Category: Gaza Carnage – Resources page

EDITOR: Preparation for war against Iran continue!

As Israeli propaganda for the war against Iran continues, and the forces are quietly collecting in the Gulf states and in Israel, the war of words also continues to flare up. Obama, as was the case since the start of his tenure, does both: he warmongers through Israel, and pretends to be worried about Israeli intentions. Who is fooling by this strange behaviour? Only the American population, of course, who can always be sold more wars under the guise of peacekeeping. He did not get his Nobel prize for nothing, you know… he has to start another war, now that he is out of Iraq, that peaceful country after a decade of the US/UK special peacekeeping.

The west is earning its demise with every mad and criminal action it advances.

Robert Fisk: An attack on Tehran would be madness. So don’t rule it out: Independent

After invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, we plan to clap as Israel bombs Iran
ROBERT FISK    SATURDAY 04 FEBRUARY 2012

If Israel really attacks Iran this year, it – and the Americans – will be more dotty than their enemies think. True, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crackpot, but then so is Avigdor Lieberman, who is apparently the Israeli Foreign Minister. Maybe the two want to do each other a favour. But why on earth would the Israelis want to bomb Iran and thus bring down on their heads the fury of both the Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas at the very same moment? Along with Syria, no doubt. Not to mention sucking the West – Europe and the US – into the same shooting match.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been in the Middle East for 36 years, but I sniff some old herrings in the air. Leon Panetta, the US Defence Secretary no less, warns us that Israel may strike. So does CNN – an older herring it would be difficult to find – and even old David Ignatius, who hasn’t been a Middle East correspondent for a decade or two, is telling us the same, taken in, as usual, by his Israeli “sources”.

I expected this sort of bumph when I perused last week’s The New York Times Magazine – not an advertisement, this, for I would not want The Independent readers to burn their energy on such tosh – and read a warning from an Israeli “analyst” (I am still trying to discover what an “analyst” is), Ronen Bergman of Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

And here is his “kicker” (as we call it in the trade), which is as near as you can get to playing the propaganda ragtime. “After speaking with many [sic] senior Israeli leaders and chiefs [sic yet again] of the military and intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012. Perhaps in the small and ever diminishing window that is left, the US will choose to intervene after all, but from the Israelis’ perspective, there is not much hope for that. Instead, there is that peculiar Israeli mixture of fear… and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.”

Now, first of all, any journalist who predicts an Israeli strike on Iran is putting his head on the chopping block. But surely any journalist worth his salt – and there are plenty of good journos in Israel – would ask himself a question: Who am I working for? My newspaper? Or my government?

Panetta, pictured below, who lied to US forces in Iraq by claiming to them they were there because of 9/11, should know better than to play this game. CNN ditto. I shall forget Ignatius. But what is all this? Nine years after invading Iraq – an enormously successful adventure, we are still told – because Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction”, we plan to clap our hands as Israel bombs Iran because of more unprovable “weapons of mass destruction”. Now I don’t doubt that within seconds of hearing the news, Barack Obama’s grotesque speech-writers will be grovelling to find the right words to support such an Israeli attack. If Obama can abandon Palestinian freedom and statehood for his own re-election, he can certainly support Israeli aggression in the hope that this will get him back in the White House.

If Iranian missiles start smashing into US warships in the Gulf, however – not to mention US bases in Afghanistan – then the speechwriters may have much more work to do. So just don’t let the Brits or the Frenchies get involved.

Iran military manoeuvres heighten Middle East tensions: Guardian

Revolutionary Guards exercises follow threats by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei against US and Israel

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks to worshippers at a Tehran mosque.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are carrying out military exercises amid rising tensions over the country’s nuclear programme and rumours of a possible strike by Israel or the US.

The manoeuvres in southern Iran involve ground forces and follow threats by the Islamic regime to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation to western sanctions.

The show of military strength also follows a warning by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that any military strike by the US or Israel would only make Iran stronger. Khamenei also pledged that Iran will help any nation or group that confronts the “cancer” Israel,

He affirmed that Iran had assisted militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas – a well-known policy, but one that Iranian leaders rarely acknowledge explicitly.

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006, and in the 22-day war” between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip, he said.

Israel’s large-scale military incursion against Hamas in 2008-09 in Gaza ended in a ceasefire, with Israel claiming to have inflicted heavy damage on the militant organisation. The war in Lebanon ended with a UN-brokered truce that sent thousands of Lebanese troops and international peacekeepers into southern Lebanon to prevent another outbreak.

“From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this,” said Khamenei. He said Israel was a “cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut”.

His speech followed suggestions by Israel that military strikes are an increasing possibility if sanctions fail to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme.

An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman said he wasn’t surprised by Khamenei’s remarks. “It’s the same kind of hate speech that we’ve been seeing from Iran for many years now,” Yigal Palmor said.

Khamenei said the US would suffer defeat and lose standing in the region if Washington decided to use military force.

“Iran will not withdraw. Then what happens?” asked Khamenei. “In conclusion, the west’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. “The hegemony of Iran will be promoted. In fact, this will be in our service.”

Western forces have recently bolstered their naval presence in the Gulf led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

Last month, Iran’s navy carried out 10 days of exercises in the Gulf. The manoeuvres by the Revolutionary Guard, under the direct control of Khamenei, were announced by Iranian state media.

Iran: Oil ban will not halt nuclear program: Haaretz

Iranian oil minister says his country will cut its oil exports to some European countries due to the sanctions imposed last month.

Iran’s oil minister said his country would not retreat from its nuclear program even if its crude oil exports grind to a halt, the official IRNA news agency reported on Saturday.

But he also called on the European Union, which accounted for a quarter of Iranian crude oil sales in the third quarter of 2011, to review its decision last week to bank Iranian oil imports from July 1.

“We will not abandon our just nuclear course, even if we cannot sell one drop of oil,” Rostam Qasemi told reporters, according to IRNA.

Tension with the West rose last month when the United States and the European Union imposed the toughest sanctions yet on Iran in a bid to force it to provide more information on its nuclear program. The measures are aimed at shutting off the second-biggest OPEC oil exporters’ sales of crude.

Qasemi said Iran would cut oil exports to some nations in Europe – he did not specify which – in retaliation for the 27-state EU’s decision to stop importing Iranian crude.

“Our oil exports will certainly be cut to some European countries … We will decide about other European countries later,” Qasemi told a news conference, IRNA reported.

He urged Europe to reconsider its ban, and said the oil market is in balance now but would be thrown into turmoil without Iranian crude supplies.

“Unfortunately the EU has succumbed to America’s pressure. I hope they would review their decision on sanctioning Iran’s oil exports,” Qasemi said.

“The international crude market will experience turmoil in the absence of Iranian oil with unforeseen consequences on oil prices,” he said.

However, analysts say the global oil market would not be greatly affected if Iran were to turn off the oil tap to Europe.

The EU’s ban on Iranian oil came after U.S. President Barack Obama signed new sanctions into law on New Year’s Eve that would block any institution dealing with Iran’s central bank from the U.S. financial system.

If fully implemented, these measures will make it impossible for countries to buy Iranian oil.

Alternative crude buyers

Brent crude prices rose to near three-month peaks on Friday, partly thanks to oil investors covering short positions ahead of the weekend due to the standoff between the West and Iran over its nuclear program.

The United States wants buyers in Asia, Iran’s biggest oil market, to cut imports to put further pressure on Iran, which is scrambling to find new buyers and persuade existing customers to keep doing business with it.

But Iran remains a key supplier for many countries, and some of its major customers are seeking waivers from the U.S. from the sanctions while they look for alternative sources of oil.

Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional rival, has promised to make up any shortfall in supply.

Iranian officials have said sanctions have had no impact on it, while the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened on Friday to retaliate against the West for
sanctions.

Qasemi also played down the importance of Europe as a market for its exports.

“We have no problem to find other crude buyers to replace the European countries,” he was quoted as saying.

The United States and its allies say Iran is trying to develop weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear program. But energy-rich Iran denies this, saying it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity.

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the standoff. Iran has warned of firm retaliation if attacked, including targeting Israel and U.S.
bases in the Gulf and closing off the vital oil shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz.

But Qasemi played down the possibility of Iran blocking the crucial waterway.

“Iran is not after tension, and closure of the Strait is a politically motivated issue,” he said.

Isolated Iran is also facing problems over the price it charges neighbor Turkey for its natural gas exports. Turkey said on Jan. 31 that it was taking Iran to international
arbitration over the matter.

Qasemi rejected Turkey’s complaint that the price was too high. “Iran surely cannot decrease its natural gas price (for Turkey) without legal authorization,” he said.

Iran exports 10 billion cubic metres of gas each year to Turkey, making it Turkey’s second-biggest supplier after Russia.

Drums of war beat louder as Iran and Israel step up rhetoric: Independent

Evidence is mounting that Washington believes an Israeli attack on Iran is now only a matter of time.
DONALD MACINTYRE    SATURDAY 04 FEBRUARY 2012
Iran’s supreme leader threatened to attack Israel yesterday in retaliation for Western sanctions against the Islamic Republic, warning that “threatening Iran and attacking Iran will harm America”. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s declaration came as apprehension of possible conflict was intensified by a report suggesting that the US Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, believes Israel could strike nuclear targets in Iran before the summer after concluding that military action might be needed before it was “too late” to stop Tehran’s nuclear programme.

The Ayatollah used a televised sermon to warn that threats of war – which would be “ten times against the interests of the US itself” – would not deter Iran from its “nuclear course”. And he declared the Tehran regime’s backing for “any nation or group” that wants “to confront and fight” against Israel. He also said that Tehran was seeking to “extract a price” from Israel for the assassination of four nuclear scientists since November 2010.

The threat from Iran is apparently being taken seriously in Israel. Yoram Cohen, the head of the domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet, was reported as having told a closed meeting in Tel Aviv this week that Iran was seeking to strike Israeli targets around the world in an attempt to stem the assassinations of scientists.

Mr Cohen was quoted by the liberal newspaper Haaretz as having cited “three serious attacks” since last summer that had been thwarted as they were “on the verge of being carried out,” against the Israeli consul general in Istanbul, in Baku, Azerbaijan, and two weeks ago in Thailand.

The Shin Bet head said that Iran believed Israel was behind the attacks on its scientists and added: “It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not that Israel took out the nuclear scientists. A major, serious country like Iran cannot let this go on. They want to deter Israel and extract a price so that decision makers in Israel think twice before they order an attack on an Iranian scientist.”

The main media focus in Israel, however, were the fears attributed to Leon Panetta in a report in The Washington Post – which Mr Panetta has not denied – that Israel might launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear plants in April, May or June before Iran enters what his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak, this week called the “immunity” zone.

Mr Barak has coined the term to describe the point from which Iran will have developed sufficient knowledge and material so successfully that an external attack would be unable derail any ambition it may have to attain a nuclear weapon.

The administration in Tehran have denied that its nuclear programme is for anything other than peaceful energy purposes. Speaking in Germany yesterday Mr Panetta said that “all options” remained on the table. But he said “the most important thing” was to maintain unified global support for tough economic sanctions.

The public statements followed a week of intense discussion about Iran’s perceived nuclear threat at the annual conference of Israel’s security establishment at the Inter-Disciplinary Centre in Herzilya. Despite unanimity among prominent intelligence, military and political leaders about the need to halt the threat, there were also strong signs of what Mr Barak in his keynote address openly acknowledged were “disagreements among us” about how to do it.

One of the emerging areas of disagreement appears to be the vulnerability of Iranian sites to bunker-buster bombing raids. The Vice Prime Minister, Moshe Yaalon, while saying that “one way or the other” the “messianic-apocalyptic” Iranian regime’s “nuclear project” had to be stopped, went out of his way to reject claims that Iran’s underground facilities might be invulnerable to “bunker-buster” bombs.

In remarks that appeared to run counter to Mr Barak’s warning that it might soon become “too late” to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mr Yaalon added: “Any facility that is protected by humans can be penetrated by humans. Every military facility in Iran can be hit, and I say this from my experience as [military] chief of staff.”

Equally, the current military chief of staff, Benny Gantz, did not refer to the “immunity zone”, pointing instead to the strategy of “continuing to disrupt Iran’s attempts to attain nuclear weapons” and adding that it was important “to continue to build strong, reliable, impressive military capabilities, and to be prepared to use them if and when the need arises”.

Robert Fisk: We’ve been here before – and it suits Israel that we never forget ‘Nuclear Iran’: Independent

The Ayatollah ordered the entire nuclear project to be closed down because it was the work of the devil
ROBERT FISK    WEDNESDAY 25 JANUARY 2012
Turning round a story is one of the most difficult tasks in journalism – and rarely more so than in the case of Iran. Iran, the dark revolutionary Islamist menace. Shia Iran, protector and manipulator of World Terror, of Syria and Lebanon and Hamas and Hezbollah. Ahmadinejad, the Mad Caliph. And, of course, Nuclear Iran, preparing to destroy Israel in a mushroom cloud of anti-Semitic hatred, ready to close the Strait of Hormuz – the moment the West’s (or Israel’s) forces attack.

