43 years to the Israeli Occupation!

1100 Days to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza:

End Israeli Apartheid Now!

Help to stop the next war! Support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of the Israeli regime

Support Palestinian universities – spread the BDS campaign – it is what people under the Israeli jackboot ask you to do

Any army fighting against children, has already lost the war!

Israeli War Criminals and Pirates – to the International Criminal Court, NOW!

Make Zionism History!

Demand the destruction of Israeli WMDs NOW!

Who is Afraid of a real Inquiry?: Gush Shalom

12/06/10
Uri Avneri
If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:
What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?
If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?
Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?
What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?
Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?
Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?
Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?
If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?
Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?
Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?
Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement – to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port – in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?
Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it?
Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”?
Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip?
Questions concerning the decision to attack the flotilla: When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)
When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)
What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)
What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)
When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?
Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?
Were there others who also advised doing so?
Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?
If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?
In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?
Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?
Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?
Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?
Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?
Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult?
Questions concerning the planning of the action: What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)
Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?
Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?
Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?
If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?
Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?
If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?
How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?
Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?
Why was it executed in darkness?
Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”?
During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British?
Questions concerning the action itself: Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?
Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?
Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?
When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?
Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?
Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified?
Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?
Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?
Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?
Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?
Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?
Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?
Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?
Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?
Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?
Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?
Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?
Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?
Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”?
Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman: IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?
Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?
What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?
What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?
On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered?
Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?
If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?
Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?
Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?
What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”?
Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?
Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?
Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?
Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing?
Questions concerning the inquiry: Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?
Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify – but not to answer questions?
Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?
Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?
Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?
Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?

And, finally, the question of questions:
What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?

Neither commission nor inquiry: Haaretz Editorial

A committee whose makeup and authority are perceived as predetermined will be unable to satisfy international leaders and their constituencies abroad who demanded the inquiry in the first place.
The government yesterday authorized the creation of an independent committee to examine the events surrounding the raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla last month. Unfortunately, neither the committee’s membership nor its authority is suited to meet the challenges posed by the affair.

The committee should have been asked to examine the facts and hold responsible those who caused the incident to end as it it did, thereby allowing Israelis and their government to implement the lessons that need to be learned. Instead, the cabinet created a panel aimed at appeasing the world, in particular the United States. Its authority is too limited to conduct a real investigation, and its makeup raises the suspicion that it is designed more as a public-relations tool than to properly examine the events and reveal the responsible parties.

A panel that is not a state commission of inquiry will be unable to bring justice to bear on those found responsible for the operation’s failings. And no matter how esteemed the committee members may be, all have for decades been away from events in both the military and government, and will thus not be able to reach the necessary conclusions. Committee chairman Jacob Turkel’s observation ahead of his appointment that certain people must not be found at fault raises a question mark over whether he was selected precisely because of that remark.

Stopping the flotilla has already caused Israel immense political damage. Stopping a real investigation by appointing a committee with such limited powers is liable to lead to further damage not only to Israel’s image abroad, but also to its capacity to avoid similar imbroglios in the future. It is hard to believe that the newly appointed committee, even though it includes two international observers, will convince the world that Israel is seriously investigating the raid’s operational failures.

The government had an opportunity to try to control the damage it brought on itself by conducting an audacious and comprehensive investigation. Yesterday the government missed that opportunity. The strange hybrid that emerged instead – both its puzzling membership and weak mandate – bodes ill for Israel. A committee whose makeup and authority are perceived as predetermined will be unable to satisfy international leaders and their constituencies abroad who demanded the inquiry in the first place. It would therefore have been better if the Turkel committee had never been born, sparing us the deceptive appearance of a real investigation.

Jerusalem: Not as free for Palestinians as Israel Claims: Al Jazeera

By Ayman Mohyeldin
on June 15th, 2010
Despite the fact East Jerusalem remains, under international law, an occupied city, many Israeli officials, including West Jerusalem’s Jewish Mayor Nir Barakat, profess that Jerusalem is a city open for all to live in and move around freely within, including Arabs.
Israel claims even Palestinian residents of the city (who endure systematic discrimination, home evictions, demolitions, land confiscation and other forms of state and non-state duress and oppression) are free to live where ever they please.
But a new report by two Israeli human rights organizations says that the real estate market in Jerusalem is not free and that “80% of lands in Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem cannot be purchased by Palestinians”.

