EDITOR: Seeking blood all around

The UNESCO vote on Palestine have brought about the usual hysteria in Israel – any visibility of the word Palestine internationally is apparently dangerous to the continuation of mankind – and started a flood of quite mad demands to exterminate UNESCO and its personnel. One such expression was the caricature in Haaretz, where Netanyahu is seen briefing the pilots who are about to attack Iran :”and on the way back, bomb the UNESCO offices in Ramallah”. Understandably, this was not much appreciated by UNESCO, who complained to the Israeli ambassador, who was happy to blame UNESCO for this, as can be seen below.

 

This is quite a good illustration of the current state of mind on the Israeli public, including the so-called ‘inlltelligentsia’, the intellectuals and artists. It is almost unheard of for Israelis to doubt their way of seeing the world, to question their own point of view. This inability is behind all which is now happening in Israel – the fascisation of the state and its mechanisms, the pronounced rightward lurch of the whole of society, the total backing given to the racist occupation and its machinery of repression and murder, the preparation for an attack on Iran for developing Nuclear Energy, by a country with more than 300 undeclared nuclear devices of mass destruction, and the growing Nazi style attacks nicknamed ‘price-tag’ on Palestinians in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. At some point in the future, after a series of terrible events will bring Zionist hegemony to an end, most Israelis will be heard to say:”we had no idea all this was taking place”…

The Israelis and their partners in crime across the world, who support Zionist aggression and expansion, are on the lookout for antisemitism everywhere. They would do better to look under their own beds – Israel has become one of the most racist, arrogant and anti-semitic societies in existence, and the longer this is avoided, the deeper this society will decline and fall.

‘Death to Arabs’ scrawled across Muslim gravestones in Jerusalem: Haaretz

Assailants desecrate some 15 Muslim headstones in what is suspected to be the latest ‘price tag’ attack by right-wing extremists.
By Oz Rosenberg
Some 15 Muslim gravestones were found desecrated in Jerusalem with the slogan “Death to Arabs” on Thursday, in what is suspected to be the latest “price tag” attack by right-wing extremists.

“Death to Arabs” and “Givat Asaf” – the name of a West Bank settlement outpost that is slated for demolition – were spray painted on the gravestones in the Bamamila Cemetery, next to the Jerusalem Museum of Tolerance.

It is still not known who is responsible for the desecration of the gravestones, or even exactly when it took place.

A month ago, on Yom Kippur, graves were desecrated with anti-Arab graffiti in two cemeteries in Jaffa, Christian and Muslim.

Police arrested a 21-year-old on Wednesday on suspicion of spray-painting ‘price tag’ and anti-Arab slogans, and on suspicion of being behind a false a bomb scare at the offices of left-wing political activists Peace Now. The young man had already being arrested in the past after he rang the doorbell of Yariv Oppenheimer, head of Peace Now, and threatened to harm him.

After police interrogated the man over the threats he uttered, he was released. A Jerusalem court remanded the man for another six days on Wednesday.

The man took responsibility for some of the crimes attributed to him at the beginning of his interrogation, including causing damage to the car of an Arab. He said that he did it because he “hates Arabs and hates Leftists.” But later he retracted his confession, and he is currently denying all accusations made against him.

The man’s lawyer, Shaul Ezra, claims that his client’s confession is inadmissible because it was extracted by force. Even when he confessed to some acts at first, the young man denied that accusation that he was responsible for spray-painting graffiti at the home of Hagit Ofran, the Settlement Watch Committee of Peace Now.

Israel Police Commander Yohanan Danino vowed to Peace Now activists on Wednesday that the police was taking every measure to ensure their security and apprehend those responsible for the attacks.

The police struck out in court in another incident that had triggered suspicions of being a ‘price tag’ attack. The police believed that they had enough evidence against three suspects who were caught in Wadi Ara soon after the murder of a family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, carrying bottles of propane.

The three men claimed in court that they were on their way to visit the graves of Jewish saints and had taken propane will them in the event of an emergency.

UNESCO files complaint against Israeli delegation over Haaretz cartoon: Haaretz

A cartoon published in Haaretz causes a rift between Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when a senior official at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called him in for a tongue-lashing on Wednesday. The reason? A cartoon published in Haaretz.

The November 4 cartoon, a riff on the government’s anger at UNESCO’s decision to accept Palestine as a full member, showed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak sending an air force squadron to attack Iran, with Netanyahu ordering, “And on your way back, you’re gonna hit the UNESCO office in Ramallah!”

When he met with Eric Falt, UNESCO’s assistant director general for external relations and public information, Ambassador Nimrod Barkan was stunned to be handed a copy of this cartoon and an official letter of protest from UNESCO’s director general, Irina Bokova. Falt told Barkan the cartoon constituted incitement.

“A cartoon like this endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats, and you have an obligation to protect them,” Falt said, according to an Israeli source. “We understand that there is freedom of the press in Israel, but the government must prevent attacks on UNESCO.”

Barkan pointed out that the government has no control over editorial cartoons printed in the papers. “Ask yourselves what you did to make a moderate paper with a deeply internationalist bent publish such a cartoon,” he suggested. “Perhaps the problem is with you.”

After Barkan reported the conversation to the Foreign Ministry, it cabled back: “What exactly does UNESCO want of us – to send our fine boys to protect UNESCO’s staff, or to shut down the paper? It seems your work environment is getting more and more reminiscent of ‘Animal Farm.'”

Gilbert Achcar: on the US Likudniks’ racist smear campaign: IOA

11 NOVEMBER 2011
Glibert Achcar

This past October, I gave talks about my book, The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, at five California universities – Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC San Diego and UCLA. These weren’t my first talks at North American universities on the same book: I had already made presentations at Columbia, NYU, Rutgers, Harvard, U of Chicago, U of Michigan, U of Wisconsin-Madison, U of Toronto and Rice.

U.S. Likudniks, who had remained relatively restrained on this issue until now, could not stand it any longer. They launched a massive attack against me in the form of a smear article – their trademark type – written by two Campus Watch vigilantes and first published on FrontPageMag, the online magazine of the notorious ultra-right-winger David Horowitz. From there, the article was reproduced by countless websites and blogs belonging to the same ideological swarm, and distributed by them to their extensive email lists.

What drove my detractors especially mad was the fact that my talks were often hosted by scholars of Jewish background, if not by Jewish Studies Centers, like the one at UC Davis that was the first target of this latest smear campaign. I have also been invited by Jewish Studies Centers at the Universities of Chicago and Toronto to talk about my book, a book that was reviewed – rather positively – in the Jewish Review of Books and the Journal of Jewish Studies. My detractors lament: “The rot is so pervasive that it’s infected Middle East studies, Israel studies, Jewish studies, and Holocaust studies alike. At this rate, there will be no bastions of true scholarship left.” By these sorts of malicious attacks, of which I am only the most recent target among many others, they are trying to deter and intimidate the whole of U.S. academia, especially Jewish scholars, from any independent thinking. They are AIPAC’s academic vigilantes.