Given the nature of the theocratic regime, the repulsive suppression of its post-election opponents in 2009, not to mention its massive pools of oil, every attempt to inject common sense into the story also has to carry a medical health warning: no, of course Iran is not a nice place. But …

Let’s take the Israeli version which, despite constant proof that Israel’s intelligence services are about as efficient as Syria’s, goes on being trumpeted by its friends in the West, none more subservient than Western journalists. The Israeli President warns us now that Iran is on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon. Heaven preserve us. Yet we reporters do not mention that Shimon Peres, as Israeli Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing in 1996. That was 16 years ago. And we do not recall that the current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999. That would be 13 years ago. Same old story.

In fact, we don’t know that Iran really is building a nuclear weapon. And after Iraq, it’s amazing that the old weapons of mass destruction details are popping with the same frequency as all the poppycock about Saddam’s titanic arsenal. Not to mention the date problem. When did all this start? The Shah. The old boy wanted nuclear power. He even said he wanted a bomb because “the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear bombs” and no one objected. Europeans rushed to supply the dictator’s wish. Siemens – not Russia – built the Bushehr nuclear facility.

And when Ayatollah Khomeini, Scourge of the West, Apostle of Shia Revolution, etc, took over Iran in 1979, he ordered the entire nuclear project to be closed down because it was “the work of the Devil”. Only when Saddam invaded Iran – with our Western encouragement – and started using poison gas against the Iranians (chemical components arriving from the West, of course) was Khomeini persuaded to reopen it.

All this has been deleted from the historical record; it was the black-turbaned mullahs who started the nuclear project, along with the crackpot Ahmadinejad. And Israel might have to destroy this terror-weapon to secure its own survival, to ensure the West’s survival, for democracy, etc, etc.

For Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel is the brutal, colonising, occupying power. But the moment Iran is mentioned, this colonial power turns into a tiny, vulnerable, peaceful state under imminent threat of extinction. Ahmadinejad – here again, I quote Netanyahu – is more dangerous than Hitler. Israel’s own nuclear warheads – all too real and now numbering almost 300 – disappear from the story. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are helping the Syrian regime destroy its opponents; they might like to – but there is no proof of this.

The trouble is that Iran has won almost all its recent wars without firing a shot. George W and Tony destroyed Iran’s nemesis in Iraq. They killed thousands of the Sunni army whom Iran itself always referred to as “the black Taliban”. And the Gulf Arabs, our “moderate” friends, shiver in their golden mosques as we in the West outline their fate in the event of an Iranian Shia revolution.

No wonder Cameron goes on selling weapons to these preposterous people whose armies, in many cases, could scarcely operate soup kitchens, let alone the billions of dollars of sophisticated kit we flog them under the fearful shadow of Tehran.

Bring on the sanctions. Send in the clowns.

Israeli theatre company expects Globe Shakespeare disruption: Jewish Chronicle

February 2, 2012
A senior Habimah Theatre producer has admitted that actors expect anti-Israel activists will succeed in disrupting their performance at a major international festival at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in May.
Israel’s leading theatre company will perform The Merchant Of Venice in Hebrew as part of a six-week event at the Globe to coincide with the Cultural Olympiad.
The executive, who does not want to be identified, said the Israelis feared their performance being halted. She said: “I’ve been worried for a long time because of what happened with the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra at the Royal Albert Hall. It will be a great shame if they protest, but I am sure it will not be peaceful.
“The Globe is aware of the threat and we hope they will do everything possible. They have to think really hard about how to prevent the protesters getting in. It’s a real challenge.
“It is very difficult; there is no way to stop them. The boycotters could flood the crowd with activists. But do they think stopping us will bring peace quicker?”
The producer said Habimah had been devising ways to work around any disruption, and might even have a “surprise” for potential protesters. She added: “We are very much against all boycotts. Our artists often do things for the Palestinians and privately they go to demonstrations [to lend support].”
A Globe spokeswoman said “all sensible precautions” would be taken but would not disclose how it planned to stop demonstrators.
The theatre has already rejected opposition to its invitation to Habimah. Boycott From Within, formed by Israelis who back the boycott movement, wrote to Globe directors last month, highlighting performances by Habimah in the West Bank settlements of Ariel and Kiryat Arba.
BFW complained: “By inviting Habimah to perform in London, you are siding with its administrators in the debate on settlement performances, and you are taking a step against the conscientious Israeli actors and playwrights who have refused to perform in the settlements.” But the Globe hit back, publishing an open letter stating that festival directors had “deliberated long and hard” before deciding that “active exclusion was a profoundly problematic stance to take”.
The Globe concluded: “Habimah is the most well-known and respected Hebrew-language theatre company in the world, and are a natural choice to any programmer wishing to host a dramatic production in Hebrew.
“They are committed, publicly, to providing an ongoing arena for sensible dialogue between Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. ”
The Globe, which said it had reached the right decision about Habimah, added that the Ramallah-based Ashtar Theatre would be performing an Arabic version of Shakespeare’s Richard II at the festival.

EDITOR: Too many missiles targeting Israelis?

Apparently (read below) there are enough missiles trained on Israel, to target every Israeli wherever they go, seemingly… This might be why more Israelis die in traffic accidents daily than did from missile attacks in the last decade? Yes, this is exactly the reason – drivers are so frightened of missile attacks, they dodge and change lanes, leading to a high incidence of traffic accidents… makes sense.

Some 200,000 missiles aimed consistently at Israel, top IDF officer says: Haaretz

Head of military intelligence Aviv Kochavi reiterates army estimates that Iran could further enrich that uranium it already has to create 4 atomic bombs.
By Amos Harel
About 200,000 missiles are aimed at Israel at any given time, a top Israel Defense Forces officer said on Thursday, adding that Iran’s ability to obtain nuclear weapons was solely dependent on the will of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Want up-to-date news on Israel and the Middle East? Join Haaretz.com’s official Facebook page

The remarks by Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi came after IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz said on Wednesday that the threats facing Israel have increased and intensified in recent years due to regional instability.

Speaking to the Herzliya Conference, Gantz said that Iran’s nuclear program is a “global problem and a regional problem,” adding that Tehran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons must continue to be disrupted.

On Thursday, Kochavi, speaking at the opening session of the Herzliya Conference’s closing day, spoke of the growing threats Israel was facing: “a more hostile, more Islamic, more sensitive Middle East, one more attune to public sentiment, less controlled by the regimes, and less susceptible to international influence.”

The chief of military intelligence then indicated that about 200,000 missiles were aimed at Israel at any given time, adding, however, that “Israel’s military deterrence is intact.”

Referring to Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Kochavi presented a relatively tame estimation of a possible timeline en route to an Iranian atomic bomb, saying that the project depended more on the will of Iran’s Supreme Leader than on any technological advancement.

“If Khamenei issues a command to achieve a first nuclear explosive device, we estimate it would take another year before that’s achieved,” the top IDF official said, adding that “if he asks to translate that ability to obtain a nuclear warhead, that would take another year or two.”

Kochavi also reiterated the IDF estimate that Iran is in possession of more than 4 tons of low-grade enriched uranium as well as almost 100 kilograms of uranium enriched at 20%.

“If those are enriched more, to a 90% level, that would be enough for 4 atomic bombs,” the IDF officer said.

The military intelligence chief added that the sanctions on Iran “are taking their toll. There’s 16% unemployment, 24% annual inflation, and practically no growth,” he said adding that “at this point the pressure isn’t leading Iran to a strategic shift.”

However, Kochavi added that “there’s a potential, with greater pressure, that the regime, interested first and foremost in its own survival, would reconsider its position.”

Speaking at the Herzliya conference on Tuesday, President Shimon Peres also referred to the Iranian nuclear threat, saying that Tehran’s “evil” leaders cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

“It is the duty of the international community to prevent evil and nuclear [weapons] from coming together. That is the obligations of most of the leaders of the free world, one which they must meet,” Peres said.

Israel defence minister warns it may soon be too late for Iran military strike: Guardian

Harriet Sherwood in Herzliya
Ehud Barak at the Herzliya conference on Thursday. Photograph: Nir Elias/Reuters
Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, has said the moment is approaching when any military intervention to halt’s Iran’s nuclear programme will come too late, in a strong indication that the Jewish state is closer than ever to authorising action.

But the veteran politician also publicly acknowledged the extent of debate and disagreement within Israel’s political and military echelons over the merits of a military strike.

He told an international conference in Herzliya, Israel, on Thursday: “The world today has no doubt that the Iranian military nuclear programme is slowly but surely reaching the final stages and will enter the immunity stage, from which point the Iranian regime will be able to complete the programme without any effective intervention and at its convenience.”

At that point it would be impractical to attack, he said.

“Dealing with a nuclearised Iran will be far more complex, far more dangerous and far more costly in blood and money than stopping it today. In other words, those who say ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak said.

Sanctions recently authorised by the international community were “a step in the right direction”, he said. But they needed to be intensified and “if sanctions do not achieve the desired effect of stopping the military nuclearisation programme, action must also be considered”.

Speculation that Israel is actively considering a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations has intensified in recent months. The United States is opposed to Israeli action at this stage, saying that sanctions must be given time to work.

But some in Israel believe that in the months needed for stiffer sanctions to have the necessary impact, Iran could reach a “zone of immunity”.

Barak said the issues had been and continued to be debated “with directness and frankness that has not always characterised the discourse in the past”. He said that in his decades of experience, no subject of national defence had been discussed “for so many hours with the participation of all the parties that need to be involved”.

But, he added, there was “no guarantee that we can remove all the disagreements among us”, indicating that a consensus on whether to attack may not be reached. His comments, prefaced by a list of historical decisions by the state of Israel to embark on military action, appeared to refer to an internal rather than international consensus, but it was not made clear.

Earlier, Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s vice-premier and minister for strategic affairs, said the threat of military action needed to be credible. “As long as the Iranians are not convinced there is the political stomach to execute an attack, they will continue,” he said. “Today the Iranian regime thinks the stomach is not there, whether as a military attack or sanctions.”

Despite the hawkish rhetoric, some observers believe that Israel’s political leaders are encouraging fevered speculation about the state’s intentions with the aim of reinforcing the credibility of the threat of military action, rather reflecting the likelihood of an actual attack.

Yaalon raised the stakes of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, claiming for the first time that Tehran was attempting to develop a missile with a range of 10,000km, capable of targeting the United States.

Israel’s director of military intelligence, Major General Aviv Kochavi, said Iran had enough material to create four nuclear weapons. It would take a year from when the order was given to produce a bomb, and another year or two to weaponise the devices, he said.

Iran had come under “great pressure” in the recent weeks, he added, and sanctions were beginning to show results. “The stronger the [pressure], the greater the potential for the regime – which is worried first and foremost about its survival – to reconsider,” he said.

In contrast to the drumbeat tone of most conference speakers, the former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy told the conference: “I said last year I thought we were winning the war against Iran.” He said he was more confident of that this year.

Sanctions were having an impact. “The value of the Iranian rial has depreciated by 50% in a very short time, food prices are rocketing sky high, there’s a run on the banks‚ all this is part of the daily turn of events, the daily life in recent weeks,” he said.

“This has been one of the main features which has caused the Iranians to do what they swore they would never do, to reinstate the Iranian nuclear issue on the agenda in the discourse between Iran and the world.”

Things were moving forward, he said. “Are they moving fast enough? They never move fast enough. But we’re not doing all that bad. We have to look at the sunny side up of the situation.”

The Iranians had been forced to come back to the table, he said. “The game is up and they know it … This is a new situation, and this should be pressed to advantage.”

 Israel military chief: Iran bomb plans must be disrupted: Guardian

Harriet Sherwood in Herzliya
Israel’s military chief, Benny Gantz, speaking at the Herzliya conference, where he said the country must exploit its offensive capablities. Photograph: Dan Balilty/AP
Israel must exploit its offensive capabilities in the battle against its enemies and “adapt our patterns of operations” to contend with new challenges, the country’s military chief of staff said on Wednesday.

Benny Gantz, Israel’s most senior military officer, said there was no doubt that Iran was striving for a nuclear bomb, and this was a problem for the whole world and the Middle East region. However, he added, the state of Israel was “the only state in the world whose extermination is being called for”.

Speaking at the annual Herzliya conference, which focuses on security issues, Gantz said Israel should work to “disrupt the actions” of the Iranian nuclear development programme. “It is important that we exploit the full range of our capabilities,” Gantz said, while describing the state’s military strengths.

He said the world had to bring about the isolation of Iran, and that economic pressure and diplomatic sanctions were showing signs of effect. But Israel must be willing to employ its “impressive military capabilities” if needed, he added.

Gantz is thought to be relatively doveish on a military air strike against Iran, and his remarks were well within the boundaries of public statements by Israel’s political and military elite.

But there has been renewed feverish speculation about Israel’s intentions since the publication last weekend of a long article in the New York Times by the respected Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman. He concluded that a strike was likely in 2012.

Statements from prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defence minister Ehud Barak have been aimed at keeping up the pressure. “We must not waste time on this matter; the Iranians continue to advance, identifying every crack and squeezing through. Time is urgently running out,” Barak said earlier this week.

Many say this kind of rhetoric is intended to reinforce the need for tougher economic and diplomatic sanctions and to persuade the Iranians that the Israeli military threat is credible, and are not statements of intent.

Seasoned observers point out that those in a position to know Israel’s true intentions are not speaking, and those who are speaking do not know.

Israel’s security agency, the Mossad, has been accused of orchestrating the assassinations of several scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme. Israel has refused to comment officially on such speculation although the president, Shimon Peres, said the state was not involved “to the best of my knowledge”.