So Palestinians in East Jerusalem whose homes and lands are constantly confiscated, destroyed, demolished or given to Jewish settlers are not even allowed to buy homes in other parts of the cities.
Doesn’t seem to me that Israel’s Jerusalem is as free for all as it likes to claim?

Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn’t about security: IOA

Posted by admin on Jun 13th, 2010 and filed under Economy, FEATURED NEWS STORIES, Gaza, IDF/War Crimes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
By Sheera Frenkel, McClatchy Newspapers – 9 June 2010
www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html
JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.
Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza.
Last week, after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again said its aim was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza.
However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.
“A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using ‘economic warfare,’” the government said.
McClatchy obtained the government’s written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year.
Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn’t imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.
(A State Department spokesman, who wasn’t authorized to speak for the record, said he hadn’t seen the documents in question.)
The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn’t be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but “could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control” of Gaza.
President Barack Obama, after receiving Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said the situation in Gaza is “unsustainable.” He pledged an additional $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and roads to improve daily life for Palestinians — of which at least $30 million is earmarked for Gaza.
Israel’s blockade of Gaza includes a complex and ever-changing list of goods that are allowed in. Items such as cement or metal are barred because they can be used for military purposes, Israeli officials say.
According to figures published by Gisha in coordination with the United Nations, Israel allows in 25 percent of the goods it had permitted into Gaza before the Hamas takeover. In the years prior to the closure, Israel allowed an average of 10,400 trucks to enter Gaza with goods each month. Israel now allows approximately 2,500 trucks a month.
The figures show that Israel also has limited the goods allowed to enter Gaza to 40 types of items, while before June 2007 approximately 4,000 types of goods were listed as entering Gaza.
Israel expanded its list slightly Wednesday to include soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy, said Palestinian liaison official Raed Fattouh, who coordinates the flow of goods into Gaza with Israel.
“I think Israel wants to defuse international pressure,” said Fattouh. “They want to show people that they are allowing things into Gaza.”
It was the first tangible step taken by Israel in the wake of the unprecedented international criticism it’s faced over the blockade following last week’s Israeli raid on the high seas.
While there have been mounting calls for an investigation into the manner in which Israel intercepted the flotilla, world leaders have also called for Israel to lift its blockade on Gaza.
At his meeting with Abbas, Obama said the Security Council had called for a “credible, transparent investigation that met international standards.” He added: “And we meant what we said. That’s what we expect.”
He also called for an easing of Israel’s blockade. “It seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then, in a piecemeal way, allowing things into Gaza,” he told reporters.
Egypt, which controls much of Gaza’s southern border, reopened the Rafah crossing this week in response to international pressure to lift the blockade.
Egypt has long been considered Israel’s partner in enforcing the blockade, but Egyptian Foreign Minister Hossam Zaki said the Rafah crossing will remain open indefinitely for Gazans with special permits. In the past, the border has been opened sporadically.
Maxwell Gaylard, the U.N.’s humanitarian coordinator in the Palestinian territories, said the international community is seeking an “urgent and fundamental change” in Israel’s policy regarding Gaza rather than a piecemeal approach.
“A modest expansion of the restrictive list of goods allowed into Gaza falls well short of what is needed. We need a fundamental change and an opening of crossings for commercial goods,” he said.
Hamas officials said that they were “disappointed” by Israel’s announcement, and that the goods fell far short of what was actually needed.
“They will send the first course. We are waiting for the main course,” Palestinian Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh said in Ramallah, specifying that construction materials were the item that Gazans need most. Many Palestinians have been unable to build their homes in the wake of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s punishing offensive in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009.
Israel said the cement and other construction goods could be used to build bunkers and other military installations.
Some of those goods already come into Gaza via the smuggling tunnels that connect it to Egypt.

Israel hopes inquiry will turn spotlight on activists: BBC

14 June 2010
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The panel will not be allowed to directly quiz the soldiers who took over the ships
Israel’s inquiry into the actions it took against the Gaza flotilla is a carefully calibrated response to the international pressure it faces to provide an accounting for an operation in international waters that cost nine lives.
The inquiry concedes that it has to have an international element.