I will not waste my time – nor that of the readers – discussing in detail what amounts to an accumulation of slanders and distortions combined with rightwing Likudnik-type comments that any intelligent and progressive person can easily recognize for what they are worth. As I usually do in such cases, I will only take one example illustrating the method of my detractors. The two Campus Watch vigilantes’ article starts with this sentence that they attribute to me: “Don’t expect me to take a pro-Israel view. I’m an Arab.” They then go on commenting: “Those in the audience hoping for scholarly objectivity were thus informed that Achcar’s ethnicity trumped intellectual independence…” And to add racist insult to injury, they then find it necessary to emphasize my “heavy accent.”

Fortunately, my lecture at Berkeley, which they comment upon, is available online (see also here). Here is what I said in my opening remarks:

“Let me say from the start that I don’t claim to be neutral, because I don’t think that anyone can be neutral with regard to such issues. What I claim and purport to be is honest. It is a matter of intellectual honesty and this is what I try to display in the book. But I think it would be dishonest to say ‘This is purely scholarly, there’s no politics here, I’m above politics.’ It’s in itself a political statement usually when people say such things, especially on such topics. So, it’s clear that this is a book written by – okay – a scholar, but a scholar who, like any scholar, has a sociology, an origin. I’m myself from the Middle East, I’m from Lebanon, so I’m Arab ethnically speaking, and dealing with the Arabs and the Holocaust, one won’t expect me to take a pro-Israeli view in this regard. Again, my main claim here is one of intellectual honesty. It’s up to the readers to judge, but I didn’t try to hide any embarrassing facts whatsoever, and the book is informed by a perspective which may be described as basically antiracist, against any type of racism be it anti-Semitism, or anti-Arab racism for that matter, or whatever form of prejudice.”

Prisoners reps: Israel not honoring commitments to detainees: Ma’an News

Published Thursday 10/11/2011

Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners Issa Qaraqe said the situation of Palestinian prisoners was worse than before the Oct. 18 prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas. The deal also included an end to solitary confinement and punitive measures, he said.

Director of the parliamentary prisoners’ committee Khalida Jarar said Israel has detained 110 Palestinians since the deal was made.

The comments were made at a news conference at the Government Media Center in Ramallah on Thursday, where representatives spoke out on the situation of some 5,000 Palestinians still in Israeli jail after 477 were released in the first stage of the swap deal three weeks ago.

In late September, detainees launched a 3-week mass hunger strike in jails across Israel to protest worsening conditions. Prisoners suspended the strike on Oct. 17 after they said Israel had announced it would meet a key demand by ending the practice of solitary confinement.

But since ending the strike, isolation cells continue, prisoners’ visiting periods were not increased, and they are still barred from moving between cells to see fellow prisoners, representatives said Thursday.

Qaraqe condemned Israel’s sentencing of Fatah-affiliated lawmaker Jamal Tirawi to 30 years in jail on Oct. 31. Tirawi was already held in Israeli jail for over four years as his trial was postponed repeatedly.

The international community has a responsibility toward democratic representatives jailed in Israel, as they were elected in a national election in 2006 declared free by international observers, Qaraqe said.

Israel’s military prosecution admits that the measures against prisoners is for political, rather than security, reasons, Qaraqe said.

Director of Palestinian Prisoners Society Fares Qaddura said none of the charges against the 23 elected representatives in Israeli jail could be proved, and the sentencing of Tirawi contradicted an agreement to free the lawmaker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Jarar noted that the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted resolutions calling for the release of Palestinian members of parliament detained in Israel in April 2011, and union delegates were prevented from visiting prominent lawmakers Ahmad Saadat and Marwan Barghouthi.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union should ban Israeli politicians from entering member countries to pressure them to release the Palestinian legislators, Jarrar said.

Abbas: Palestinians to continue efforts to seek full UN membership: Haaretz

Speaking to reporters in Tunisia, Palestinian President rules out the possibility of dissolving the Palestinian Authority if UN efforts fail.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his officials stressed Saturday that they will continue efforts to seek full United Nations membership in spite of the latest setbacks at the UN Security Council.

A Palestinian application for full UN membership Abbas submitted on September 23 hit a snag on Friday when a committee reviewing it was not able to agree on the application.

The Palestinians also preferred not to call for a Security Council vote after it became clear they do not have the nine votes needed to bring it before the council for a full vote.

Speaking to reporters in Tunisia, where he is on an official two-day visit, Abbas said late Friday that even if efforts at getting full membership fail at this time, the Palestinian Authority will continue in its efforts in the future. He ruled out the possibility of dissolving the Palestinian Authority if the UN efforts fail.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Malki also said Saturday that these efforts will continue, “even for the 1,000th time,” until Palestine is granted full membership. “Our goal is to get full membership,” he said, stressing that becoming a non-member state of the UN remains an option that the Palestinians can embark on at any time and most likely get, but it was not the primary goal.

“We always knew that one round to get full membership would not be enough,” Malki told Voice of Palestine radio from New York, where he was following up on the Palestinian application.

“The option to join the UN as non-member state is open for us and we can do it whenever we want,” he said. “But our focus is to get full membership because this is what we want.”

He said that the Palestinian Authority may opt for a non-member state but that will not be an alternative to getting full membership. “If we decide to go for a non-member state, it will be for tactical reasons and to join UN agencies. But this will not be an alternative to efforts to ask the Security Council for full membership,” he said. “We do not want to just be observers; we want to be full members.”

EDITOR: Caught in the act…

Who would be the best friends of Israel but Euro fascists? From Hungary to France, from Poland to Italy, the Euro fascists and neo-Nazis support Israel with a venom. And it is not that they have become Jew Lovers, either. It is about the perceived enemy -Islam… So the fascist daughter of Le Pen is quite happy to be seen embraced by the Israeli ambassador to the UN, and he seems to be at least as happy. They have a lot in common.

Now they have to call it an error. There is no error about it!

Israeli diplomat: Le Pen lunch was an ‘error’: Independent

Embarrassment for UN ambassador over meeting with head of French National Front
DONALD MACINTYRE   JERUSALEM  MONDAY 07 NOVEMBER 2011

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said yesterday that the country’s ambassador to the UN made an “error of judgement” by chatting and being photographed with Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s extreme right wing National Front, at a New York reception.

Ron Prosor, formerly Israel’s ambassador to London, has explained that his presence at a lunch last week for Ms Le Pen – whose party has long been shunned by Israel as a matter of government policy – last week was a “mistake.” But while he was also quoted in the Israeli daily Haaretz yesterday as saying that he left “immediately” when he realized his error, it has emerged that he did indeed stay long enough to have a conversation with the National Front leader which she later reportedly described as “warm”. And Mr Prosor was filmed by a French TV crew shortly after leaving saying that he and Ms Le Pen had talked about “Europe and other topics” and that he had “very much enjoyed the conversation.”