Gantz’s comments on Wednesday came as interviews got under way to select a new chief of the Israeli air force, an appointment which has been delayed following tensions between senior political and military figures, according to media reports.

Barak and Netanyahu were thought to be pressing for a candidate who is believed to favour an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear targets, while Gantz has been reported to back a candidate who is apparently opposed to such a move.

Gantz made his irritation with the mini-power struggle plain at a military ceremony last month. “I make the appointments in the IDF according to what I think is right. This is how it has always been and this is how it is now as well,” he said.

The successful candidate could be expected to execute an order to launch an air strike on nuclear targets in Iran.

Bashir Abu-Manneh: A ‘Palestinian Spring’? Not Yet: IOA

By Bashir Abu-Manneh, New Politics – 17 Oct 2011

[This is a revised version of a talk given at a conference sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine held at Columbia University, October 14-16, 2011.]

Bashir Abu-Manneh

The ‘Palestinian Spring’ is the only one of the ‘Arab Springs’ to be announced from the General Assembly platform of the UN. ‘At a time when’, Mahmoud Abbas declared in his speech for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, ‘the Arab peoples affirm their quest for democracy—the Arab Spring—the time is now for the Palestinian Spring, the time for independence’. This link between the bid and the democratic revolts taking place in the Arab world was repeated the next day in Ramallah. Abbas told cheering supporters who came out to greet him: ‘We told the world that there is an Arab Spring, but the Palestinian Spring exists here: a mass, popular, peacefully resisting spring that seeks to achieve our objectives…. raise your heads for you are Palestinians’ (Al-Hayat, 26 September 2011).

It is important to note that Abbas’ UN speech did emphasize Palestinian rights of self-determination and of return for the refugees. And it was a powerful indictment of Israeli rejectionism and colonialism. This doesn’t change the fact, though, that there is something deeply troubling about Abbas’ Palestinian Spring announcement. Here we have a Palestinian leader whose only distinction in the last 20 years is mostly secret negotiations with Israeli leaders. A leader:

whose presidency of the Palestinian Authority has expired;
whose Fatah faction has lost the last elections in 2006 to Hamas;
who has spent most of his time as President clamping down on popular movements like Hamas (as well as Islamic Jihad) in the West Bank, closing down hundreds of Islamic charities, firing imams sympathetic to Hamas, and controlling the content of Friday sermons.
A leader who, finally, continues to coordinate security on a daily basis with the Israel occupation forces (his CIA-trained battalions are there to protect Israel from the Palestinians rather than the reverse).
How can Abbas now welcome Arab democracy when only yesterday he was regretting the fall of Mubarak, and when even today he prides himself on the fact that if the US pulls its $200 million in security support for the Palestinian Authority, the Saudis will provide the amount instead, for which read ‘the most undemocratic and authoritarian regime in the region’?

Again: there’s something very strange about a US-backed, Western dependent leader going against his main sponsor in the name of Arab democracy. How can we explain Abbas’ diplomatic maneuver?

First: it’s an act of political self-preservation on the part of the Fatah elite. After 20 years of negotiations, the occupation has deepened, settlements and settlers have more than doubled (numbering more than half a million settlers now), and the areas Israel controls have increased. Settlers’ attack on Palestinians and their property are on the rise: mosques are burnt on a weekly basis. East Jerusalem is all but lost to the Palestinians, with no way for other West Bankers to get there and no freedom of worship. There’s also no freedom of movement within the West Bank. Hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks continue to exist.

In fact: in the last 20 years the Israeli occupation has only become more entrenched, and looks more permanent than it ever was before. So in order to avoid a real Palestinian revolt against a subservient and Western-backed Palestinian Authority, Abbas decided to preempt and contain it by declaring it himself, in order to keep himself in power. Fatah elite self-preservation here undercuts a self-organized popular democratic mobilization against the effects and fruits of Oslo, and replaces it with even more Palestinian diplomacy. Fatah was here before: its response to the mass revolt of the first intifada was cooptation, and its channeling into the secret diplomacy of Oslo. Here the measure is preemptive.

The ploy seems to have been successful since most Palestinians seem to support the bid; because most Palestinians understand statehood to mean an end of occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Even Hamas’ objections to the bid were not on matters of principle: they were about the means of achieving statehood rather than its desirability. Hamas also criticized Abbas for not completing the reconciliation and unity talks before heading to the UN, and only came out against the bid when Turkish and Egyptian mediation efforts between the factions failed just before the bid.

By going to the UN, then, Fatah tried to change the Palestinian popular perception of complete subservience to Israel and America: of being a negotiator under any conditions. And this was successful since the US worked very hard to stop the bid and failed. In an interview with Katty Kay in BBC America on 16 September 2011, for example, the US representative to the UN, Susan Rice, called the bid ‘unproductive’ and even threatened that ‘there won’t be sovereignty and there won’t be food on the table’ as a result of it. No food on the table sounds familiar in the Palestinian context. What Rice was basically saying is that Ramallah risks being starved like Gaza if the PA persists in the bid. Quite an amazing threat to make so openly and without challenge. In any case, frustrated with Israeli intransigence, Fatah utilized the UN platform to expose the brutalities and crimes of the Israeli occupation. It also raised the bar for a return to negotiations: not only a freeze of settlements in all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, but also an acknowledgment by Israel that 1967 is the basis for negotiations.

The second and crucial reason for Fatah’s diplomatic confrontation with Israel is regional developments. The Arab revolts have weakened the US in the region. Coupled with the military and political defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan (empowering its main foe Iran in the region), the US seems to be losing its tight grip over the Arab world. The Arab tyrants, whom the US uses to protect its access and control of oil, are weaker today. Some have been banished even as their regimes persist. Democratic movements are forming and slowly becoming more powerful. The US clearly understands that Arab democracy is contra its interests. Giving people more say in and control over their politics and resources in an area which has seen several American and Israeli wars can only mean a weaker US in the region (the latest catastrophe, for example, in Iraq resulted in 1 million deaths and 5 million internally and externally displaced Iraqis).

Democracy in Bahrain means the end of the US naval presence there: the largest in the region. Democracy in Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic for the US. Oil in Arabs hands used for self-development and possible projection of regional power: a real strategic threat. Democracy in Jordan means an end to the monarchy and in its place a state governed by the Palestinian majority. Democracy in Egypt, finally, means the end of the peace treaty with Israel, and Egypt back in the Arab-Israeli conflict (reversing one of the US’s main diplomatic achievements in the region and ending Egypt’s subservience to the US and Israel). The US then is trying to do everything it can to stifle democracy in the Arab world, and to ensure that the so-called ‘democratic transitions’ are as long and destructive for Arabs as the Oslo peace process has been for the Palestinians. The analogy is actually quite precise: the Oslo process came on the heels of the precursor to the Arab Spring: the mass mobilization of the first Palestinian intifada.

Like the good political opportunists that they are, the Fatah elite smells this US regional weakening. It’s a good time, they believe, to bank this politically and diplomatically, especially since there are no serious Israeli concessions on offer, only more occupation. The bid cannot be understood without this regional context. Fatah’s ability to resist US pressure is also a reflection, it is worth mentioning, of Saudi Arabia’s wish to deflect its internal domestic pressures for democratic reforms onto the external Palestinian issue. Containing Arab democratic aspirations with support for the single most important Arab cause is a tried and tested Arab regime maneuver. No democracy at home, but Israel is seemingly confronted. Such are the populist measures taken to avoid more structural political changes domestically.

What does this brief political sketch tell us about the Palestinian cause today? That: (1) the stronger Arab democracy becomes the better it is for the Palestinians. That: (2) a real Palestinian mass mobilization is yet to come. That: (3) the Palestinian people are currently exhausted after the defeat of two intifadas, the deepening occupation and Oslo capitulation, and the internal factionalism and division. And that: (4) they are waiting for better circumstances of struggle which can only come from the regional developments that would change the balance of power between the Arabs and Israel, forcing the latter to withdraw and reconcile with the neighborhood.

What are the tasks of a solidarity movement in the West under these changing conditions? These can be summarized as follows: principled anti-imperialism and consistent support for the democratic right of Palestinian self-determination. I think the first one is clear: the US out of the Middle East; full withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq; no troops or military camps to remain. Politically it means sympathy and support for Arab democracy and the peoples’ free will to govern themselves: popular sovereignty. So, if anything, the first task is to fight imperial elites here at home: their policies and worldview.

The second is to support Palestinian self-determination. I’ll say a little more about this, because there’s more confusion here about what solidarity work entails and who should decide its tactics and mechanisms. It is not the job of the solidarity movement to tell Palestinians which political outcomes they should go for: ending occupation or going for one state, negotiating with Israel or not, voting for Hamas or not, etc. What solidarity work is about is defending a democratic principle of self-government for an oppressed people, within the limits of international laws and universal norms. The right of self-determination basically means that ALL Palestinians (wherever they happen to reside) have a right to actively participate in shaping their political future. That’s how one activates and safeguards Palestinian rights—without fetishizing them or assuming that they are carved in stone.

Self-determination requires Palestinian democracy and can only mean participatory democracy in action. Solidarity work is deciding what the best way is to support this principle. It’s not a mantra. Nor does it mean that solidarity tactics are the same in every context. What is possible in Europe, for example, is not yet possible in the US, where a lot of education and information about the occupation needs to be diffused.

Who should be making these judgments about effective tactics and modes of support? Each solidarity movement itself. Democratically and openly. The solidarity movement should be sovereign in deciding how to defend Palestinians against injustices and human rights violations. Americans clearly know the US more than the Palestinians who reside in occupied Palestine do. They know what’s possible politically, how to operate in this environment, and how best to gain support for Palestinian justice. Solidarity activists should insist on their freedom to pursue their own modes of organization and objectives.

The good news is that the US public is becoming more open to supporting the Palestinian cause. After Gaza, the truth of Israel as a cruel occupier is clearer than ever for all Americans to see. Polls show that a younger generation of American Jews is less identified with Israel as a result. There are also symptoms of discontent within the American elite: General Petraus himself said to Congress that support for Israel costs American lives in the Middle East. Bill Clinton recently blamed the lack of movement in the peace process solely on Netanyahu. These developments should empower solidarity activists to aim to build the broadest possible movement in the US.

What, then, to prioritize and where to begin in the struggle? The answer is: with the issues that have the broadest support. Take as an example the International Court of Justice ruling on the annexationist Wall in 2004: it called for dismantling the Wall and illegal settlements, and ending the occupation: ‘all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory….[and] to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end’ (clause 159). The Advisory Opinion also recommended that ‘further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime’ (clause 160). Until that happens, shouldn’t the ‘further action’ be sanctions against Israel, especially after the Gaza massacre in 2008-2009 and the continuing siege and blockade of 1.5 million people? This ruling is a huge asset for the solidarity movement in the West. Educating people about it is crucial. Sanctions are the best way to alleviate Palestinian suffering. It is crucial to create a strategy around that in the US: to push the US government to end its military support for Israel and to push American companies to divest from the occupation.

These are big goals. But that is how one can help Palestinians achieve their freedom. And be free to decide for themselves both what they want and how best to resolve one of the longest anti-colonial struggles in contemporary history.

Bashir Abu-Manneh teaches English at Barnard College; he is also a member of the IOA Advisory Board.

EDITOR: It’s that man again…

Yes, the Nobel Peace Laureatte, Mr. Shimon Peres, the man responsible for more wars in the Middle East that anyone else alive, and also responsible for Israel’s covert nuclear programme, and for producing more than 300 nuclear devices (isn’t this a bit over the top, Shimon?) is now baying under the moon against the Iranian non-existing nuclear weapons. The main principle of Israeli diplomacy, seems to be blaming others for your own sins, attacking and bombing them. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sickeningly sad.

Peres: Iran’s ‘evil’ leaders must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons: Haaretz

Speaking at Herzliya Conference, President urges resumption of peace talks with Palestinians, saying talks are the only way to end the Mideast conflict.

Iran’s “evil” leaders cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, President Shimon Peres said on Tuesday, calling the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions the world’s single most important issue.

Want to know more about Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West? Join Haaretz.com’s official Facebook page

Peres’ comments came at the opening of the Herzliya Conference, which was attended by World Bank President Robert Zoellick, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou.

Referring to Iran’s contentious nuclear program, the president called the issue “ours and the world’s central problem at this time, accusing Iran of attempting to achieve regional and “even global hegemony.”

“Nuclear weapons mustn’t be allowed to fall into the hands of Iran’s Ayatollah regime,” Peres said, calling Iran’s religious leadership the “most morally corrupt regime in the world.”

Hinting at the possibility of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the president reiterated the Israeli stance, according to which “no option should be ruled out in our dealing with the Iranian danger. This is an existential threat.”

“It is the duty of the international community to prevent evil and nuclear [weapons] from coming together. That is the obligations of most of the leaders of the free world, one which they must meet,” Peres said.

On what he called “the moral significance of this battle,” the president spoke of an Iranian regime which “executes people for their views. It funds, trains, and guides terrorists to spread terror and murder across the globe.”

“This is a way of operation that must be condemned by everyone everywhere,” Peres said, adding that, “eventually, the current Iranian leadership offers the future only destruction. It threatens human rights and the peace of nations.”