Without this it would not have been accepted either by the European Union or more importantly the United States.
Even with it, it will be rejected by Israeli critics as inadequate. There had been calls for a full international investigation. (Update: Turkey has already rejected the inquiry.)
There will be two outside participants – Northern Ireland unionist and former First Minister David Trimble and former Canadian Judge Advocate General (senior military judge) Ken Watkin.

Inquiry observer David Trimble joined a “Friends of Israel” group recently
David Trimble recently joined an international “Friends of Israel” group set up by Dore Gold, a close associate of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr Trimble is now a Conservative peer.

Brig Gen Watkin has a record of legal activism in military affairs.
He wrote a memo in 2007 warning senior Canadian officers that they could be held “criminally negligent” if they did not prevent or investigate prisoner abuse.
But these two figures seem to have been downgraded to the role of observers.
They will presumably be allowed to see the papers but probably not to determine the outcome.

Conforming to law?
Nor will the inquiry have a free hand. It will not be allowed to directly question the soldiers who took over the ships.
Instead, it will have to rely on summaries from an internal investigation headed by an Israeli general, though it can ask for more information if it is not satisfied.
It remains to be seen what access they will have, or will seek, to the activists on board.

The inquiry will be led by a former Supreme Court justice Yaakov Tirkel, assisted by Amos Regev, a reserve major general and Shabtai Rosen, a professor of international law and former Israeli diplomat.

Such a panel, involving a senior judge, is quite usual for an Israeli inquiry. The international element is potentially significant, though, in establishing the principle of such a presence in future inquiries.

Its formal brief is to:

examine the “security circumstances” of the naval blockade on Gaza and whether this conforms to international law
decide if the actions of 31 May (the night of the action) conform to the principles of international law
consider the actions of those who organised and took part in the flotilla “and their identities”
By adding the last requirement, the Israeli government hopes that not only will its blockade and its soldiers’ actions will be approved, but the spotlight will also turn on the activists on and behind the flotilla.

The inquiry has to do one other thing.

It is being asked to decide whether Israel’s procedures, both in this incident and more generally, for investigating claims of violations of the laws of war conform to the rules of international law.

This appears to be a reference to the Gaza inquiry held by South Africa Judge Richard Goldstone, under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council.

Israel strongly objected to what it felt was interference and that its own response to claims of war crimes was adequate.

It is now asking this panel to give an opinion on the Israeli approach.

There is no doubt that the critics will also have their view.

EDITOR: They were murdered in cold blood, but their deaths were not in vain

After all the posturing and infuriating and inciting pronouncements by Israeli leading war criminals such as Barak and Netanyahu, it seems that the flotilla has played an enormous part in breaking the Gaza blockade. Of course, the struggle to free Gaza has only started, but we can already see the big cracks in the Israeli position of intersigence and total rejection of the international pressures.

Israel to allow aid into Gaza: Al Jazeera online

Israel says an agreement has been reached with the UN to deliver thousands of tonnes of aid from a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that was attacked by Israeli naval commandos, to the blockaded Strip.

The country’s military said on Tuesday that the UN will supervise use of the goods, including food, clothes and medicine.
Richard Miron, a UN spokesman, confirmed the agreement.
Nicole Johnston, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Gaza, said the most important thing to note about the aid is that reportedly all of it will be allowed to enter Gaza.

“The main sticking point had been Israel’s unwillingness to allow construction material and cement into the Strip, they are usually banned items in Gaza as Israel is afraid of Hamas building bunkers.
“It won’t come in today, it could be another day or two before the aid comes in.”
Up until Tuesday Hamas had refused to accept Israel’s conditions on how much of the aid was allowed in, as a protest against its three-year blockade of the Strip.
Israel seized 10,000 tonnes of goods from the six-ship flotilla in a bloody raid on May 31, killing nine Turkish activists.