The Labour Knesset member Daniel Ben Simon said last night it was “outrageous” that the meeting had taken place and he would be asking the Foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, today whether Mr Prosor had been instructed to attend the function. “Are we now adopting a racist party?” he asked. “This is very, very serious.”

The photograph of the meeting was published in French newspapers, including Le Monde, which recalled the infamous remark by Ms Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen, the National Front founder, that concentration camp gas chambers were a “point of detail of the history of the Second World War.”

Yigal Palmor, spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry, said that Mr Prosor had arrived at the lunch under the misapprehension that it was being hosted by the French mission to the UN. “When he realized who was there he tried to sneak away without causing a spectacle but he was spotted by the lady and engaged in conversation.” Mr Prosor had been anxious to avoid making a scene and had stayed for about 20 minutes, he said.

While the Congolese Ambassador was said to have also mistaken the nature of the occasion, he reportedly turned on his heel as soon as he realised what it was and was overheard loudly upbraiding his secretary on the telephone for sending him to the lunch.

Mr Palmor admitted it was a “faux pas” and “an error of judgment”, and was emphatic yesterday that there was no change in Israel’s long-standing policy of “non-contact” with Ms Le Pen’s party, which had failed to disavow its “legacy of xenophobia and racism.”

EDITOR: Netanyahu the Liar

So now Sarkozy and Obama tell us they also know what everyone else knows for decades – the Netanyahu is a born liar… what is disgusting is not that they know this and pretend otherwise, but that they (and other western leaders) are bending over trying to please the most extreme right of Israeli politics. They are about to bomb Iran and start a new devastating conflict in the Middle East, due to the famous liar. And that, unfortunately, is the truth.

This morning, there are already 100,000 links on Google, if you feed the search term: “Netanyahu is a liar”… Now all we have to wait for is Sarkozy’s denial, which will come soon…

Report: Sarkozy told Obama he ‘can’t bear’ Netanyahu the ‘liar’: Haaretz

American and French presidents overheard when their microphones were accidentally left on after a press conference at the G20 summit.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told U.S. President Barack Obama last week he was fed up with dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and considered him a liar.

Sarkozy made the comment during a private conversation with Obama during a G20 summit in the French riviera town of Cannes last week and the remarks were overheard by a small number of journalists but not initially reported.

“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama during a frank exchange where the U.S. president took him to task for backing a Palestinian request for membership of the UN cultural heritage agency UNESCO.

A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments, which were relayed by a French internet outlet on Tuesday.

Obama said he had to deal regularly with Netanyahu even if Sarkozy was fed up with the Israeli leader, according to the translation of a French interpreter during their Cannes exchange.

In their quest for statehood recognition, the Palestinians have requested membership of the over-arching United Nations system, in addition to its Paris-based UNESCO subsidiary.

France voted in favor of a UNESCO request that succeeded but said last week it would abstain in any vote on membership of the over-arching UN system, which Washington has vowed to veto. Paris and Washington are urging renewed peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a “liar”: Reuters

(Reuters) – French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a liar” in a private conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week’s G20 summit in Cannes.

“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

“You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,” Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

The conversation was not initially reported by the small group of journalists who overheard it because it was considered private and off-the-record. But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

Obama’s apparent failure to defend Netanyahu is likely to be leapt on by his Republican foes, who are looking to unseat him in next year’s presidential election and have portrayed him as hostile to Israel, Washington’s closest ally in the region.

Pushing Netanyahu risks alienating Israel’s strong base of support among the U.S. public and in Congress.

Netanyahu’s office declined immediate comment.

Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship as U.S. efforts to broker a Middle East peace deal have foundered, with the U.S. president openly criticizing Jewish settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It was unclear why exactly Sarkozy had criticized Netanyahu. However, European diplomats have largely blamed Israel for the breakdown in peace talks and have expressed anger over Netanyahu’s approval of large-scale settlement building.

PALESTINIAN WORRIES

During their bilateral meeting on November 3, on the sidelines of the Cannes summit, Obama criticized Sarkozy’s surprise decision to vote in favor of a Palestinian request for membership of the U.N. cultural heritage agency UNESCO.

“I didn’t appreciate your way of presenting things over the Palestinian membership of UNESCO. It weakened us. You should have consulted us, but that is now behind us,” Obama was quoted as saying.

The October 31 UNESCO vote marked a success for the Palestinians in their broader thrust for recognition as a sovereign state in the U.N. system — a unilateral initiative fiercely opposed by Israel and the United States.

As a result of the vote, Washington was compelled to halt its funding for UNESCO under a 1990s law that prohibits Washington from giving money to any U.N. body that grants membership to groups that do not have full, legal statehood.

Obama told Sarkozy that he was worried about the impact if Washington had to pull funding from other U.N. bodies such as the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation and the IAEA nuclear watchdog if the Palestinians gained membership there.

“You have to pass the message along to the Palestinians that they must stop this immediately,” Obama said.

The day the conversation took place, the Palestinians announced that they would not seek membership of any other U.N. agency.

Sarkozy confirmed that France would not take any unilateral decisions when the U.N. Security Council discusses a Palestinian membership request, a debate expected later this month.

“I am with you on that,” Obama replied.

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu ‘liar’: YNet

Microphones accidently left on after G20 meeting pick up private conversation between US, French presidents. Sarkozy admits he ‘can’t stand’ Israeli premier. Obama: You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not “stand” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders’ microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elysée for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.

“By the time the (media) services at the Elysée realize it, it was on for at least three minutes,” one journalist told the website. Still, he said that reporters “did not have a chance to take advantage of this fluke.”

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.

A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”

He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

EDITOR: Countdown to madness continues…

Two events are now leading the news, clearly unrelated – the financial crisis and the preparations for attacking Iran by Israel, the US and UK. There are some interesting connection between both crises, though.

In a world which has seemingly lost any semblance or pretense of rationality, where the market has replaced reason, it is also befitting that the powerful will be able to roam from war to war with impunity. The three countries intending to bomb Iran have been doing this kind of thing with impunity for many decades, and have established a pattern which seems to be acceptable to all – they are above and beyond any laws, and beyond reason itself, have the right to annul and ignore legislation of any kind, and will not stand accused in any type of court, even their own…

If there was necessary any further proof of the deep crisis in which humanity finds itself at this frightening juncture, then the two crises emerging from the same type of diseased thinking are it. The world economic system, or put simply, capitalism, has never been more sick than it is now, because the market has taken over any other consideration, and it will bring down hundreds of millions, if not billions of ordinary human beings. In the Middle East, everyone knows what Israel is doing is both mad and immoral, not to say illegal, but instead of controlling the pariah, the strongest countries join it in crime. It is indeed a bleak time to live through, and evidence of the corrupt and hopeless state of the current political arena. The IAEA report below is about a country 9Iran) which may get nuclear weapons, but the same organisation is avoiding looking at a country (Israel( that has them for decades, with total impunity. How cynical is that?