In his address to the Herzliya Conference, president Peres also spoke of the necessity to restart peace negotiations with the Palestinians, saying that ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the only way to ensure Israel isn’t made into the scapegoat of a rapidly changing Middle East.

If peace is not advanced, the president said, religious extremism could gain control of the region, “an extremism which Iran attempts to lead using its two proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, as well as other extensions throughout the region.”

“The terror organizations are trying to drag Israel into an Arab internal struggle so they can direct the masses’ rage against us. They have no rehabilitation plans, only incitement habits,” Peres added.

The only way to prevent this takeover of extremism, then, is “to put an end to the conflict between us and the Palestinians, similarly to the agreements with Egypt and Jordan.”

“When I say we must, I say so because I believe ending the conflict is possible. I’ve known the people heading the Palestinian Authority for decades,” Peres said, adding that he believed “[Palestinian] President Mahmoud Abbas and [Palestinian] Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are worthy partners who do not wish to see the conflict go further.”

Speaking of the reasons for the recent inability to restart peace talks, the president said that the two issues mainly holding up negotiations were “borders and security.”

“The borders must be set as to determine the security arrangements, and must be set soon. This kind of negotiations must take place outside the box, and away from the headlines. Through it both sides will achieve something which cannot be achieved without talks – an end to the conflict,” Peres added.

The president’s comments came after, on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that peace prospects with the Palestinians were looking poor.

“As things stand now, according to what happened over the past few days – when the Palestinians refused even to discuss Israel’s security needs with us – the signs are not particularly good,” he told his cabinet in public remarks.

Netanyahu’s remarks came after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters in Ramallah on Saturday that Israel was to blame for the failure of the recent round of talks to relaunch direct talks.

Abbas claimed that during talks mediated by Jordan in recent weeks, Israel had presented an unclear position on security matters and on the question of borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state. Palestinian sources said Israel’s border proposal would have prevented the establishment a Palestinian state.

Palestinian officials said last week an Israeli negotiator’s verbal presentation on Wednesday of ideas for borders and security arrangements of a future Palestinian state was a non-starter, envisaging a fenced-off territory of cantons that would preserve most Jewish settlements.

Netanyahu said he still hoped the Palestinians would “come to their senses and continue the talks so that we can move on to real negotiations.”

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators held five rounds of exploratory talks in Jordan, part of a push by international mediators to revive negotiations suspended in 2010 in a dispute over Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank.

 Israel has no right to censor an artist over his politics: Haaretz

It is not legitimate to question whether Bakri – or anyone else whose opinions are considered by someone in power to be unacceptable – can perform in a play put on by a theater that receives funding from the Culture and Sports Ministry.
Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat’s implied support for keeping “Jenin, Jenin” director Mohammed Bakri off the Israeli stage must be condemned.

Livnat was responding to a request by right-wing organization Im Tirtzu, which is calling on Livnat and the Tzavta Theater in Tel Aviv “not to grant a forum to this inciter, who defames Israel Defense Forces soldiers.” Barki, a Palestinian director and actor, is scheduled to act in the Tzavta Theater’s upcoming production of Federico Garcia Lorca’s “The House of Bernarda Alba.”

But the High Court of Justice ruled in a petition seeking to ban the 2003 movie “Jenin, Jenin” – about the April 2002 battle between IDF soldiers and Palestinian militants in the West Bank refugee camp – that although the film is full of lies that tarnish the image of the state and the IDF, it does not harm the reputation of any soldiers because it does not reveal their identities.

Bakri has never been charged with any offense related to the movie, and he was determined to have been within his legal rights in making it. His opinions may make a lot of people angry, but he is an actor, director and artist whose skills any cultural institution would be lucky to have at its disposal.

It is not legitimate to question whether Bakri – or anyone else whose opinions are considered by someone in power to be unacceptable – can perform in a play put on by a theater that receives funding from the Culture and Sports Ministry, and it is certainly none of the culture minister’s business. Actors should be chosen only for artistic reasons. Such decisions are supposed to be made by the individual theaters or any other artistic body, as long as they are made completely freely and autonomously.

The fact that a theater gets funding from the Culture and Sports Ministry does not give the ministry, the minister who heads it, or any other bureaucrat involved in the budget allocation the right to intervene politically or in any other way.

The ministry did state that Livnat “expects the Tzavta administration to independently reconsider” whether Bakri should be hired, which seemingly lays the responsibility for ousting him at the theater’s feet, but the comment does contain more than the hint of a threat. In addition, the statement clearly shows that Livnat does not understand that getting involved is an abrasive departure from her real job.

Perhaps Livnat should watch “The House of Bernarda Alba,” about the forced imposition of rigid conservative norms and the violent infringement of freedom and human dignity. Then maybe she should independently reconsider.

New book by Nur Masalha: Zedbooks

2012 marks the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba – the most traumatic catastrophe that ever befell Palestinians. This book explores new ways of remembering and commemorating the Nakba. In the context of Palestinian oral history, it explores ‘social history from below’, subaltern narratives of memory and the formation of collective identity. Masalha argues that to write more truthfully about the Nakba is not just to practise a professional historiography but an ethical imperative. The struggles of ordinary refugees to recover and publicly assert the truth about the Nakba is a vital way of protecting their rights and keeping the hope for peace with justice alive.

This book is essential for understanding the place of the Palestine Nakba at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the vital role of memory in narratives of truth and reconciliation.

Reviews

‘As a meticulous scholar, historian and above all Palestinian, Nur Masalha is eminently suited to write this excellent book. He has produced a marvellous history of the Nakba which should be essential reading for all those concerned with the origins of the conflict over Palestine.’
Ghada Karmi, author of ‘Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine’

‘Nur Masalha has a distiguished and deserved reputation for scholarship on the Nakba and Palestinian refugees. Now, with his latest book, his searching analysis of past and present makes for a powerful combination of remembrance and resistance.’
Ben White, journalist and author of ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’

‘Nur Masalha’s ‘The Palestinian Nakba’ is a tour de force examining the process of transformation of Palestine over the last century. One outstanding feature of this study is the systematic manner in which it investigates the accumulated scholarship on the erasure of Palestinian society and culture, including a critical assessment of the work of the new historians. In what he calls ‘reclaiming the memory’ he goes on to survey and build on a an emergent narrative. Masalha’s work is essential and crucial for any scholar seeking this alternate narrative.’
Salim Tamari, Visiting Professor of History, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University

‘This book is the most comprehensive and pentrating analysis available of the catastophe that befell Arab Palestine and its people in 1948, known as the nakba. It shows how the expulsion and physical obliteration of the material traces of a people was followed by what Masalha calls ‘memoricide’: the effacement of their history, their archives, and their place-names, and a denial that they had ever existed.’
Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies Department of History, Columbia University

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. Zionism and European Settler-Colonialism
2. The Memoricide of the Nakba: Zionist-Hebrew Toponymy and the De-Arabisation of Palestine
3. Fashioning a European Landscape, Erasure and Amnesia: The Jewish National Fund, Afforestation, and Green-washing the Nakba
4. Appropriating History: The Looting of Palestinian Records, Archives and Library Collections (1948-2011)
5. New History, Post-Zionism, the Liberal Coloniser and Hegemonic Narratives: A Critique of the Israeli ‘New Historians’
6. Decolonising History and Narrating the Subaltern: Palestinian Oral History, Indigenous and Gendered Memories
7. Resisting Memoricide and Reclaiming Memory: The Politics of Nakba Commemoration among Palestinians inside Israel
Epilogue: The Continuity of Trauma

About the Author:

Nur Masalha is Professor of Religion and Politics and Director of the Centre for Religion and History at St. Mary’s University College, UK. He is also Editor of ‘Holy Land Studies: A Multidisciplinary Journal’ (published by Edinburgh University Press).

Jewish Voice for Peace statement on BDS: BDSMovement

29 JANUARY 2012
By Jewish Voice for Peace, BDS Movement – 24 Jan 2012

Summary: JVP has grown dramatically in size and influence in the past two years. As part of the ongoing assessment sparked by this growth, JVP reviewed its BDS policy. On the basis of an organization-wide conversation about BDS, we have refined our position while maintaining our strategy. JVP shares the aims of the Palestinian Boycott National Committee — ending the occupation, achieving equality for Palestinians now living in Israel, and recognizing Palestinian refugees’ right of return. JVP focuses our efforts on boycott and divestment campaigns that directly target Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its blockade of the Gaza Strip. We believe this to be the most effective way for JVP to help bring about the aims we share with the Palestinian BDS call.

JVP is dedicated to promoting full equality and democracy for all Israelis and Palestinians. We believe that an enduring peace will remain out of reach until Palestinians as well as Israelis can negotiate from positions of strength. This requires a shift from the prevailing imbalance of power. JVP fully endorses the use of nonviolent strategies to achieve this shift. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, of which JVP is a part, plays a central role in this work.

Palestinian activists have long engaged in non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation and to Israel’s institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against its Palestinian citizens, but they have been subjected to repressive measures by Israel, and in the past, the impact of their actions has been diminished by the international media’s focus on violent resistance.

Since 2005, Palestinians, Israeli allies and hundreds of thousands of supporters worldwide have been mobilized in response to the Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns. These campaigns include: economic, cultural and academic boycotts of West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, and of Israel itself; divestment from companies that profit from Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian human rights; and calls for economic sanctions against Israel.

The Palestinian civil society BDS call, now led by the Palestinian Boycott National Committee on behalf of its constituent organizations and unions, which represent the majority of Palestinian civil society, has three stated goals:

an end to the occupation;
equality for Palestinians now living in Israel; and
recognition of Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
We share these aims, and believe that they can and must, in the end, be achieved in mutually-agreed ways that uphold the well-being of Palestinians and Israelis alike.

As a force of U.S.-based Jews and allies, JVP has considered the full range of BDS campaigns, and has chosen to focus our efforts on boycott and divestment campaigns that directly target Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its blockade of the Gaza Strip. We believe this to be the most effective way for JVP to help bring about the aims we share with the Palestinian BDS call.

In solidarity with the Palestinian Boycott National Committee and other Israeli and Palestinian civil society organizations, JVP has initiated and sustained the largest divestment campaign mounted in the United States for Palestinian human rights -– the growing movement to induce investment giant TIAA-CREF to divest of its holdings in companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Boycott National Committee stands fully behind the JVP-initiated TIAA-CREF campaign, and has urged “all groups working on boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns in the U.S., especially on university campuses, to endorse this campaign and join it, whenever possible, to amplify its reach and impact across the U.S.”

JVP has issued guidelines to support our chapters in engaging in BDS campaigns at a local level through work with coalitions of concerned activists.

JVP rejects the assertion that BDS is inherently anti-Semitic. We will defend activists around the world who employ the full range of BDS tactics when they are demonized or wrongly accused of anti-Semitism.

After strategic and ethical analysis and organization-wide deliberation among our members, JVP affirms our role in the larger BDS movement. We are committed to a continuing review of our role that takes into account the evolving political situation, the growing BDS movement, and the responses of JVP’s constituency and the people to whom we speak.

Original Link: http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/jvp-issues#1

Gingrich’s Extremist Anti-Palestinian Stance Follows Millions from Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson: Democracy Now

Many analysts say Newt Gingrich’s recent rise in the Republican contest would have been impossible without the backing of one man: multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson and his wife have donated $10 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which has run a series of ads attacking Gingrich’s opponent Mitt Romney. Gingrich has openly admitted Adelson’s support came down to a single issue: Israel. Gingrich has adopted the most extremist anti-Palestinian stance of the Republican presidential field, calling the Palestinians themselves an “invented” people. We speak with Gal Beckerman of the Jewish Daily Forward and Linda Sarsour of the Arab American Association of New York. [includes rush transcript]

Guests:

Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York and the advocacy and civic engagement coordinator for the National Network for Arab American Communities.
Gal Beckerman, opinion editor at the Jewish Daily Forward and author of the book, When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry.
Related stories
GOPers Claim Softened Immigration Stance in Bid to Win Florida Latino Vote, But Key Issues Ignored
Fmr. Obama Adviser: Focus on U.S. Inequality in Election-Year SOTU Has Occupy Wall Street’s Imprint
“He Says One Thing and Does Another”: Ralph Nader Responds to Obama’s State of the Union Address
As Romney Releases Tax Returns, Fmr Senate Investigator Says: We’ve Got to Start Taxing Corporations
Recount Leaves Santorum Ahead of Romney in Iowa GOP Caucus

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to the issue of money and politics. Over the past two weeks, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary and has surged in the national polls. Many analysts say Gingrich’s rise would not have been possible without the backing of one man: multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. With a net worth of over $20 billion, he is the world’s 16th richest person, according to Forbes.

Ahead of the South Carolina primary, Adelson donated $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which ran a series of ads attacking Gingrich’s opponent Mitt Romney. On Monday, it was revealed his wife, Miriam Adelson, gave another $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC. Under the nation’s campaign finance laws, the Adelsons could give the super PAC an unlimited amount of money in the coming months.

In a recent interview with Ted Koppel on NBC, Newt Gingrich was asked about why the Adelsons would give so much money. Gingrich admitted it came down to a single issue: Israel.

TED KOPPEL: But what do these multi-millionaires expect?

NEWT GINGRICH: They want—they want—they want—

TED KOPPEL: When you give someone five million bucks—

NEWT GINGRICH: They want their candidate to win.