EDITOR: Bad news! Hamas has abandoned its armed struggle…

It seems that the news that (supposedly) Hamas is buying land in Jerusalem is received with such anger and alarm, is the fact that Hamas seems to have learnt from Zionism… isn’t that terrible…

Shin Bet Chief: Hamas buying land within Jerusalem: Haaretz

Yuval Diskin warns Knesset committee that lifting Gaza blockade would have dangerous results.
Shin Bet security service director Yuval Diskin said on Tuesday that the Islamist group Hamas was busy buying up land within the municipal territory of Jerusalem.
Speaking at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Diskin added that the central forces currently operating in East Jerusalem were the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Islamic Movement. He explained that they were competing with each other over influence and presence in the area.
Earlier in the meeting, Diskin warned that lifting the naval blockade on Gaza, put in place three years ago when Hamas wrestled power over the Gaza Strip in a bloody coup, would be a “dangerous development for Israel.”

“It would be a huge security breach, even if ships are inspected along the way in international ports en route to Gaza,” he warned. A port in Cyprus was mentioned during the meeting, as it was the port where the ships of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla docked last month before Israeli navy commandos clashed with activists aboard one of the ships in international waters.

Diskin added that terror organizations in Gaza are continuing to arm themselves and gain strength, both by independent production of weapons and by smuggling.

“The Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are in possession of 5,000 rockets in the Gaza Strip, with a range of up to 40 kilometers,” Diskin explained. “Of those rockets, 4,000 belong to Hamas.”

“Hamas also possesses several rockets that can reach central Israel,” Diskin went on to say.

The director of the Shin Bet also addressed Israel’s willingness to ease the general blockade on Gaza, saying that “there is no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. I don’t have any problem with easing the transfer of goods from Israel. But weapons are being smuggled right now from Sinai.”

EDITOR: UK keeps mum

The country which suffered from than any other from the Dubai murder affair is of course the UK. More than half of the fake passports were UK ones. Yet the UK has kept practically qiet about this affair, taking great care not to offend the Israeli empire. It makes you think, doesn’t it?

Irish to expel Israeli diplomat over Hamas killing: BBC

15 June 2010
E-mail this to a friendPrintable version Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found dead in a hotel room in Dubai
The Irish Republic is to expel an Israeli diplomat over the use of fake passports in the killing of a Hamas official in Dubai.
Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said an investigation had proved that eight Irish passports used in the operation were forgeries.
Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found dead in a Dubai hotel in January.

Dubai police have said they are 99% sure Israeli agents were involved, though Israel says there is no proof.
Mr Martin said in a statement that Israel had been “requested to withdraw a designated member of staff of its embassy” and that he expected the request would “be quickly acceded to”.
“The misuse of Irish passports by a state with which Ireland enjoys friendly, if sometimes frank, bilateral relations is clearly unacceptable and requires a firm response,” he said.
In Jerusalem, foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the Israeli government regretted the Irish decision, which he said was “not in line with the importance of our relationship with the Irish government”.

‘No denial’
Forged British, French, Australian, and German passports were also used in the Dubai operation.
The UK and Australia have already expelled Israeli nationals over the forgeries.
Mr Martin said the Irish had co-operated closely with British and Australian authorities in their investigation of the killing.
He cited “the inescapable conclusion that an Israeli government agency was responsible for the misuse and, most likely, the manufacture of the forged Irish passports associated with the murder of Mr Mabhouh”.

Irish authorities had asked for Israeli help in their investigation, he said, but such efforts had “yielded no response and no denial of Israeli involvement”.
Six of the eight fake passports used the numbers of existing Irish passport holders, while the other two contained invented numbers conforming to the Irish format, the foreign ministry said.
Mr Martin said those whose passport numbers had been used had been issued with new passports and that he was confident this would allow them “to travel free from any suspicion”.

“As I have stated from the outset, my priority throughout this affair has been to ensure the security of the innocent Irish citizens affected and to protect the integrity of the Irish passport,” he said.
Last week it emerged that authorities in Poland arrested a suspected Israeli agent in connection with Mr Mabhouh’s death.
Germany is seeking his extradition over a forged German passport used by one of the killers.

EDITOR: Tony Baloney is useful again!

So after few years of languishing at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, at great cost to the “Quartet” (whatever that may be. There is no information about this most virtual of entities) and keeping extra quiet about every and any Israeli atrocity, Mr Blair has found his tongue, at last. On the graves of the nine activists who died to free Gaza, he comes to claim the prize… What can one expect from a war criminal?

