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.