TED KOPPEL: But there has to be a “so what” at the end of that. So, if you win, what does Adelson get out of it?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, he knows I’m very pro-Israel. And that’s the central value of his life. I mean, he is very worried that Israel is going to not survive.

AMY GOODMAN: Sheldon Adelson is the owner of Israel’s largest daily newspaper, a financial supporter of Birthright Israel, and a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Adelson has also supported the Clarion Fund, which produced The Third Jihad film, which we just discussed.

The Washington Post reports Adelson and Gingrich met when Gingrich was House speaker and Adelson was lobbying to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Gingrich raised this very issue at last night’s debate when he was questioned about his past claims that the Palestinians are an “invented” people.

NEWT GINGRICH: It was technically an invention in the late 1970s, and it was clearly—it was clearly so. Prior to that, they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian.

There are a couple of simple things here. There were 11 rockets fired into Israel in November. Now imagine, in Duval County, that 11 rockets hit from your neighbor. How many of you would be for a peace process? And how many of you would say, “You know? That looks like an act of war.” You have leadership, unequivocally—and Governor Romney is exactly right—the leadership of Hamas says, “Not a single Jew will remain.” Well, you’re not having a peace negotiation then. This is war by another form.

My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom. And they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say, “Israel has a right to exist. We give up the right to return. And we recognize that we’re going to live side by side. Now let’s work together to create mutual prosperity.” And you could, in five years, dramatically improve the quality of life of every Palestinian.

But the political leadership would never tolerate that. And that’s why we are in a continuous state of war, where Obama undermines the Israelis. On the first day that I am president, if I do become president, I will sign an executive order directing the State Department to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson, we’re joined by Gal Beckerman, who is the opinion editor at the Jewish newspaper, The Forward. He recently wrote an article called “What Sheldon’s Money Buys: Adelson Millions Ensure Gingrich Steers to Far Right on Israel.” Still with us, Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York.

Gal, explain what it is, this Adelson-Gingrich relationship, why he supports him.

GAL BECKERMAN: Well, he supports—the relationship is really symbiotic, in a way. It developed, as you said, in the mid-’90s over issues of union busting. Adelson wanted some help; Gingrich was able to offer it. And it developed as time went on. It seems to have helped kind of in Gingrich’s evolution in terms of his pro-Israel stance. Wayne Barrett recently reported in The Daily Beast that, you know, if you look at what Gingrich was saying about Palestinians and Israel in 2005, even, as recently as 2005, it was kind of a different line. He was talking about investing in their ancestral lands. He was really speaking a much different language. This is now changed. You won’t hear Gingrich saying anything like that anymore. And it’s not—you know, one can’t draw a direct causal link, you know, find the telephone call in which Adelson said, you know, “I want you to say this.” But it’s not hard to imagine that if your political life depends on a man who has very extreme-right views when it comes to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, that you’re going to hear that same language come out of that candidate’s mouth.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Adelson has a determined opposition even to a two-state solution in the Middle East, doesn’t he?

GAL BECKERMAN: He does. I mean, in my column, I quote him from last year speaking to The Jewish Week, saying, “I believe” — and I’m paraphrasing here, but “that a two-state solution is a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.” So, you know, this is even more further to the right than the current Israeli government is, which is engaged now, whether, you know, successfully or not, in talks in Jordan with the Palestinians. You have a prime minister who, you know, whether he wants a two-state solution to eventually happen, he’s speaking the language of a two-state solution. He’s talking about the need for a Palestinian state. So, you know, Adelson really, in the spectrum of political belief in Israel, really falls, you know, to the right even of the current government.

AMY GOODMAN: AIPAC, where does Sheldon Adelson stand on his views on the American Israeli Political Action Committee?

GAL BECKERMAN: Right, well, here’s another example where you—

AMY GOODMAN: Public Affairs Committee.

GAL BECKERMAN: Right. Here’s another example where you can see that Adelson really kind of is on that right side of the spectrum, because he broke with AIPAC in 2007 over a congressional initiative that AIPAC was backing, and that the Israelis actually were backing, as well, to provide more economic aid to the Palestinians. He didn’t feel that this was a good idea.

AMY GOODMAN: Adelson and super PACs?

GAL BECKERMAN: I mean, the one thing that should be said is that, you know, we can talk about Adelson’s influence, you know, all we want, but there’s nothing illegal about it. I mean, the real problem here is this vehicle that he’s been allowed, through super PACs, to be able to have this kind of outsized influence, which really wasn’t the case before the Citizens United case two years ago.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Linda Sarsour, as we’re talking here about the influence of Sheldon Adelson—we were just discussing how he helped fund the group that produced the jihad film—your reaction?

LINDA SANSOUR: I’m also—I happen to be Palestinian, too. And listening to a couple of debates ago and having my children sit in front of the TV and playing on their laptop and hearing, you know, our potential presidentials talk about the “invented” people and hearing Palestine, and stopping and saying, “What does he mean by we’re invented people?” and having to explain that to, you know, a 12-year-old and 11-year-old, it’s just so disappointing in this country that money is what buys power in this country and buys influence.

And we actually agree. One-state solution, one-state solution over here. One-state solution, for me, is the only way to go. And that’s an equal state for all, for justice for all. So, we can agree on that area, as well. But really, the views that Newt Gingrich is spouting in these debates, he’s making George Bush look like a walk in the park. I mean, it’s getting—I mean, we’re not—we’re supposed to be progressing in the peace process. We’re supposed to be moving forward. And what we are doing, and the GOP is doing, is moving back. So if the American people have any sense, we cannot let this guy go forward.

AMY GOODMAN: Linda, I wanted to get your response to this issue of the “invented” people. You heard it last night at the debate. Last month, Gingrich defended his claim the Palestinians are an invented people. The former speaker of the House made the comment during an interview with the Jewish Channel.

NEWT GINGRICH: Jewish people have the right to have a state, and I believe that the commitments that were made at the time—remember, there were—there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and I think it’s tragic.

AMY GOODMAN: That was presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Linda Sarsour?

LINDA SANSOUR: I mean, he must have been politically asleep for the first 50 years of his life. And he talks about us being invented in the ’70s? Like, what is he talking about? I mean, it’s just—I mean, for me, when I watch this, it’s just that—it’s like a comedy. It’s like Saturday Night Live. It’s like, where have you been all this time? And for the Palestinian people, we’ve been—I mean, we’ve been talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at least for the past 60 years. So, for me, honestly, I just laugh, and I think that, unfortunately, the way that our political system is set up is you talk about issues that are going to get you elected depending on who gives you money. So you talk about immigration because you want Latino votes. You talk about Israel because you want Jewish votes. I mean, it’s all, for me, a scam. And for me, I don’t know about anybody else, but it doesn’t—it doesn’t do anything for me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Gal, I’d like to ask you about the impact of the Adelson money on the general tenor of the foreign policy debate among the Republican candidates. It almost seems that he has single-handedly been able to shift the entire debate more to the right on a variety of issues.

GAL BECKERMAN: Right. Well, I mean, and this is what I think is the much bigger concern, is that, you know, if you have Gingrich saying the things that he believes Adelson wants him to say, nobody wants to be outflanked to the right, and so everyone is going to kind of move in that direction. And you get kind of this dynamic where it’s kind of like toughness for toughness’s sake, you know, on a range of issues, any time that talk turns to foreign policy, whether it’s Cuba or, you know, when you talk about Afghanistan. Romney was asked twice what he would do with the Taliban, whether he would negotiate with the Taliban, and he said, “No, we’re going to beat them,” which, as far as I’m concerned, is what we’ve been trying to do for the last 10 years without much effect. So, you know, he—there is—and then Iran, of course, is the ultimate example, where everyone is trying to just kind of have this kind of belligerent language that doesn’t really kind of offer any alternative solutions, that doesn’t kind of look at all the full implications of some of the things that they’re saying. It’s just kind of, you know, let’s talk as tough as possible. And it pushes people into a corner.

AMY GOODMAN: Go very quickly, the newspaper in Atlanta, where the editor was just forced out.

GAL BECKERMAN: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what happened?

GAL BECKERMAN: This was an editor of a very small—about 2,500, I think, was their circulation—newspaper, one of two or three Jewish newspapers in Atlanta, who wrote this incredibly, extraordinarily inflammatory column that said that one of the things on the table, in terms of dealing with Iran, should be a possible assassination of President Obama. And this was kind of roundly condemned by everybody. The guy eventually came out himself, you know, in this kind of half-an-hour tearful confession a few days ago, saying he doesn’t know what he was thinking. And, you know, I think it’s possible to see this as just the production of one crank, you know, who’s—you know, but underneath—underneath it is a real kind of, I think, irrational fear that you see among some people in the Jewish community that Obama and his policies towards Iran is somehow harming Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: Thirty seconds, how did Adelson get his fortune?

GAL BECKERMAN: He is a casino magnate, built a lot of casinos in Vegas and, in the last 15 years, has grown even richer through building the same types of resorts and casinos in China.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us. And that editor, the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, named Andrew Adler, said Israel should consider assassinating President Obama, quote, “take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.” We’re going to end it there. Gal Beckerman, thanks so much for being with us, opinion editor at The Forward, author of When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry. And Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York, also with the National Network for Arab American Communities. She was just named a “Champion of Change,” honored at the White House, a Palestinian-American activist. Thanks much for both for joining us. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we look at immigration and the primaries. Stay with us.

EDITOR: A good week for god!

After a really week, with rain, sleet and miserable stuff on television, god has at last had a good turn – most Israelis believe in him (Her?)… Of course, he had to choose them first, before they will deign to believe, but that was along time ago, anyway. Strangely enough, more people believe in god than in being the ‘chosen people’. The way I understand this, is the fact that some believers are not stupid, realise the propaganda is somewhat embarrassing…

But, of course Israelis are well below the Americans, even in this crucial field. If you wish to learn about this fascinating topic, go to Gallup: More Than 90 Percent of Americans Believe in God – the title gives it away… the highest measured belief-in-god percentages in the Land of the Brave was 96%, so not all is lost – it can still climb higher, in both countries. Should atheism not be made illegal? I think it is about time, don’t you think?

Survey: Record number of Israeli Jews believe in God: Haaretz

First comprehensive study in a decade also shows that 70 percent of Israelis believe the Jews are the ‘Chosen People.’

By Nir Hasson

Fully 80 percent of Israeli Jews believe that God exists – the highest figure found by the Guttman-Avi Chai survey since this review of Israeli-Jewish beliefs began two decades ago.

The latest survey of the “Beliefs, Observance and Values among Israeli Jews” was conducted in 2009 but the results were released only on Thursday, after a detailed analysis had been completed. The two previous surveys were in 1999 and 1991.

The study also found that 70 percent of respondents believe the Jews are the “Chosen People,” 65 percent believe the Torah and mitzvot (religious commandments ) are God-given, and 56 percent believe in life after death.

Overall, the survey found an increase in attachment to Jewish religion and tradition from 1999 to 2009, following a decrease from 1991 to 1999, which was the decade of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union. Among other things, it found that less than half of Israeli Jews think that, in a clash between Jewish law and democracy, democratic values should always prevail.

The study, conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute’s Guttman Center for Surveys and the Avi Chai Foundation, is based on interviews with 2,803 Israeli Jews.

It found that only 46 percent of Israeli Jews now define themselves as secular, down from 52 percent in 1999, while 22 percent define themselves as either Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, up from 16 percent in 1999. The remaining 32 percent term themselves traditional, virtually unchanged from 1999.

This change in self-identification was also reflected in the proportion of those subscribing to traditional Jewish beliefs. For instance, 55 percent said they believe in the coming of the Messiah, up from 45 percent in 1999 but similar to 53 percent in 1991, while 37 percent said that “a Jew who does not observe the religious precepts endangers the entire Jewish people,” up from 30 percent in 1999 but again similar to the 1991 figure of 35 percent.

The study’s authors cited two reasons for the rise in religiosity. One is that immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who contributed to the drop in religiosity from 1991 to 1999, have now assimilated into Israeli society. Various studies have found that this process of assimilation has resulted in Soviet immigrants becoming more traditional. The second reason is the demographic change caused by the higher Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox birthrates.

The survey found that, even when individuals were asked about how their own attitudes had changed over the previous decade, the number of those that said they felt more religious and were more careful about observing the Sabbath and kashrut was higher than the number of those who said they had become more secular.

The rise in religiosity was also reflected in attitudes toward other issues. For instance, only 44 percent said that if Jewish law and democratic values clashed, the latter should always be preferred, while 20 percent said Jewish law should always be preferred and 36 percent said “sometimes one and sometimes the other.”

The study also found an upswing in religious practice. For instance, 85 percent of respondents said that “celebrating the Jewish holidays as prescribed by religious tradition” was “important” or “very important,” up from 63 percent in 1999, while 70 percent said they “always” or “frequently” refrained from eating hametz (leavened bread ) on Passover, up from 67 percent in 1999.

Fully 61 percent of respondents said the state should “ensure that public life is conducted according to Jewish religious tradition,” up dramatically from 44 percent in 1991. But respondents also insisted on preserving their freedom of choice. For instance, between 58 and 68 percent said that shopping centers, public transportation, sporting events, cafes, restaurants and movie theaters should be allowed to operate on Shabbat (exact figures ranged from 58 percent for shopping centers to 68 percent for cafes, restaurants and movie theaters ).