Israel to unveil measures to ease Gaza blockade: Haaretz

The Political-Security cabinet is expected to approve a plan outlined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Quartet envoy to the Mideast Tony Blair.
Tags: Israel news Gaza Gaza flotilla Benjamin Netanyahu
Israel is expected to approve measures on Wednesday that will ease the blockade on the Gaza Strip and allow more aid into the territory.

The Political-Security cabinet will discuss and likely approve a plan outlined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Quartet envoy to the Mideast Tony Blair, which focuses on consolidating a list of goods that will not be allowed into Gaza. All goods that do not appear on that list would be transferred into the coastal strip.
In addition, the plan will allow the transfer into Gaza of construction materials meant for use only by the United Nations. Israel would require UN supervision of these materials to ensure they are not transferred to Gaza’s Hamas rulers.

Israel said on Tuesday that an agreement has been reached with the UN to deliver tons of aid to Gaza carried on a flotilla attacked by Israeli naval commandos on May 31.

The Israel Defense Forces said the UN will supervise use of the goods, including food, clothes and medicine. Up to now, the Hamas rulers of Gaza have refused to accept the aid as a protest against Israel’s three-year blockade.

Meanwhile, the UN said Tuesday that an international consensus has emerged demanding that Israel lift the blockade of Gaza Strip and replace it with a “different and more positive strategy.”

“The flotilla crisis is the latest symptom of a failed policy,” said Robert Serry, the UN special envoy for Middle East peace process.

“The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and the current policy is unacceptable and counter-productive, and requires a different, more positive strategy,” Serry said during a UN Security Council session on the Middle East.

“The closure and blockade of the Gaza Strip needs to come to an end,” he said. “There is now a welcome international consensus on Gaza.”

He said the quartet – the UN, the European Union, Russia and the U.S. – has agreed that there must be a “fundamental change” to the situation in Gaza, which has been under Israeli blockade since Hamas took over the territory three years ago. The quartet is leading the diplomatic campaign to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He said Turkish ship owners and Israeli authorities have agreed to hand the entire cargo of supplies over to the UN for timely distribution in Gaza.

“The UN is ready to accept the responsibility on an exceptional basis,” Serry said. He said the size of the humanitarian cargo is small compared with the needs of Palestinians in Gaza.

He said it was agreed by both sides that the UN alone will determine the “appropriate humanitarian use in Gaza.”

“We have reason to believe that the de facto authorities in Gaza will respect the independence of the UN programming in this regard,” Serry said in a briefing on the May 31 flotilla incident. “I appreciate the constructive role played by the government of Turkey in facilitating this process.”

The three-ship flotilla tried to break the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza, but it was stopped by the Israeli airborne and naval raid that resulted in the deaths of eight Turkish citizens and one Turkish-American. More than 30 people were injured, including Israeli military personnel.

Israel has insisted on screening all Gaza-bound cargo to prevent the import of missiles, cement, metal goods and other material that could be used for weapons or fortresses by the Hamas government.

EDITOR: The Israeli Government also mistreats its own settlers… this should give them something to think about.

Inquiry panel: State turned Gaza evacuees into refugees in their homeland: Haaretz

Commission offers harsh criticism of state’s handling of people evacuated from Gush Katif, northern Samaria in 2005 Disengagement.
A commission of inquiry into the state’s handling of Gush Katif and northern Samaria evacuees offered harsh criticism of the bureaucracy, delays and poor planning by the authorities since the 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
The report concluded that all the issues still facing those the report called “refugees in the homeland” must be resolved by the end of 2011.
In 2005, Israel withdrew from settlements in Gaza and the northern West Bank, with some of the settlers having to be evacuated by force. Most of the evacuees still live in temporary housing and face unemployment and other social problems.

“It is possible to rehabilitate the evacuees and build them permanent homes by the end of 2011. This ambitious timetable will become reality if it is accompanied by a concentrated effort by the government and the families,” the commission wrote in its report.

The report, which spans 488 pages, was submitted to the authorities on Tuesday. The commission heard the testimonies of 105 witnesses, while 300 more testified before an auxiliary team. The report includes an overview of the past, recommendations for the future, and a timetable for the resolution of systematic and individual problems preventing the state from completing the full rehabilitation of the evacuees.