Obama must stop Netanyahu, Barak from attacking Iran: Haaretz

If Obama is opposed to a military solution, then he must stop the duo of Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, before it is too late.
By Akiva Eldar
Some six months before a devil incarnate shot Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the back in order to stop the peace process, two American politicians stabbed him in the neck. In May 1995, at the height of the fragile negotiations on the interim peace agreement, the two welcomed Rabin to Washington with a fatal legislative initiative. The Republican candidate for the presidency, Bob Dole, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, proposed recognizing united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and requiring the administration to move the U.S. Embassy there. Yigal Amir hoped that his assassin’s bullets could save Israel from the threat of peace; the Republicans hoped that their law would save several million dollars from the pockets of the Jewish donors.

Sixteen years after the assassination, “peace” is considered almost a dirty word in Israel. On the eve of elections in the United States, the fate of Israelis is once again serving as a ping pong ball in the hands of American politicians. The explosion of the peace process over the Jerusalem issue has made way for the Iranian nuclear plan.

There is a good reason why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wont to describe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Hitler. How can the leaders of countries that did not prevent the murder of six million Jews object to the right of Israel to defend itself from the deadly foe who wishes to destroy the Jewish state?

Gingrich, who has joined the race for the Republican candidate for the presidency, declared at the week’s end that if the Israeli prime minister reaches the conclusion that the country is in danger, no American president could doubt it and expect Israel to sit with its arms folded and face the danger of another Holocaust. One of his rivals for the candidacy, Rick Perry, then hastened to announce that if Israel decided to attack Iran, he would demand that the United States stand behind it.

What do they have to lose? If this is a false threat designed to goad the United States into exerting more pressure on Tehran, they can wave their support. If a military assault is a new version of the last war in Iraq, they will be able to place the blame on President Barack Obama.

Escalating oil prices in the wake of a military confrontation in the Middle East, in the midst of a difficult winter and an extreme economic crisis, will be a boost to the Republicans. If Obama sits by idly, they will pull out his pictures from the much-publicized meeting of the United Nations’ Security Council, which adopted his call for reducing the nuclear arsenal throughout the world. Who remembers that they did not open their mouths and utter a sound when “their” president, George Bush, with his own hands every half year, signed an order to delay the law for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? Election considerations of the kind that distance Obama from any hint of disagreement with Netanyahu over the negotiations with the Palestinians are not merely immoral, they are also not effective. Numerous public opinion polls carried out over the years at the instigation of Jewish organizations have shown that the attitude toward Israel is at the bottom of the voting considerations of Jewish Americans in presidential elections – far behind economics, health and the war in Iraq.

A recent analysis conducted by experts at the Gallup polling company attributes the drop in Jewish support for Obama to the Jews’ lack of satisfaction from his economic performance. In a survey of the American Jewish Committee, 73 percent of the Jewish respondents defined themselves as liberal or moderate, and only 25 percent as conservative. This ratio has barely changed over the past decade.

The Americans are reiterating that Iran’s nuclear program is a worldwide problem. The members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee pointed out the special significance of Obama’s vision and action on behalf of a world without nuclear weapons. The president replied modestly that this was not an estimation of his achievements, but rather a call to action. He surely did not mean watching from the situation room in the White House how the Israeli Air Force goes into action against Iran.

If the Americans are so fearful of “a second Holocaust,” and feel that they have exhausted the diplomatic option, will they kindly go into action against Iran themselves? If Obama is opposed to a military solution, then he must stop the duo of Netanyahu and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak, before it is too late.

IAEA due to expose Iranian nuclear weapons design and testing facility: Guardian

The UN nuclear watchdog will unveil details of an advanced warhead blueprint and a site where it may have been tested, reports say

The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to circulate its latest quarterly report on Iran on Wednesday. It is a confidential document distributed to member states but it is traditionally leaked within seconds. This time, because of the renewed talk of military action, particularly in Israel and Britain, it is being pre-leaked.

The Washington Post has an article this morning suggesting the IAEA now believes that Iran is on “the threshold” of making a nuclear warhead small enough to be put on top of a ballistic missile.

The article talks about a device called an R265 generator, which it describes as follows:

The device is a hemispherical aluminium shell with an intricate array of high explosives that detonate with split-second precision. These charges compress a small sphere of enriched uranium or plutonium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.

According to David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis) R265 is the code-name for a warhead design I described in a November 2009 article with a two-point detonation system.

The name apparently refers to the 265mm radius of the fissile hemispheres in the warhead. This is how I understand it works: the aluminium shell contains an array of channels filled with explosive which end in explosive pellets. Those pellets simultaneously explode to initiate a high-explosive hemisphere that crushes the fissile core, triggering the chain reaction. Each of the two hemispherical systems is set off by a single point of detonation.

The IAEA has already alluded vaguely to this device in its May 2008 quarterly report on Iran, which points to the central piece of evidence, described as follows:

Five page document in English describing experimentation undertaken with a complex multipoint initiation system to detonate a substantial amount of high explosive in hemispherical geometry and to monitor the development of the detonation wave in that high explosive using a considerable number of diagnostic probes.

In the 2009 article, I reported that the IAEA was investigating the role of a ‘Russian weapons expert” in developing this device. This morning’s Washington Post article names him as Vyacheslav Danilenko, “a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Centre”. This was the name I was given in 2009, but on condition I not use it, and as I was unable to track him down to hear his version, I didn’t. The Washington Post quotes unnamed officials as saying Danilenko had insisted he had been under the impression he was providing assistance for civilian engineering projects.

The other element of the IAEA report that has been pre-leaked is a report that Iran has built a bus-sized steel chamber at Parchin for testing the high explosive arrays necessary for making an implosion device.

Parchin, a vast military and munitions centre, has been a suspect site since 2004, when some US officials told journalists they believed it was been used to test high explosives for an implosion device. At the time, Albright produced an Isis analysis of the site with Corey Hinderstein, concluding it was “a logical candidate for a nuclear weapons-related site” but cautioned that the evidence was ambiguous.

Albright says now that some US officials became convinced in 2004 that Iran was about to conduct a “cold test” of a nuclear warhead at Parchin, using a surrogate material for the fissile core, but the test never happened.

IAEA asked for access to Parchin and was allowed to visit a small part of the site in January 2005 and more in November 2005, but it reported in February 2006 that its inspectors had found nothing untoward.

The steel vessel which will reportedly be discussed in Wednesday’s report had not previously been identified by Albright and could be in a different part of the Parchin, but he warned that impressions based on satellite images can be misleading, and that the reality on the ground can be less clear cut.

The note of caution was reinforced last week when there was a flurry of reporting that the IAEA had found a site in Syria which had been intended as an uranium enrichment plant. But the site, the Hasaka spinning factory, turned out to be a textile factory all along.

What is certain is that after Wednesday, it will be the IAEA and its credibility that will become the centre of the political battle. Iran’s foreign minister has already rejected the nuclear weapons report as “counterfeit”, and Tehran is expected to launch an offensive against the agency’s director-general, Yukiya Amano.

