR in Europe’s 27 states – including large and significant ones like Germany, France, Britain, Italy, and Spain – amounted to no more than NIS 6 million, roughly $1.5 million, which also includes the budget for our Independence Day celebrations…
A Hasbara battle in the face of such priorities is a lost cause, even when we have excellent embassies in the various capitals and the best people working there. They have to contend against more than 20 Arab embassies (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.) that face no budgetary constraints and no moral, bureaucratic, or legal limitations; they are also not subjected to the obligation to hold tenders and other limits we assume upon ourselves.
To this we should add the brainwashing by the Arab media enlisted to the Arab cause; high-powered and high-budget media, which include the likes of al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, come on top of the donations pouring from Saudi Arabia and other states to Western universities and various research institutions.
Then we have the demographic component: In France, for example, the Jews constitute only one percent of the population, while the Muslims make up 16% of it. In light of these figures, even the David-Goliath comparison does not accurately express the balance of power.
Hence, if we assume that in the modern era the real victories are not achieved on the battlefield, but rather, on the television screen, we must translate this to budgetary clauses. Just like the Air Force cannot win with outdated jets even if we have the best pilots, we need the budget earmarked for Hasbara to equal at least two F16 fighter jets in order to win the media battle.
We must take this into account as we approach the debates on our next two-year budget. Justice is on Israel’s side, and we would do well to be able to tell the world about it.