The commission wrote that every government ministry must place the evacuees’ problems at the top of their priority lists.

The report’s harshest criticism was directed at the failure to build public institutions in the communities to which the evacuees were relocated. “The reality presents a sad image. Not a single public institution has been completed, under any of the relocation arrangements. The main reason for the delay is budgetary bureaucracy. The budgeting of the public institutions was miscalculated, mistakes were made in the calculated area of the buildings, the assessments were low compared to actual cost and special circumstances were not taken into consideration, like the necessity of reinforcing buildings in the Halutza area.”

“The commission believes that the delay in the construction of the public institutions is unbecoming, and in certain cases a complete failure for which the government is responsible,” the report continued.

The commission decided to draft a formula by which the cost of building public institutions will be calculated, and to bring it before the cabinet for a vote within three months.

In reference to this issue, the commission remarked that the disengagement administration (Sela) was a “toothless tiger. On the one hand they accepted extensive responsibility, a sort of mini government for a specific population. On the other hand, they couldn’t carry out the task because they did not possess the relevant governmental authority.”

The commission further found that the temporary housing in Nitan was built without any legal authority even though they had cost the state millions of Shekels. The report concluded that these temporary structures must be dismantled by the end of 2011.

Another recommendation mentioned in the report was the advancement of the medical issues, and the examination of the evacuees’ physical state.

The commission wrote furthermore that the “handling of the evacuees is a test case for the Israeli government system. The commission found that these governing difficulties, that witnesses testified are typical of the government’s handling of other issues as well, caused the evacuees unnecessary anguish. The commission believes that such governing difficulties are able to undermine public trust in the governing system. The reality that was uncovered sparks much concern.”

In regard to the evacuees’ role in their current state, the commission wrote that “some of the evacuees themselves contributed to the sad reality they currently face. There are those among the evacuees that chose to put off, rather than hurry, choosing the permanent community where they wish to reside, receiving a lot from the government, filing construction plans for their permanent housing and the actual construction. Many of the evacuees could have taken their fates into their own hands and left their disputes with the government for later scrutiny, meanwhile building their permanent homes without waiting for every last demand to be met. Some of the evacuees raised excessive demands.”

The report concluded by saying that the “evacuees are the salt of the earth. With hard work, sacrifice, talent and blind faith they erected amazing communities in the areas that were evacuated. It is especially because the settlements were a way of life for them, the evacuation was especially traumatic. People lost not only their homes, jobs and communities, but they also lost a part of their identity.”

“The state has a responsibility toward them in the basic contract that ensures the human rights of every citizen of the state, not to mention citizens who have been turned into refugees in their homeland by the state.”

EDITOR: Obama should take note, or else…

Reading the figures below, Obama should be worried… If he does not change his policy, the Israelis might not vote for him again!

And another thing; 65% of Jewish Israelis. What about the non-Jewish Israelis, I hear you asking? Do not fret, please. As non-Jews in the only Jewish democracy in the middle east, they do not matter at all. Maybe they don’t even think, who knows? Not Haaretz, for sure.

Poll: 65% of Jewish Israelis say U.S. Jews should criticize Obama’s Mideast policy: Haaretz

B’nai B’rith survey also found 54% of Jewish Israelis believe Jewish advocacy groups who work with foreign governments should always support Israeli policy.
Sixty-five percent of Jewish Israelis believe U.S. Jews should criticize the Obama administration’s policy toward Israel, according to a survey published in June that was conducted on behalf of the B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem.
The fifth annual Survey of Contemporary Israeli Attitudes Toward World Jewry, conducted by Keevoon Research, surveyed 500 Jewish Israelis over the age of 18 between June 1 and 4. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.

Twelve percent of respondents said American Jews should support Obama’s current policy on Israel.

The survey also found that 46 percent of Jewish Israelis believe American Jews are reluctant to criticize the Obama administration’s Israeli policy due to fear of being accused of dual loyalty. Meanwhile, 36 percent said that type of accusation has no effect on them.
Meanwhile, 54 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that Jewish advocacy groups who work with foreign governments and call themselves “pro-Israel” should always support Israeli government policy.