For those countries which have faith in the IAEA’s reporting and analysis, the question will remain of what to make of the findings. They do not quite add up to a smoking gun. They suggest that while research on weapons did continue after 2004, it was largely restricted to computer modelling rather than building things and blowing them up. There is no evidence that Iran has decided to make a nuclear weapon, just that it appears to looking at the technical options should it one day make that decision, and meanwhile amassing an uranium stock that potentially provide the fissile cores for its warheads.

Palestinians say Israel imposing steep court fees to prevent lawsuits: Haaretz

Palestinians who lost family members in the Israeli offensive in Gaza say they cannot seek compensation due to near-impossible barriers placed by Israel.

Dozens of Palestinians who lost relatives in an Israeli military offensive in Gaza three years ago have been forced to put their compensation claims on hold, saying Israel has placed near-impossible barriers to proceeding with their cases.

Israeli restrictions prevent Gazans from entering Israel to testify, undergo medical exams or meet with their lawyers. But the biggest obstacle, the victims say, are steep court fees that can reach tens of thousands of dollars.

“The victim must pay for justice,” said Gaza resident Mohammed Abdel-Dayim, whose son and three nephews were killed during a military assault. “Israel should be ashamed.”

Israel says the fees prevent frivolous lawsuits. They say they are imposed on many foreigners – not just Palestinians – because they don’t have local assets that the state could seize to cover legal fees and other court costs.

But Palestinians say the costs are part of a strategy to protect Israeli soldiers. If the fees aren’t reduced, lawyers representing Palestinians say they will have to drop most cases.

Abdel-Dayim is suing Israel over the deaths of four relatives: His son was a volunteer medic who died when Israeli tank fire struck the ambulance he was driving. Three nephews were killed the next day when Israeli shelling struck a mourning tent where the family was grieving.

An Israeli court asked Abdel-Dayim to post 22,000 dollars in court fees, or just over 5,000 dollars per victim. His annual income is under 6,000 dollars.

About 1,000 Gazans have prepared cases seeking compensation, mostly alleging wrongful deaths during Israel’s offensive in the territory, according to their lawyers.

Some 1,400 Gazans were killed during the three-week Israeli operation, including hundreds of civilians. Israel launched the offensive in December 2008 in response to heavy Palestinian rocket fire. Thirteen Israelis also died in the fighting.

Israel says Gaza’s Hamas rulers are responsible for the civilian casualties, claiming the militant group endangered civilians by firing rockets from near schools and residential areas.

In civil suits in Israel, the losing party must pay legal fees and court costs of the winning side. Because foreign nationals could bolt without paying, Israeli courts often demand a security deposit. The money is returned to plaintiffs who win their cases. The sum of the guarantee is left to individual judges.

For example, in July, Judge Nehama Munitz of the District Court in the northern city of Nazareth demanded a 5,500 dollars deposit from each of 42 Gazan plaintiffs in a case involving the bombing of the Abdel-Dayim mourning tent, according to legal documents. Mohammed Abdel-Dayim’s share was 22,000 dollars.

She said the fees are justified by the expensive and time-consuming investigative process, and dismissed claims of a financial barrier.

“The plaintiffs did not prove that they are unable to afford the expense of the court guarantee, and/or did not claim this in their brief,” she wrote in a court document obtained by The Associated Press.

Tameem Younis, a lawyer representing the families, is now appealing. If the fees aren’t reduced, “we will have to cancel the claims,” he said.

Iyad Alami of the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which takes on many cases, said they have raised money for some of the most important petitions, including a planned case where some two dozen members of the Samouni clan were killed after fleeing to what they thought was a safe house.

Nitzan Eyal, a spokeswoman for Israel’s courts system, said the fees are set based on the chances of success.

“The lower the chances of the claim, the higher the justification for charging the plaintiff a court deposit to ensure the legal expenses of the defendant,” she said.

Israelis, in contrast, typically don’t have to pay up front because the courts can put liens on their properties. Likewise, families of victims from friendly nations often don’t pay.

Hussein Abu Hussein, attorney for the American parents of Rachel Corrie, who was killed in Gaza in 2003 when she was run over by a military bulldozer, did not pay a deposit in their civil suit against Israel. He said it was waived because the U.S. and Israel enforce each others’ court rulings. Israel and the Palestinians have no such understanding.

Michael Karyanni, a law professor at Israel’s Hebrew University, said the legal fees appeared excessive, given the impoverished circumstances of many Gazans. Some 40 percent of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents live on less than 2 dollars a day, according to UN figures.

“The Supreme Court has said in one of its judgments that the court needs to be sensitive to the financial abilities of the plaintiff, but I don’t think from what I’ve seen that there is any kind of a serious attempt to have the costs be proportional to the plaintiff’s ability,” Karyanni said.

Israelis point out the practice of seeking upfront guarantees is also accepted in Europe. In the Netherlands, for instance, plaintiffs must pay 800 euros to 1,400 euros depending on the size of the claim. But the Dutch system lowers the fee to just 71 euros for indigent or low-income plaintiffs.

Karyanni said in Israel, only in rare cases have plaintiffs successfully appealed to reduce the fees. In general, Israel says the system is fair to Palestinians.

“The fact that Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel routinely petition Israeli courts demonstrates more than anything else the stature of our courts,” said government spokesman Mark Regev.

In the last two years, Palestinians won about 6 million dollars in damages from the state, according to the Israeli Justice Ministry.

In August, Israel’s Defense Minister settled a case related to the Gaza offensive out of court, paying about 137,000 dollars to the family of a mother and daughter who were shot dead while waving white flags.

In the Iraq war, by contrast, Iraqis cannot claim civil damages from the U.S. under a 2008 agreement. In Afghanistan, the U.S. offers compensation to citizens when their property is damaged, but it’s unclear whether they can claim damages for deaths or injuries caused by the U.S.-led military alliance.

There are no known cases of Israelis suing in Palestinian Authority courts for damages, said Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib.

There is hardly any reason to test the system that way: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an Israeli lawyer who represents victims of Palestinian violence, said some 150 cases against the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority were pending in Israeli courts.

The Palestinian government defends itself in these cases, and so far, there have been no rulings against the authority, Darshan-Leitner said. She said Israelis had also successfully sued Gaza’s rulers, the militant Islamic group Hamas, which has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings. But it has been impossible to recover damages.

In other cases, Israelis have turned to U.S. courts, either because of joint American citizenship or under “crimes against humanity” laws. The Palestinian Authority has reached settlements in at least two cases, Darshan-Leitner said.

For most Gazans, just getting to the courtroom is a challenge. Under restrictions imposed in 2002 at the height of violence between Palestinians and Israel, Palestinians have 60 days following an incident to file an initial letter of complaint with the Defense Ministry. After that, they have two years to take those claims to court.

Gazans are allowed into Israel only in rare cases, such as medical emergencies, and the state does not allow video testimony from Gaza, said Israeli attorney Michael Sfard, who frequently represents Palestinians in Israeli courts.