Moreover, 51 percent responded “yes,” “absolutely yes” or “perhaps yes” when asked if they favored the introduction of civil marriage in Israel. Those in the first two categories, at 48 percent, were down from 54 percent in 1999 but up from 39 percent in 1991.

God rules all in 2012 Israel, even the state: Haaretz

Israel: Not what you thought, not what the world thought, not what Israelis imagine themselves to think. Israeli society isn’t secular, it isn’t liberal and it isn’t enlightened.

You have to give it to the pollsters. They let the cat out of the bag. To paraphrase the Haaretz advertising slogan from the 1990s – Israel: Not what you thought. Not what the world thought, not what Israelis imagine themselves to think. Israeli society isn’t secular, it isn’t liberal and it isn’t enlightened. Were they permitted to respond freely, it’s doubtful that 80 percent of Iranians would say they believed in God; it’s doubtful there is any other free nation on the planet, with the possible exception of the Americans, that would produce the same results. But there surely is no other nation on the planet that is so secure in its arrogant certainty that it was selected from all the other nations and raised above them.

The findings of this powerful poll are the most important key to understanding Israeli society and the conduct of its governments. It is the only prism through which it is possible to comprehend the occupation, the racism, the Haredization and the capitulation to the settlers. In our hearts, we think: This is our destiny. If in any enlightened society settlers and the ultra-Orthodox would be treated as marginal, eccentric, messianic groups, the attitude toward them in Israel comes from a very deep place within the “secular” society. If in any enlightened society the occupation stirs protest and revulsion, the attitude to it here is based in a religious belief that justifies all its iniquities.

The survey proves that we are all “hilltop youth,” and that most of us are Sicarii. Expressions of racism toward Arabs and foreigners, Israel’s arrogant attitude toward international opinion – these too can be explained by the benighted, primeval belief of the majority of Israelis (70 percent ) that we enjoy complete license because You chose us. Even the religious character of the state, which is much less secular than we tend to think – no buses or El Al flights during Shabbat, no civil marriage, no unkosher hotels, a mezuzah on the doorjamb of nearly every home and a rising number of people who kiss it each time they enter or exit – all this can be explained by the survey data.

There is much less religious coercion than it would appear, much more willing dedication to the caprices of Jewish fundamentalism. From now on, it can no longer be claimed that the secular majority has acquiesced to the religious minority; there is no secular majority, only a negligible minority.

In contrast to most European states today, in Israel “atheist” is a derogatory term that few people even dare to say, much less use to identify themselves. In such a country, it is impossible to speak seriously about secularism. We should admit the truth, which is that we are an almost religious society and a state that is almost based on religious law. There’s no need to keep counting the number of people wearing kippot, headscarves or shtreimels. Bareheaded people are in the same camp: They accept the character of their state, where the religion is the state and the state is the religion, all mixed together. There’s no need to keep being shocked by religious extremism – being religious, whether moderate or extreme, is all the same, and it’s the majority here.

From Jenin to Hebron, we are in the West Bank above all because the majority of Israelis believe that it is not only the land of the patriarchs, but that this fact gives us a patrimonial right to sovereignty, to cruelty, to abuse and to occupation – and to hell with the position of the international community and the principles of international law, because, after all, we were chosen from among all other peoples. From Bnei Brak to Mea She’arim, these Haredim are, to a large extent, us, just with different dress and languages – more extreme versions of the same belief.

Perhaps it was inevitable. A state that arose on a certain territory and conquered another territory and has remained there nearly forever, all on the basis of Bible stories; a population that never decided whether it was a nation or a religion; and a state that purports to be a “Jewish state,” even if no one has any idea what that means. All these cannot exist with no foundation – a chosen people that believes in its God. That is Israel, circa 2012. God have mercy on us.

Continue reading January 29, 2012

EDITOR: Which country leads the international Militarisation Index?

No prizes offered for the rights answer… This index has been compiled for the last 21 years, ever since 1990. In the whole period, Israel has led the list of 148 states, either in the first place – 16 years – or in the second place – 5 years. For comparison, the UK is in the 65th place, and the US is in the 30 place! The list is taking military spending per capita as its main index of militarisation.

When you consider the fact that American activists are speaking incessantly about reducing military spending, then Israeli peace activists have not yet started to seriously challenge their government on what is accepted as ‘security’. Israel lives and thrives on the Military-Industrial Complex, both the American and Israeli ones. As long as this does not change, no peace, no reduction in the conflict and tension are possible or likely. Israel’s economy is a war economy, and its society is centrally focused on producing arms and weaponry, and reproducing conflict; it is the drug the economy and society are addicted to, and feed on. Here is something for Israeli intellectuals to ponder on.

Global Militarization Index – Ranking Table: bicc

This table presents the GMI data sorted by country name. You can re-sort the table either ascending or descending by clicking the corresponding arrow next to the column headers.
To view the table in its original, maneuverable form, please use the link above

View GMI data by year:
2010

Country ⇑ ⇓    Index Value ⇑ ⇓    Rank ⇑ ⇓
Israel    912.3    1
Singapore    867.99    2
Syria    845.04    3
Russia    830.8    4
Jordan    826.03    5
Cyprus    810.12    6
Korea, Republic of    796.8    7
Kuwait    791.47    8
Greece    779.47    9
Saudi Arabia    767.52    10
Brunei    766.71    11
Oman    766.37    12
Libya    765.42    13
Bahrain    763.69    14
Azerbaijan    756.54    15
Belarus    756.31    16
United Arab Emirates    754.44    17
Algeria    750.14    18
Vietnam    732.59    19
Ukraine    730.77    20
Bulgaria    727.92    21
Lebanon    727.81    22
Morocco    726.41    23
Armenia    724.49    24
Finland    723.16    25
Mongolia    717.66    26
Turkey    717.43    27
Egypt    714.68    28
Portugal    712.19    29
United States of America    710.59    30
Angola    706.06    31
Iran    704.02    32
Iraq    700.97    33
Chile    698.22    34
Estonia    693.97    35
Ecuador    689.42    36
Serbia    684.45    37
Croatia    683.88    38
Yemen    680.04    39
Norway    676.66    40
Macedonia    675.92    41
Qatar    675.13    42
Mauritania    674.7    43
Djibouti    670.28    44
Sri Lanka    668.9    45
Romania    667.49    46
Thailand    666.86    47
Peru    664.43    48
Colombia    655.78    49
Botswana    652.83    50
Cambodia    652.76    51
Denmark    651.78    52
Namibia    650.96    53
Georgia    650.31    54
Sweden    645.33    55
Pakistan    644.56    56
Malaysia    642.49    57
Kyrgyzstan    641.56    58
Lithuania    641.34    59
Slovenia    639.34    60
France    638.81    61
Switzerland    638.35    62
Spain    634.36    63
Austria    633.62    64
United Kingdom    633.48    65
Chad    627.86    66

To see the whole table, use link above

EDITOR: The warmongers continue to bang the war drums!

Barak, not happy with the impasse on Iran, is again on the barricades, calling for ‘the world’ to act against Iran. What he means is ‘the world’ allowing Israel to do it…

Barak: World must act against Iran before it’s too late: Haaretz

Defense Minister says Iran is soon reaching a point where even a ‘surgical’ military strike could not block it from acquiring nuclear arms.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday the world must quickly stop Iran from reaching the point where even a “surgical” military strike could not block it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Amid fears that Israel is nearing a decision to attack Iran’s nuclear program, Barak said tougher international sanctions are needed against Tehran’s oil and banks so that “we all will know early enough whether the Iranians are ready to give up their nuclear weapons program.”

Iran insists its atomic program is only aimed at producing energy and research, but has repeatedly refused to consider giving up its ability to enrich uranium.

“We are determined to prevent Iran from turning nuclear. And even the American president and opinion leaders have said that no option should be removed from the table and Iran should be blocked from turning nuclear,” Barak old reporters during the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

“It seems to us to be urgent, because the Iranians are deliberately drifting into what we call an immunity zone where practically no surgical operation could block them,” he said.

Barak called it “a challenge for the whole world” to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran but stopped short of confirming any action that could further stoke Washington’s concern about a possible Israeli military strike.

Separately, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged a resumption of dialogue between Western powers and Iran on their nuclear dispute.

He said Friday that Tehran must comply with Security Council resolutions and prove conclusively that its nuclear development program is not directed to making arms.

“The onus is on Iran,” said Ban, speaking at a press conference. “They have to prove themselves that their nuclear development program is genuinely for peaceful purposes, which they have not done yet.”

Ban expressed concern at the most recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency that strongly suggested that Iran’s nuclear program, which it long has claimed is for development of power generation, has a military intent.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said at a Davos session that “we do not have that much confidence if Iran has declared everything” and its best information “indicates that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to nuclear explosive devices.”

“For now they do not have the capacity to manufacture the fuel,” he said. “But in the future, we don’t know.”

In spite of his tough words to Iran, Ban said that dialogue among the “three-plus-three” … Germany, France and Britain plus Russia, China and the United States … is the path forward.

“There is no other alternative for addressing this crisis than peaceful … resolution through dialogue,” said Ban.

Ban noted that there have been a total of five Security Council resolutions so far on the Iranian nuclear program, four calling for sanctions.

As tensions have been on the rise recently, some political leaders in Israel and the United States have been speaking increasingly of the possibility of a military strike to eliminate, or at least slow down, what they allege is a determined effort by Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

‘Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012’: Guardian

Julian Borger
One of Israel’s leading strategic analysts says the country’s leadership believes air strikes can set back the Iranian nuclear programme by three to five years

An Israeli Air Force F-16I jet fighter takes off after touching down briefly at the Ramon Air Force Base in the Negev Desert. Photograph: Jim Hollander/EPA
Ronen Bergman, an investigative journalist and analyst on the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has written a long piece for the New York Times magazine, asking the question on many people’s minds: Will Israel attack Iran?

Bergman’s answer, which comes in the last paragraph, is yes:

After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012. Perhaps in the small and ever-diminishing window that is left, the United States will choose to intervene after all, but here, from the Israeli perspective, there is not much hope for that. Instead there is that peculiar Israeli mixture of fear — rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive — and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.

Bergman is one of a small circle of heavyweights in the Israeli media who spend a significant amount of time with the politicians, spies and generals who are going to make the ultimate decision. So his assessment carries more weigh that your average Israel-Iran analyst. Here is one of the key paragraphs:

The Israeli Air Force is where most of the preparations are taking place. It maintains planes with the long-range capacity required to deliver ordnance to targets in Iran, as well as unmanned aircraft capable of carrying bombs to those targets and remaining airborne for up to 48 hours. Israel believes that these platforms have the capacity to cause enough damage to set the Iranian nuclear project back by three to five years.

Three to five years seems a very confident estimate. The US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, reckoned in December that such strikes could set the Iranians back one or two years “at best”. Bergman also talks to a Mossad veteran, Rafi Eitan, whose own estimate was “not even three months”.

Bergman spent a lot of time in recent months with the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, and is particularly revealing on his strategic thinking. He does not necessarily share Binyamin Netanyahu’s apocalyptic view of Iran’s intentions, but believes a nuclear Iran will be more aggressive and harder to counter.

“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”

At that point Barak leaned forward and said with the utmost solemnity: “And if a nuclear Iran covets and occupies some gulf state, who will liberate it? The bottom line is that we must deal with the problem now.”

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA Middle East specialist, takes the opposite view, arguing in Lebanon’s Daily Star today that even with the bomb, Iran would not be an existential threat to Israel. Riedel’s view probably reflects the majority outlook at the CIA and the White House. Bergman examines this divergence in American and Israeli assessments, and wonders how much notice Israel would give Washington of an attack. Matthew Kroenig, a former Pentagon advisor now at the Council on Foreign Relations, reckons it will be “an hour or two, just enough to maintain good relations between the countries but not quite enough to allow Washington to prevent the attack”.

Jeffrey Goldberg has put out a piece in The Atlantic in response to Bergman, suggesting that Bergman’s analysis might be premature, and pointing out that the same people that Bergman talked to had previously convinced Goldberg that the attack would come last summer. Clearly, Israeli has a motive in conveying the impression that an attack might be imminent, to stir up urgency in the West to confront Iran. Ultimately, as Bergman admits, only Netanyahu and Barak really know how much is bluff and how much real intention.

That is a lot more interesting stuff in Bergman’s piece. He is bringing out a book this month, called The Secret War with Iran, (clarification: an updated English version of his 2007 book of the same title) which sounds like it will be a gripping read, and of course the NYT article helps drum up interest and sales. In it, Bergman gives a colourful description of a meeting in January 2011 with the outgoing Mossad boss, Meir Dagan, who has argued vehemently against an attack on Iran.

We were told to congregate in the parking lot of a movie-theater complex north of Tel Aviv, where we were warned by Mossad security personnel, “Do not bring computers, recording devices, cellphones. You will be carefully searched, and we want to avoid unpleasantness. Leave everything in your cars and enter our vehicles carrying only paper and pens.” We were then loaded into cars with opaque windows and escorted by black Jeeps to a site that we knew was not marked on any map. The cars went through a series of security checks, requiring our escorts to explain who we were and show paperwork at each roadblock.

This was the first time in the history of the Mossad that a group of journalists was invited to meet the director of the organization at one of the country’s most secret sites.