A majority of Jewish Israelis (55 percent) also said they believe a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to the survival of Israel as a Jewish democratic state.
However, 49 percent disagreed that settlements pose a threat to Israel and “feed the delegitimization process” that Israel currently faces.
Respondents were also asked questions about immigration, including the Law of Return and what role the Jewish Agency should play in forging Jewish identity in the Diaspora.

Democratic Party Defends Israeli Attack: Foreign Policy in Focus

By Stephen Zunes, June 10, 2010

Tens of thousands of Israelis protested in the streets of Tel Aviv last weekend against their right-wing government’s attack on an unarmed humanitarian aid flotilla sailing in international waters. International condemnation of the raids continued in foreign capitals. Meanwhile, in Washington, Democratic congressional leaders were lining up alongside their Republican colleagues to defend the Israeli assault. Countering the broad consensus of international legal scholars who recognize that the attack was in flagrant violation of international norms, prominent Democrats embraced the Orwellian notion that Israel’s raid, which killed at least nine activists and wounded scores of others, was somehow an act of self-defense.

The offensive by the Democratic leadership has been led by Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who serves as House Democrats’ unofficial spokesman on Middle East policy from his position as chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on the Middle East. According to Ackerman, the killings were “wholly the fault and responsibility of the organizers of the effort to break through Israel and Egypt’s legitimate closure of terrorist-controlled Gaza.” According to Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL), due to the determination of activists on the ships to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of the besieged Gaza Strip, “Israel was left with no choice but to ensure the safety of its people.” Similarly, Democratic majority leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) insisted that in attacking an unarmed flotilla carrying humanitarian aid in international waters, Israel had simply “invoked its right to self-defense.”

To rationalize what virtually the entire international legal community recognizes as an act of war, congressional Democrats have engaged in a series of falsifications and radical reinterpretations of international law. The first involved a radically overextended notion of maritime sovereignty. The attack took place in international waters, roughly 85 miles from the Israeli coast. International maritime law has long recognized that territorial sovereignty extends only 12 miles out to sea. A Libyan effort in the 1980s to extend its claim of sovereignty into the Gulf of Sidra beyond the 12-mile limit led to a series of deadly clashes between U.S. and Libyan armed forces in order, according to then-President Ronald Reagan, to enforce America’s “global Freedom of Navigation program” to defend “our rights on and over the high seas under international law.” At the time, congressional Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in defending the use of force to challenge Libya’s illegal overreach of its maritime boundaries.

However, congressional Democrats are quite willing to grant allied governments in the region far more latitude in extending their claims to Mediterranean waters. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) argued that responsibility for the violence lay with the organizers of the flotilla, not with “those who defended Israel’s borders.” Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY) made a similar argument that the Israeli action was justified because Israel “has the right to maintain and defend its own borders.” The flotilla was aiming directly toward the port of Gaza, not toward any area close to Israeli territorial waters, and no country recognizes the Gaza Strip as part of Israel. Nevertheless, Rep. Kendrik Meek (D-FL) insisted that Israel’s assault on the flotilla was justified because the ships were “on the verge of breaching its sovereign borders.” Similarly, Klein insisted that the ships were “threatening to breach Israel’s defenses of its coastal border,” and therefore “Israel was left with no choice but to ensure the safety of its people” by attacking the flotilla.

Redefining “Self-Defense”

The Free Gaza campaign had made clear that the cargo was exclusively humanitarian. Indeed, all of its previous eight voyages over the past two years were completely free of any weaponry or weapon parts. The plethora of peace and human rights groups participating in the flotilla would have never taken part were there any hint of arms being on board. Most crucially, customs officials rigorously inspected all the ships at their disembarkation points. Indeed, no weapons bound for the Gaza Strip were found on any of the six ships on the flotilla seized by Israel or on the seventh several days later. As a result, no reasonable person could claim that the Israelis had reason to suspect arms smuggling. The congressional Democratic leadership, however, is apparently not very reasonable.