Israelis are also banned from entering Gaza, which means lawyers cannot meet clients and state doctors cannot give certified medical exams to verify claims.

The Israeli Arab advocacy group Adalah has filed a petition to allow Gazans entry permits to Israel for their legal proceedings. A court ruling is expected in the next few months.

“It’s impossible to conduct a trial at all under these circumstances,” said Sfard.

EDITOR: The tail wagging the dog?

Who is controlling whom in this shocking development? Surely the US can control Israel, its paid dog? Well, it does not look like it.

Leave alone the obvious fact that Washington would like to pretend it cannot control Israel, so is not responsible for its mad dog… apart from the whole set-up being carefully planned over the last few years, and ignited over the last week as the final episode in this western-controlled drama, it is also true that the US does not wholly control Israel. What comes to mind is the Dr. Frankenstein scenario – the US has built its creature of monstrosity over a long period, thinking it is in full control, but the creature has its own ideas and its own priorities… There is no doubt that this is so.

However, it is still amazing that Israel is so successful in directing and highjacking western agendas, especially at times which are as fraught as the current juncture, with the world economy hanging by its teeth from the Eurozone cliff – even at such times, the main western nations are ready to do Israel’s bidding, believing it to be in their interests, a bit like they did in 1956. Good luck to us all.

U.S. military official: We are concerned Israel will not warn us before Iran attack: Haaretz

Senior U.S. military official tells CNN U.S. ‘increasingly vigilant’ over military developments in Iran, Israel; says ‘absolutely’ concerned Israel may attack Iran nuclear facilities.

U.S. officials are concerned that Israel will not warn them before taking military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, a senior U.S. military official said Friday.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous, told the CNN network that although in the past, U.S. officials thought they would receive warning from Israel if it did take military action against Iran, “now that doesn’t seem so ironclad.”

The U.S. is “absolutley” concerned that Israel is preparing an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and this concern is increasing, CNN reported the official as saying.

The U.S. has increased its “watchfulness” of Iran and Israel over the past few weeks, U.S. Central and European Commands, which watch Iranian and Israeli developments respectively, are “increasingly vigilant” at this time, according to the official, and a second military official who also spoke with CNN.

The military official emphasized that the U.S is concerned about the risk a strike against Iran could pose for American troops in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf, according to the CNN report.

The official also said that the U.S. does not intend to follow a military action against Iran, CNN said.

This past week, reports have surfaced regarding Israeli military action against Iran. A senior Israeli official said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran.

On Friday, President Shimon Peres said that he believes Israel and the world may soon take military action against Iran. His comments followed

As the drumbeat of reports about possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities intensified, an International Atomic Energy Agency report, to be released next week is expected to reveal intelligence suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead and other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms, diplomats told The Associated Press on Friday.

 Iran warns US to avoid clash over nuclear programme: Guardian

Iranian foreign minister says America has ‘lost its wisdom and prudence’ as tensions mount over Tehran’s enrichment efforts
Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and Ian Black
The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said his country was ‘prepared for the worst’. Photograph: Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters
Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, as diplomatic tensions reflected growing concern that the Middle East might be on the verge of new conflict.

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, spoke amid reports that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack.

The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans for joining American forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to Nato insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action, and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness.

“The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues,” he told reporters during a visit to Libya. “Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran.”

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. “We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation … such threats are not new to us,” he said. “We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country.”

The pressure on Iran has been building since allegations surfaced of a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The White House insists Tehran was behind the plot, but the Iranian regime has denied that.

The episode added to US concerns about Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme and the increasing belligerence of its regime. Intelligence suggests that some of the Iranian centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium are being hidden inside a fortified military base in Qom, about 100 miles south-west of Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Authority will next week deliver its latest bulletin on Iran’s nuclear programme and is expected to provide fresh evidence of covert plans to engineer warheads.

The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, said to be one of those pushing for an early attack on Iran, was in London on Thursday for talks with David Cameron’s national security adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and the new defence secretary, Philip Hammond.

Hague said the meeting had given them a chance to discuss “shared concerns such as … the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme”. Downing Street said “all options are on the table” for dealing with Iran unless it truly abandons any plans to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Though Britain says its policy on the issue has not changed, the Guardian disclosed that British military planners were now having to turn contingency plans into practical steps, such as considering when to deploy Royal Navy submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles to the region, in case Barack Obama bows to pressure to launch missile strikes against Iranian bases.

Although Iran has insisted it is only developing nuclear energy, Whitehall officials believe the regime will have hidden all it needs to build weapons inside fortified compounds within 12 months – adding a sense of urgency to diplomatic efforts.

The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, called for political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the growing crisis. He insisted that Nato would not be drawn into any military action.

“Let me stress that Nato has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Iran, and Nato is not engaged as an alliance in the Iran question,” he said.

Villy Søvndal, the new Danish foreign minister,said he could not see any circumstances in which his country would join a military effort against Iran, as it had done in Libya and Afghanistan. “The difference between Libya and Iran is that I could never imagine a UN resolution behind a military attack on Iran. There would be no regional backup. That would be one of the most impossible military missions.

“Of course, you can bomb some buildings and equipment and maybe you could delay for a period of one or two years. But I can no see any situation in which Denmark would participate. It would produce so much instability … you could also end in a situation where you strengthen the present Iranian regime.”

In Israel, the row over whether to launch strikes against Iran continued, with Netanyahu reportedly ordering an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack nuclear facilities.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel’s foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. Netanyahu is said to believe that the two chiefs, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to disrupt plans being drawn up by him and Barak to hit Iranian nuclear sites.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage – have been exhausted.

In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran “the stupidest idea” he had ever heard. The Kuwaiti newspaper has a track record of running stories based on apparently high-level leaks from Israeli officials.

Even well-informed Israeli observers admit to being confused about what is going on behind the scenes.

“It seems that only Netanyahu and Barak know, and maybe even they haven’t decided,” said Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected writers for the newspaper Haaretz.

“While many people say Netanyahu and Barak are conducting sophisticated psychological warfare and don’t intend to launch a military operation, top officials … are still afraid.”

The debate in Israel intensified further on Wednesday when Israel test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.

 Iran’s nuclear ambitions have already started a war with west – a covert one: Guardian

A secret campaign of surveillance, sabotage, cyberattacks and assassinations has slowed but not stopped Tehran’s programme
Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
The covert war on Iran’s nuclear programme was launched in earnest by George Bush in 2007. It is a fair assumption that the western powers had been trying their best to spy on the Islamic Republic since the 1979 Iranian revolution, but the 2007 “presidential finding” put those efforts on a new footing.

Bush asked Congress to approve $400m for a programme of support for rebel ethnic groups, as well as intelligence gathering and sabotage of the nuclear programme. Part of that effort involved slipping defective parts such as centrifuge components into the black market supply to Iran, designed to blow apart while in operation and in so doing bring down all the centrifuges in the vicinity. The UK, Germany, France and Israel are said to have been involved in similar efforts. Meanwhile, western intelligence agencies stepped up their attempt to infiltrate the programme, seeking to recruit Iranian scientists when they travelled abroad.