Presumably there will be much more of this in the book. However, when it comes to covert operations, as with the nuclear programme, there are things that Israeli journalists know but cannot say, and must attribute to non-Israeli sources. For example, Bergman does not say outright that Israel is behind the assassinations of Israeli nuclear scientists but reports lots of nods and winks in that direction. Here is an example of the journalistic animut (opacity):

Operating in Iran … is impossible for the Mossad’s sabotage-and-assassination unit, known as Caesarea, so the assassins must come from elsewhere. Iranian intelligence believes that over the last several years, the Mossad has financed and armed two Iranian opposition groups, the Muhjahedin Khalq (MEK) and the Jundallah, and has set up a forward base in Kurdistan to mobilize the Kurdish minority in Iran, as well as other minorities, training some of them at a secret base near Tel Aviv.

Is Bergman really channeling Iranian intelligence here, or laundering something he knows by attributing it to Iranian intelligence? Hard to know for sure, but it certainly reads like the latter. So his NYT piece and probably his book will no doubt tell us a lot about Israel’s intentions but not as much as Bergman undoubtedly knows.

Continue reading January 27, 2012

EDITOR: Countdown to war

This is a new phenomenon – a US President who is a holder of the Peace Nobel Prize, intensifying one war, in Afghanistan, and about to start another, in Iran. Will he get another Nobel Peace Prize for the new war? Surely, recognition of his achievement is in order? Even those of us nor enamoured with the Teheran regime, can see the bating which the western powers are involved in on behalf of Israel. How could this NOT lead to a destructive war?

Iran steps up threats to close Strait of Hormuz after EU imposes oil embargo: Haaretz

Warning comes as EU nations agree in Brussels on sanctions over the country’s controversial nuclear program; Netanyahu says embargo is ‘step in the right direction.’
By The Associated Press     and DPA
Two Iranian lawmakers on Monday stepped up threats their country would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s crude flows, in retaliation for oil sanctions on Tehran.

The warnings came as EU nations agreed in Brussels on an oil embargo against Iran as part of sanctions over the country’s controversial nuclear program. The measure includes an immediate embargo on new contracts for Iranian crude and petroleum products while existing ones will be allowed to run until July.

Iran has repeatedly warned it would choke off the strait if sanctions affect its oil sales, and two lawmakers ratcheted up the rhetoric on Monday.

Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail Kowsari, deputy head of Iran’s influential committee on national security, said the strait “would definitely be closed if the sale of Iranian oil is violated in any way.”

Kowsari claimed that in case of the strait’s closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any “military adventurism.”

Another senior lawmaker, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, said Iran has the right to shutter Hormuz in retaliation for oil sanctions and that the closure was increasingly probable, according to the semiofficial Mehr news agency.

“In case of threat, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is one of Iran’s rights,” Falahatpisheh said. “So far, Iran has not used this privilege.”

Monday’s EU measure also includes a freeze on the assets of Iran’s central bank as part of sanctions meant to pressure Tehran to resume talks on its uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to making nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the decision, calling it “a step in the right direction.”

According to Netanyahu, who spoke at an afternoon Likud faction meeting, it is still too early to predict the outcome of the sanctions, but he emphasized the importance of continual pressure on Iran in light of “its continual, uninterrupted development of nuclear weapons.”

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on Monday called for other countries to join the European Union in its boycott of Iranian oil. China imports a lion share of Tehran’s crude. Other major importers include India, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Turkey.

“Oil embargo is a word easily said,” Westerwelle told reporters after a meeting with his EU counterparts in Brussels. “But if the message to the Iranian leadership is to be clear, then it needs more than just a Western voice. It needs an international voice.”

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was critical on Monday of planned new European Union sanctions against Iran, saying they would push Tehran away from the negotiating table and do little to increase regional security.

“These unilateral steps are not helpful,” Lavrov said at a press conference in the Russian Black Sea port of Sochi, the Interfax news agency reported.

For its part, the United States has enacted, but not yet put into force, sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and, by extension, the country’s ability to be paid for its oil.

Some 80 percent of Iran’s oil revenue comes from exports and any measures or sanctions taken that affect its ability to export oil could hit hard at its economy. With about 4 million barrels per day, Iran is the second largest producer in OPEC.

Reflecting the uncertainties, on Monday the Iranian currency, the rial, fell to a new low, trading at nearly 21,000 to the dollar, a five percent drop since Saturday and 14 percent since Friday, currency dealers said. A year ago the rial was trading at 10,500 to the dollar.

Tensions over the strait and the potential impact on global oil supplies and also the price of crude have weighed heavily on consumers and traders. Both the U.S.¬ and Britain have warned Iran over any disruption to the world’s oil supply through the strait.

Another Iranian lawmaker, Ali Adyani, sought to downplay the latest EU move, describing it as a “mere propaganda gesture,” according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

Former intelligence minister, Ali Falahaian, suggested Iran should stop all its crude exports “so that oil prices would go up and the Europeans’ sanctions would collapse.”

Threats to close the strait escalated during Iran’s naval exercises in the Persian Gulf in January. Iran plans more naval war games in February.

Iran: EU oil sanctions ‘unfair’ and ‘doomed to fail’: BBC

Catherine Ashton: “There is no question that if Iran responds positively the sanctions can eventually be lifted”

Iran has said an oil embargo adopted by European Union foreign ministers over the country’s nuclear programme is “unfair” and “doomed to fail”.

The measures would not prevent Iran’s “progress for achieving its basic rights”, foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said.

The sanctions ban all new oil contracts with Iran and freeze the assets of Iran’s central bank in the EU.

The EU currently buys about 20% of Iran’s oil exports.

“European officials and other countries which are under America’s political pressure… should consider their national interests and not deprive themselves of Iran’s oil to help US officials achieve their secret aims,” Mr Mehmanparast added.

He accused the US of trying to create “problems with energy supply requirements in countries which are America’s economic rivals”.

US President Barack Obama has welcomed the EU sanctions, saying they show international unity against the “serious threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear programme.

So once the new measures are in place, how successful will they be? Even Western diplomats are uncertain.

There is no doubting that the Iranian economy will suffer. But the nuclear programme is a matter of national pride and ultimately national security.

Iran has seen the demise of regimes in Iraq and Libya and noted the survival of that in North Korea – the one so-called “rogue state” that has nuclear weapons.

Iran’s rulers may well believe that having at least the potential for a nuclear bomb is something that could secure the country against outside threat.

Seen in this light one can imagine the Iranian authorities being willing to absorb considerable economic pain to pursue their nuclear research effort.

Impact of EU ban on Iranian oil
The sanctions were formally adopted at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday.

Iran had “failed to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme”, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a joint statement.

“We will not accept Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran has so far had no regard for its international obligations and is already exporting and threatening violence around its region,” the leaders added.

The measures were “another strong step in the international effort to dramatically increase the pressure on Iran”, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog has confirmed it is sending a team to Iran between 29 and 31 January “to resolve all outstanding substantive issues”.

Last November the IAEA said in a report that it had information suggesting Iran had carried out tests “relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.

Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for energy purposes.

Earlier on Monday, the Pentagon said the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as a British Royal Navy frigate and a French warship, had passed through the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf without incident, following Iranian threats to block the trade route.

Russian opposition
The EU said the sanctions prohibit the import, purchase and transport of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products as well as related finance and insurance. All existing contracts will have to be phased out by 1 July.

Investment as well as the export of key equipment and technology for Iran’s petrochemical sector is also banned.

EU approves tough oil embargo on Iran: Al Jazeera English

Sanctions to ban new contracts between bloc’s 27 member states and Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear programme.

Members of the European Union have adopted an embargo on Iranian oil as part of sanctions over the country’s disputed nuclear programme.

The EU sanctions, which were approved at a meeting in Brussels on Monday, follow financial punishments signed into law by the US on December 31 last year, and mainly target the oil sector, which accounts for some 90 per cent of Iranian exports to the EU.

The oil ban, along with sanctions against Iran’s central bank and other measures, came as Western powers stepped up pressure on Iran to return to negotiations amid concerns that it is moving closer to building nuclear weapons.

Iran denounced the EU measures, saying that the decision was “unfair” and “doomed to fail”.

“The method of threat, pressure and unfair sanctions against a nation that has a strong reason for its approach is doomed to fail,” Ramin Mehmanparast, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, told the state broadcaster.

For its part, the US said the EU sanctions were consistent with steps it had taken against Iran.

It also announced new sanctions against Iran’s third largest state-owned ban, Bank Tejarat, and the Trade Capital Bank, an affiliate. Both are still accessing the international financial system.

‘Another strong step’

Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton, respectively the US treasury secretary and the secretary of state, said in a joint statement that the moves from Europe were “another strong step in the international effort to dramatically increase the pressure on Iran”.

Under Monday’s embargo decision, all new contracts for crude oil and petroleum products between Iran and any of the EU’s 27 member states, will be forbidden. Existing contracts have to be suspended by June-end.

”]There will be a review of the embargo on May 1, a month before all oil contracts cease.

The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also confirmed on Monday that a high-level visit to Iran would take place from January 29-31 for talks on Tehran’s nuclear activities.

Describing the EU measures as part of “an unprecedented set of sanctions”, William Hague, the British foreign minister, said: “Today’s sanctions show how serious EU member states are about preventing nuclear proliferation and pressing Iran to return to the negotiating table,” he said.

The meeting in Brussels came after French and British warships joined a US carrier aircraft group on Sunday and passed through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage between Iran and Oman, which Iran has threatened to close in retaliation to tightening sanctions, thus imperilling much of the world’s oil supply.

The manoeuvre was meant “to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage
under international law”, a spokesman for the UK defence ministry said.

Western countries believe Iran’s uranium enrichment programme is part of an effort to build a nuclear bomb, but Iran says the programme is to generate electricity.

A member of Catherine Ashton’s office, the EU’s high representative of foreign policy, confirmed to Al Jazeera that the decision to go ahead with sanctions was ratified by all 27 member states.

Joint statement

France, Britain and Germany said, just hours after the decision on Monday, that they were willing to negotiate with Iran if it was ready to talk seriously about its nuclear programme.

“We call on Iran’s leadership immediately to suspend its sensitive nuclear activities and abide fully by its international obligations,” the three countries said in a joint statement by their leaders.

Nick Spicer reports on the meeting from Brussels

Calling on Iran to engage in “serious” and “meaningful” negotiations about its nuclear programme, they said in the statement: “Until Iran comes to the table, we will be united behind strong measures to undermine the regime’s ability to fund its nuclear programme.”

Issues of concern before Monday’s meeting included the impact and costs of the ban for countries like Greece, which relies on financial help from the EU and the International Monetary Fund to stay afloat, and received Iranian crude on preferential financing terms.

With a significant part of EU purchases of Iranian oil covered by long-term contracts, a grace period was an important factor in the efficiency of EU measures.

Al Jazeera’s Nick Spicer, reporting from the sidelines of the meeting in Brussels, said: “There will be a review of sanctions in three months, in May, to see how things are going and then the embargo will begin in full force on July 1.

“The reason for that is so that countries heavily dependent on Iranian oil, namely Greece, Italy and Spain, some of the most ailing members of the eurozone, can find new sources of supply, and secondly, to see what steps Iran is taking to come back to the negotiating table.”

Diplomatic push

In addition to the oil embargo, the EU measures are also expected to include sanctions against the Iranian central bank and a ban on trading in gold with the government, diplomats said.

A diplomatic push is under way, officials say, to secure supplies from other producers. Saudi Arabia, the world’s top producer, said this month it would increase production by about two million barrels per day.

Dorsa Jabbari reports on concern on Tehran’s streets

The effort to take Iran’s 2.6 million barrels of oil per day off international markets has kept global prices high, pushed down Iran’s rial currency and is causing a surge in the cost of basic goods for Iranians.

Al Jazeera’s Dorsa Jabbari, reporting from Tehran, said the Iranian government believes that the EU sanctions will not really affect their oil revenues.

The Iranian government believes that the embargo will increase oil prices and, hence, will make up for the loss in revenue, our correspondent said.

Our correspondent said the impact of the sanctions would be felt by ordinary Iranians as it will increase the price of the US dollar vis-a-vis the Iranian rial, she said, noting that the dollar rose by about 10 cents following the EU sanctions announcement on Monday.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at Tehran University, said that EU sanctions would not “terribly affect” Iran.

“The real problem for Iran comes [from] Asia and not from Europe,” Zibakalam said. “That is to say if China, South Korea, Japan … and India move towards … reducing their oil from Iran, that will create a serious problem for Iran.”

The four Asian nations purchase about 59 per cent of Iran’s oil each year, while EU countries account for 18 per cent.

Factbox: EU sanctions against Iran: Ahram Online

Outline of EU sanctions against Iran, announced on Monday, include bans on transport and imports
Reuters , Monday 23 Jan 2012
Monday’s sanctions imposed on Iran by the EU include a ban on the transport, purchase and import into Europe of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products and related finance and insurance. Contracts already concluded can be executed until 1 July and the measures will be reviewed before 1 May.
The sanctions also ban the export of key technology for the energy sector and new investment in Iranian petrochemical firms and joint ventures with these companies.

The EU also froze the assets of the Iran’s central bank in the European Union and banned trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds with Iranian public bodies and the central bank.