For example, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) insisted that the Israelis attacked the flotilla to  ensure that “dangerous resources do not reach the terrorist organization Hamas.” This kind of paranoia was evident on the Senate side as well, as Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) justified the Israeli attack on the grounds that the peace activists might have been trying to smuggle missiles or even a radiological weapon. Similarly, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) declared that “Israel has every right in the world to make certain that weapons are not being smuggled in.” Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) insisted that “Israel has every right to defend itself against radical activists” in order “to prevent innocent civilian aid from being used as a façade for arms trafficking” by those “threatening the safety and security of our ally Israel.”

Despite the participation of large numbers of pacifists on the ships, Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY) claimed that the flotilla “was really a Trojan Horse designed to attack the Israelis.” The assault against the unarmed flotilla, according to Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), was simply a case of the Israeli government “defending…their citizens” and “exercising its right to self-defense.” Paul Hodes (D-NH) argued that Israel’s intent in attacking the flotilla was simply “to protect itself and its citizens” while House Majority Leader Hoyer insisted that “Israel — rightfully so — invoked its right to self-defense on the Mavi Marmara.” Rep Patrick Murphy (D-PA) also insisted that Israel was simply invoking its right to self-defense,” while Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) insisted that “those aboard the Mavi Marmara never intended to carry out a peaceful humanitarian mission” and that “It was only when faced with violence that the soldiers reacted in self-defense.”

The Israelis confiscated all recording equipment from those on board, only showing their carefully edited version of events surrounding their assault on lead vessel in a widely circulated videotape. The refusal to return any of the recording equipment to the kidnapped activists would normally raise questions as to what the Israeli government might be trying to hide. But that didn’t bother Democratic lawmakers, who repeatedly cited the Israeli video as “evidence” to support their case that the people defending their ship, not the ones attacking it, were the aggressors. There are conflicting reports of what happened when Israeli forces illegally boarded the Mavi Marmara, but what is known is that Israeli commandos initiated the attack on the ship using stun grenades, teargas, paintballs, and rubber-cased steel bullets. The initial response from those on board was to try to fend off the attackers off with water hoses while the ship’s passengers attempted to form a defensive cordon around the wheelhouse to prevent the attackers from seizing the ship.

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, acknowledged that the flotilla was simply “too large to stop with nonviolent means.” Despite this, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL) insisted that “the Israeli Navy worked to plan a non-violent interception of the flotilla and only used force when soldiers’ lives were at risk.” At least 48 activists suffered gunshot wounds and scores of others were badly beaten.

The British newspaper The Independent reported that soldiers fired down on the activists from their helicopters prior to any Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara. One journalist reported that a man standing next to him was shot through the top of his head, killing him instantly. Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI), however, insisted that the killings were all “acts of self-defense,” while Rep. Shelley Berkeley (D-NV) blamed “passengers on the vessel, not Israeli forces, as the instigators of violence.” Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said the “violent force [was] in fact initiated by those whose boat was boarded.” Though the overwhelming majority of those on the ships were from peace organizations like War Resisters International, the International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi, and others, Rep. Engel insisted that the ships were actually “filled with hate-filled provocateurs bent on violence.” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) claimed the responsibility for the killings were “those who chose to run an internationally recognized blockade and attack uniformed personnel.” Though there were no guns found on board any of the ships, Quigley insisted that the activists “shot Israeli soldiers as they landed on the main ship.”

Autopsy reports reveal that most of the victims of the Israeli raid were shot in the head at close range. Fulkan Dogan, a 19-year old U.S. citizen, was shot five times from less than 18 inches away. Similarly, despite Israeli troops using stun guns and severely beating passengers on the other ships who offered no violent resistance, Rep. Shelley Berkeley (D-NV) insisted that the Israeli seizure of the five other vessels took place “without incident,” demonstrating that “Israeli personnel had no intention to use force and only did so in self-defense.”

The Turkish crew — which, unlike the vast majority of people on board the ships, had not gone through the mandatory nonviolence training — should not have fought back.  It should be noted, however, that international maritime law clearly gives crew members the right to defend their vessel from attacks in international waters. Apparently, these congressional Democrats believe, however, if you are attacked by the navy of a strategic ally of the United States, you have no right to defend your ship.

To read the rest of this excellent article, use link above