That espionage effort appears to have paid dividends. In 2009, the US, British and French intelligence agencies were able to confirm that extensive excavations at Fordow, a Revolutionary Guard base near the Shia theological centre of Qom, were a secret uranium enrichment plant under construction. The digging had been seen by satellites, but only human sources could identify its purpose. Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy were able to reveal Fordow’s existence at the UN general assembly in September 2009, a diplomatic setback to Iran. Russia, which had been Iran’s principal protector on the world stage, was furious with Tehran at having been taken by surprise.

It is harder to gauge the impact of sabotage. Olli Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said: “I never saw any direct evidence of sabotage. We could see that they had breakages but it was hard to say if those were the result of their own technical problems or sabotage. I suspect a little of both.”

Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation, complained to the press in 2006 about sabotage but vowed that Iran would overcome the challenge by making more of the centrifuges and other components itself.

But it was impossible to make everything at home. The computer systems which run the centrifuge operations in Natanz, supplied by the German engineering firm Siemens, were targeted last year by a computer worm called Stuxnet, reportedly created as a joint venture by US and Israeli intelligence. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad conceded that Stuxnet had caused damage, and last November, Iranian scientists were forced to suspend enrichment to rectify the problem. A few days later, however, the centrifuges were working once more.

The black operations have not been confined to hardware and computer systems. They have also targeted Iran’s scientists. In July 2009, an Iranian nuclear expert called Shahram Amiri vanished while on a pilgrimage to Mecca. A year later, he surfaced in the US claiming he had been abducted by American agents, and in July 2010 he returned to a hero’s welcome in Tehran.

US officials said he had been a willing defector who had been paid $5m for his help, but who had since had a mysterious change of heart. There have since been claims Amiri had been an Iranian double agent all along. The truth is unclear.

Other attempts to remove Iran’s scientists have been blunter and bloodier.

Starting in January 2010, there were a series of attacks in Tehran on Iranian physicists with links to the nuclear programme. The first target was Masoud Ali Mohammadi, a physicist and lecturer at the Imam Hussein university, run by the Revolutionary Guards. He was on his way to work when a bomb fixed to a motorbike parked outside his house exploded and killed him instantly.

In November that year, assassins on motorbikes targeted two Iranian scientists simultaneously as they were stuck in morning traffic. In both cases, the killers drove up alongside their targets’ cars and stuck bombs to the side. Majid Shahriari, a scientist at the atomic energy organisation, who had co-authored a paper on neutron diffusion in a nuclear reactor, was killed.

The other target, Fereidoun Abbasi-Davani, suspected by western officials of being a central figure in experiments on building a nuclear warhead, was only injured. Three months later he was promoted to the leadership of the nuclear programme.

A third scientist, Darioush Rezaeinejad, was killed in an attack in July this year, when gunmen on motorbikes shot him in a street in east Tehran. He was initially described in the Iranian media as a “nuclear scientist”, but the government later denied he had any involvement in the programme.

Iran has blamed the attacks on the Israeli secret service, Mossad, and in August sentenced an Iranian, Majid Jamali-Fashi, to death for his alleged involvement in the Ali Mohammadi killing. He had confessed to being part of a hit-team trained in Israel, but it appeared likely he had made the confession under torture.

Despite the millions spent, stalled machines and deaths of leading scientists, Iran has steadily built up its stockpile of enriched uranium to 4.5 tonnes – enough for four nuclear bombs if it was further refined to weapons-grade purity. At most, the covert war has slowed the rate of progress, but it has not stopped it.

BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS!

Israel Navy intercepts Gaza-bound aid vessels; no injuries reported: Haaretz

Naval forces board two Gaza-bound ships after they failed to heed orders to turn around or dock in Egypt or Israel; ships being led to port of Ashdod.

The Israel Navy on Friday afternoon intercepted two boats that approached the coast of the Gaza Strip with the intent to violate Israel’s naval blockade of the territory.

After the boats failed to heed calls to turn around or dock in Egypt or Israel, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ordered naval forces to board the ships. Nobody was injured during the boarding of the ships, a military source said.

“The Israel Navy soldiers operated as planned, and took every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of the activists onboard the vessels as well as themselves,” an IDF statement said.

The boats were carrying supplies and 27 international pro-Palestinian activists.

Activists in Gaza and Ramallah said they lost radio contact with the ships shortly after 1 p.m.

The IDF said that the navy had contacted the Gaza-bound ships and informed them that Gaza is under a maritime security blockade. The IDF told the ships they could turn around or dock in the Egypt or at Ashdod, where the goods they were carrying would be transferred to Gaza after being inspected.

The ships did not heed that call and continued towards Gaza.

IDF forces did not expect to face violent resistance from the activists on the ships.

Israel’s navy has intercepted similar protest ships in the past, towing them to Ashdod and detaining participants. Israel says its naval blockade of Gaza is necessary to prevent weapons from reaching militant groups like Hamas, the Iran-backed group that rules the territory. Critics call the blockade collective punishment of Gaza’s residents.

Israel’s government has said the activists can send supplies into Gaza overland.

In May 2010, nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed when they resisted an Israeli operation to halt a similar flotilla. Each side blamed the other for the violence.

The incident sparked an international outcry and forced Israel to ease its land blockade on Gaza, which was imposed in 2006 and tightened, with Egyptian cooperation, after Hamas seized control of the territory the following year.

Militants in Gaza have fired thousands of rockets into Israel in the past decade, and now have much of southern Israel in range.

Speaking after prayers at a Gaza City mosque, Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister, addressed the passengers aboard the boats, saying, “Your message has been delivered whether you make it or not.”

“The siege is unjust and must end,” Haniyeh said.

On Thursday, the Obama administration warned U.S.citizens on the boats that they may face legal action for violating Israeli and American law. The activists include Americans and citizens of eight other countries.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S.was renewing its warning to Americans “not to involve themselves in this activity.”

The U.S., like Israel and the European Union, considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

 

 

 

 

EDITOR: Israel vs The Universe!

The speed of events is certainly intensifying, to a point it is almost dizzying. The UN bid by Abbas has started a series of Israeli reactions which are really off the scale, as well as carefully designed to inflame and increase tension in the region, in a buildup to the grande attack on Iran, the Israeli project now sold to the USA and UK, these famous protectors of humanity and democracy.

Ever since 2005, Israel has stoked the anti-Iranian issue, increasing the fire under the west’s bum, and building up to total conflict, which is the only condition Israel feels comfortable with. The readiness of most states in the UN to award Palestine a full status is sending Israel off the horizon, into the blue yonder of nuclear war in the Middle East. This is preferable to facing the simple facts of the Palestine issue, and going along with reality, for a change. This Israel cannot do – not just Mr. Netanyahu, or Mr. Barak, but all the other leaders of Israeli parties and factions.

But what is amazing about this turn of events is not just the Israeli madness, overreaction and aggression, but the fact that they have managed to persuade the main western powers to fight their wars for them, and even thank Israel for being allowed to do so… That the USA and UK are now gearing up to attack a non-nuclear nation, in the interest of a nation with over 300 nuclear weapons, which they are protecting from international agencies and the arm of the law. They will be bombing a country which has not attacked others, in order to protect one which does nothing else but attack other countries and nations. This must be the height of international morality.

They will do so not just for the Israelis, of course, but also in the interest of derailing the Arab Spring, or what is left of it. They are doing just fine – with Egypt under a military Junta, with Libya in the hands of undemocratic militias, and with Syria about to collapse – not bad for one summer… they will be showing who is boss, to avoid confusion in the future.

And after all that, Americans will again wonder, why does no one but Israel love them? They really haven’t got the slightest.

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears: Guardian

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran’s capability
Nick Hopkins
Iranian nuclear technicians in protective wear. Photograph: Mehdi Ghasemi/AP
Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November’s presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA’s bulletin could be “a game changer” which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved “surprisingly resilient” in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why”, citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran’s centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding “material and capability” inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain’s military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK’s planning being taken to a new level.

“Beyond [12 months], we couldn’t be sure our missiles could reach them,” the source said. “So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won’t.

“So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

“President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won’t want to do anything just before an election.”

Another source added there was “no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change”. Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but “a small number of special forces” may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: “The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table.”

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: “I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. “It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning.”

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran’s nuclear programme. A source said the “Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out”, and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran’s new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

“There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington,” said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was “increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Israel led by a right-wing, myopic government: Haaretz Editorial

If Israel had a sober and responsible, peace-seeking leadership, it would welcome the PA’s membership in UNESCO and even its upgraded status in the United Nations.
A week after Avigdor Lieberman declared Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas an “obstacle to peace,” it turns out the foreign minister is not alone in the campaign to eliminate the Palestinian interlocutor. Shortly after Israel signed the deal to free soldier Gilad Shalit and revealed the PA leadership to be an empty vessel, the forum of eight senior ministers decided on Tuesday to embark on a campaign to punish the PA leadership.

The government took advantage of the PA’s acceptance as a full member of UNESCO – the United Nations cultural organization – as well as its efforts to become a member of other UN agencies, to declare a retaliatory action that will further undermine Abbas’ position. The forum decided to move ahead with the construction of 2,000 housing units in the settlements and in East Jerusalem, and to withhold more than NIS 300 million in taxes that Israel has collected for the PA, money intended to pay the salaries of PA employees ahead of the Muslim feast of Id al-Adha. The forum also decided to begin the process of revoking senior PA officials’ VIP documentation.

The UN envoy to the region, Robert Serry, told Haaretz this week that the perpetuation of the status quo will lead to the dismantling of the PA and to “throwing the keys back to Israel.” This gloomy prediction, which has the army very concerned, doesn’t worry the government. On the contrary, the eight senior ministers’ decision shows that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is following the path of Lieberman, who is calling for the severing of ties with the PA.

The political elimination of Abbas and his partners will lift international pressure on Netanyahu to freeze construction in the settlements, and will release him from the need to begin negotiations based on the 1967 borders. The takeover of the West Bank by terror groups – and the process of turning it into a clone of the Gaza Strip – will allow the government to occupy the territories again and do whatever it wants there. Such a development will amplify the influence of Iran and radical Muslim organizations, and will magnify the threat to Israel’s security.

If Israel had a sober and responsible, peace-seeking leadership, it would welcome the PA’s membership in UNESCO and even its upgraded status in the United Nations. Unfortunately, and distressingly, Israel is being led by a right-wing, myopic government.

An attack on Iran would be disastrous: Guardian

Britain must resist US pressure for military action. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, engagement is the only course to take
Richard Norton-Taylor
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visits a nuclear enrichment facility south of Tehran. Photograph: HO/Reuters/Corbis
“Would a British prime minister ever refuse a plea from a US president to join America in a controversial military operation?” This was the response, rhetorical and unanswerable as far as they were concerned, by Whitehall mandarins whenever they were asked why Tony Blair agreed to invade Iraq. It was not a matter of whether the invasion was wrong or right; it was that the occupier of 10 Downing Street would simply not turn down such a request from the White House.

For the US, Britain could offer not only political and “moral” support but a juicy physical asset – Diego Garcia, the base conveniently placed for American bombers, on the British Indian Ocean Territory.

This is what so worries Whitehall, and Britain’s top brass in particular – a growing fear that Barack Obama will find it difficult to oppose increasing pressure for military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities within the next 12 months. British military commanders may be gung-ho, perennially optimistic and eager to please their political masters. They are also pragmatic, fully aware of the potential failure as well as the catastrophic consequences of such military action. And it would be hard for anyone to defend the legality of such pre-emptive strikes.

Amid such death and destruction what would be the end game, and the battles on the way? US and British military commanders have for years warned of the disasters that would follow missile strikes on Iran.

Iran’s forces may not be up to much but, with the help of Hamas and Hezbollah, they could wreak havoc. British and US troops in Afghanistan would be exposed to even greater danger than they are now – their bases in the Gulf, notably in Qatar and Bahrain, would be easy targets. The Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf, the canal through which more than 50% of the world’s oil is shipped, would be closed. What would arise from the ashes?

Some may say that is a price worth paying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The suggestion is that there is a “window” now that would enable Israel on its own to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. Next year, the “window” would be left open to the US (and the UK) before Iran’s nuclear weapons reached the point of no return.

Such reasoning, if this is what it can be called, is that of the dangerous fool. How crushed and devastated would Iran have to be before it could no longer restart a nuclear programme, even one just involving fissile material as a weapon for terrorists?

Israel is fast developing its arsenal, giving it a nuclear “triad” – weapons that could be delivered by land and air, and by submarines.

That’s fine and understandable because Israel is not Iran – unstable, unpredictable, under a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to create havoc across the Middle East. So runs the argument.

Why attack, or even threaten to attack, a country whose leaders are increasingly worried, more worried, about the state of the economy and internal dissent than any perceived threat from Israel? Iran is a far more sophisticated and divided society than the picture generally painted in the west.

An attack on Iran would halt and reverse moves to reform. The Arab spring would become an Arab winter with disastrous consequences for US and European interests as well as Arab societies, including Saudi Arabia. The alternatives are many – to continue to apply economic sanctions, a policy of carrot and stick, but with much more emphasis on the carrot. Embraces are far more difficult to withstand than attacks.

Engagement with Iran is essential even if it continues to appear determined to possess nuclear weapons, or the ability to produce them – “the art, but not the article”. It is status, after all, rather than military practicality, that led Blair to keep the Trident nuclear missile system for Britain, according to his autobiography.

If the pressure continues to mount, we can only hope there are enough influential voices left in Whitehall to tell the prime minister, and in Washington to tell the president: “No!”

Continue reading November 4, 2011