In addition, the sanctions bar the sale to Iran of more “sensitive dual use” goods – those that can have a military or security application – and add three people to a list of those targeted by asset freezes and visa bans and freeze the assets of eight more entities.

Details of the sanctions will be published in the EU’s Official Journal on Tuesday.

The EU has gradually imposed sanctions on Iran since 2007 as part of Western efforts to put pressure on Tehran over its nuclear work. Sanctions include those agreed by the United Nations and autonomous EU measures. Current EU sanctions include:

– Trade ban on arms and equipment that can be used for repression, and a ban on goods and technology related to nuclear enrichment or nuclear weapons systems, including nuclear materials and facilities, certain chemicals, electronics, sensors and lasers, navigation and avionics;

– Ban on investment by Iranian nationals and entities in uranium mining and production of nuclear material and technology within the EU;

– Ban on trade in dual-use goods and technology, for instance telecommunication systems and equipment; information security systems and equipment; nuclear technology and low-enriched uranium;

– Export ban on key equipment and technology for the oil and gas industries (i.e. exploration and production of oil and natural gas, refining and liquefaction of natural gas). Ban on financial and technical assistance for such transactions. This includes geophysical survey equipment, drilling and production platforms for crude oil and natural gas, equipment for shipping terminals of liquefied gas, petrol pumps and storage tanks;

– Ban on investment in the Iranian oil and gas industries (exploration and production of oil and gas, refining and liquefaction of natural gas). This means no credits, loans, new investment in and joint ventures with such companies in Iran;

– Ban on new medium- or long-term commitments by EU member states to financial support for trade with Iran. Restraint on short-term commitments;

– EU governments are banned from extending grants and concessional loans to the Iranian government. Provision of insurance and re-insurance to the Iranian government and Iranian entities (except health and travel insurance) is banned;

– EU financial institutions must report to national authorities any transactions with Iranian banks they suspect concern proliferation of financing; banks must notify transfers above 10,000 euros to national authorities and request prior authorisation for transactions above 40,000 euros (with humanitarian exemptions);

– Iranian banks are banned from opening branches and creating joint ventures in the EU; EU financial institutions are banned from opening branches or bank accounts in Iran;

– Ban on the issuance of and trade in Iranian government or public bonds with the Iranian government, central bank and Iranian banks;

– EU governments must require their nationals to exercise vigilance over business with entities incorporated in Iran, including those of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines;

– National customs authorities must require prior information about all cargo to and from Iran. Such cargo can be inspected to ensure trade restrictions are respected;

– Cargo flights operated by Iranian carriers or coming from Iran may not have access to EU airports (except mixed passenger and cargo flights). No maintenance services to Iranian cargo aircraft or servicing to Iranian vessels may be provided if there are suspicions that they carry prohibited goods;

– Visa bans are imposed on persons designated by the UN or associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and on senior members of the IRGC; as of 22 January, visa bans and asset freezes apply to 113 persons (41 designated by the UN and the rest by the EU);

– Asset freeze on 433 entities associated with Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems; and senior members and entities of IRGC and the IRISL (UN designations cover 75 entities); these entities include: companies in banking and insurance sectors, the nuclear technology industry and in the field of aviation, armament, electronics, shipping, chemical industry, metallurgy, the oil and gas industry, and branches and subsidiaries of IRGC and IRISL.

In addition to the nuclear track, the EU has imposed travel bans and asset freezes on 61 Iranians seen as responsible for human rights violations.

Continue reading January 23, 2012

EDITOR: The McArthites are counting their enemies…

Would that it was true… 10% of Israeli academics are proclaimed anti-Zionists by the mad right. While academics are indeed more intelligent than most Israelis, especially members of In Tirzu, this is a most optimistic count of anti-Zionists, unfortunately. I wish it was true, and soon it may well be. In the meantime, the fascists are collecting names and preparing for the great ‘cleansing’ of Israeli society of its leftists.

10 percent of Israeli academics labeled ‘anti-Zionist’ by campus watchdogs: Haaretz

Survey comes up with the names of more than 1,000 Israelis, 800 of whom are academics but also including authors, journalists, public intellectuals, and past and present cabinet ministers.

Three self-proclaimed watchdog organizations have labeled about 10 percent of Israeli academics as anti-Zionist, according to a recent study by a group of academics, artists and university students who aim to counter the categorizations. The organizations, which are open about their activities, are Im Tirtzu, IsraCampus and Israel Academia Monitor.

The group’s survey came up with the names of more than 1,000 Israelis, 800 of whom are academics but also including authors, journalists, public intellectuals, and past and present cabinet ministers, that appear on a list maintained by the trio of organizations.

Members of the group include political scientist Prof. Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Israeli Film Directors Guild chairman Rani Blair; and the chairman of the Israeli Documentary Filmmakers Forum, Uri Rosenwaks. They recently created the Blacklist website (blacklist.co.il), which invites visitors to check whether they themselves appear on the lists.

“There is a real concern for the future of Israeli democracy and about McCarthyism against anyone who criticizes the government’s policies in the occupied territories or social aspects,” Gordon said. “Every week new names appear on these sites, and we wanted to examine the extent of the phenomenon. The people who will be hurt most are junior faculty members who are trying for university positions and are wary of being ‘marked out,'” Gordon said.

Israel Academia Monitor said in a statement: “We are not a right-wing organization, but rather an organization that is unaffiliated politically and that keeps its distance from politics. Our role is to protect the universities from political forces, and especially from the extreme left, that exploits the institutions for its needs and acts as if they were its private playing field.”

University of Haifa economist Prof. Steven Plaut, one of the founders of IsraCampus, said in a statement: “Our main function is to quote what these teachers say and write ideologically and politically in order to bring it to the attention of the public. The issue is not an ideological argument, but rather publicizing the anti-Israel group that openly supports the enemy,” Plaut said.

Im Tirtzu said: “We are not familiar with the study, but spin and manipulation cannot obscure the gravity of the deeds of the extreme left. Anyone who signs petitions in support of the refusal to perform military service, of Azmi Bishara and of the boycott against Israel, and who silences students, are marking themselves.”

Palestinians protest against negotiations in Ramallah: Ma’an News

22/01/2012 10:48

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — Over 100 Palestinians demonstrated Saturday in the occupied West Bank urging their leaders to cease negotiations with Israel, in a second week of protests.

Protesters had gathered a week earlier outside the presidential compound in Ramallah and urged an end to negotiations between Saeb Erekat and Yitzhak Molcho in Jordan.

The PLO “retreated from its earlier position that they will not return to negotiations, until settlement expansion is halted and all the political prisoners were released,” organizers said earlier in the week.

This is the “bare minimum demands of the Palestinian people,” a statement said.

Demonstrators on Saturday held signs urging drivers to honk their horns if they were in favor of ending negotiations with Israel, and many did like the week before.

Protesters at the demonstration said the latest rally ended without incident as participants grouped together and walked toward central Ramallah.

Last Saturday, Palestinian Authority security forces detained one person who was present at the event and interrogated him before releasing him about two hours later, they said.

This week, however, police mostly stuck to controlling traffic.

The protests followed meetings between Israeli and PLO envoys in Jordan, in what Western diplomats had hoped might lead to the resumption of full peace talks.

The discussions began on Jan. 3 and followed a long break in negotiations after President Mahmoud Abbas suspended talks 15 months ago over Israel’s expansion of settlements on Palestinian land.

But activists in Ramallah said the “exploratory” talks contradicted previous demands.

“The PLO’s reneging on their promise to the Palestinian people and their return to negotiations implies that the leadership accepts the continued theft and seizure of Palestinian lands, legitimizes the ever-going attacks of the settlers, and furthermore undermines the Palestinian people in whole,” Palestinians for Dignity said.

EDITOR: Who will pay the hackers?

After months of nasty cyber attacks by the new Cyber-terror unit of the IDF, there seems to be the usual disagreement about budgets. Maybe a collection drive abroad might help?…

Cyber-terror HQ stalled by spat over budget: Haaretz

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the creation of HQ in May, but the Defense Ministry is refusing to transfer money to it, claiming the Finance Ministry has hinted that it won’t be compensated for doing so.

By Guy Grimland
Israeli websites are under attack but the center for fighting cyber terror has no budget or employees because of a dispute between the defense and finance ministries.

In recent weeks hackers have been targeting prominent Israeli websites, paralyzing the homepages of large institutions – including the Stock Exchange – and exposing tens of thousands of credit card details.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the creation of the headquarters in May. It was supposed to receive NIS 500 million from the Defense Ministry.

But the Defense Ministry is refusing to transfer the money, claiming the Finance Ministry has hinted that it won’t be compensated for doing so.

Meanwhile, the headquarters’ founder, Isaac Ben-Israel, is at odds with Netanyahu over the lack of budget and the proposed structure.

Ben-Israel reportedly does not want his institution to be just an advisory body like the National Security Council. Instead, he wants it to oversee all state institutions involved in anti-cyber terror, including the Israel Defense Forces’ unit 8200, the relevant Shin Bet unit and the government’s online services unit.

It’s not clear whether all these entities would agree to having a new boss.

The original plan, announced in May, had included an academic research center alongside measures to protect the country from cyber attacks.

The headquarters’ chief, Dr. Eviatar Matanya, has been in the job for two weeks but is reportedly already looking to leave due to the lack of budget, backing and authority.

The prime minister’s communications staff stated that the unit is still new and like any new entity, it would take time to come together.

Israel’s immigration plan for ‘ethnically pure’ bunker state: Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook, The National, Jan 18, 2012

The wheel is turning full circle. Last week the Israeli parliament updated a 59-year-old law originally intended to prevent hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from returning to the land from which they had been expelled as Israel was established.

The purpose of the draconian 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Law was to lock up any Palestinian who managed to slip past the snipers guarding the new state’s borders. Israel believed only savage punishment and deterrence could ensure it maintained the overwhelming Jewish majority it had recently created through a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Fast-forward six decades and Israel is relying on the infiltration law again, this time to prevent a supposedly new threat to its existence: the arrival each year of several thousand desperate African asylum seekers.

As it did with the Palestinians many years ago, Israel has criminalised these new refugees – in their case, for fleeing persecution, war or economic collapse. Whole families can now be locked up, without a trial, for three years while a deportation order is sought and enforced, and Israelis who offer them assistance risk jail sentences of up to 15 years.

Israel’s intention is apparently to put as many of these refugees behind bars as possible, and dissuade others from following in their footsteps.

To cope, officials have approved the building of an enormous detention camp, operated by Israel’s prison service, to contain 10,000 of these unwelcome arrivals. That will make it the largest holding facility of its kind in the world – according to Amnesty International, it will be three times bigger than the next largest, in the much more populous state of Texas.

Israeli critics of the law fear their country is failing in its moral duty to help those fleeing persecution, thereby betraying the Jewish people’s own experiences of suffering and oppression.

But the Israeli government and the large majority of legislators who backed the law – like their predecessors in the 1950s – have drawn a very different conclusion from history.

The new infiltration law is the latest in a set of policies fortifying Israel’s status as the world’s first “bunker state”- and one designed to be as ethnically pure as possible. The concept was expressed most famously by an earlier prime minister, Ehud Barak, who called Israel “a villa in the jungle”, relegating the country’s neighbours to the status of wild animals.

Mr Barak and his successors have been turning this metaphor into a physical reality, slowly sealing off their state from the rest of the region at astronomical cost, much of it subsidised by US taxpayers. Their ultimate goal is to make Israel so impervious to outside influence that no concessions for peace, such as agreeing to a Palestinian state, need ever be made with the “beasts” around them.

The most tangible expression of this mentality has been a frenzy of wall-building. The best-known are those erected around the Palestinian territories: first Gaza, then the areas of the West Bank Israel is not intending to annex – or, at least, not yet.

The northern border is already one of the most heavily militarised in the world – as Lebanese and Syrian protesters found to great cost last summer when dozens were shot dead and wounded as they approached or stormed the fences there. And Israel has a proposal in the drawer for another wall along the border with Jordan, much of which is already mined.

The only remaining border, the 260km one with Egypt, is currently being closed with another gargantuan wall. The plans were agreed before last year’s Arab revolutions but have gained fresh impetus with the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Israel is not only well advanced on the walls of the bunker; it is also working round the clock on the roof. It has three missile-defence systems in various stages of development, including the revealingly named “Iron Dome”, as well as US Patriot batteries stationed on its soil. The interception systems are supposed to neutralise any combination of short and long-range missile attacks Israel’s neighbours might launch.

But there is a flaw in the design of this shelter, one that is apparent even to its architects. Israel is sealing itself in with some of the very “animals” the villa is supposed to exclude: not only the African refugees, but also 1.5 million “Israeli Arabs”, descendants of the small number of Palestinians who avoided expulsion in 1948.

This has been the chief motive for the steady stream of anti-democratic measures by the government and parliament that is rapidly turning into a torrent. It is also the reason for the Israeli leadership’s new-found demand that the Palestinians recognise Israel’s Jewishness; its obsessions with loyalty; and the growing appeal of population exchange schemes.

In the face of the legislative assault, Israel’s Supreme Court has grown ever more complicit. Last week, it sullied its reputation by upholding a law that tears apart families by denying tens of thousands of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship the right to live with a Palestinian spouse in Israel – “ethnic cleansing” by other means, as a leading Israeli commentator noted.

Back in the early 1950s, the Israeli army shot dead thousands of unarmed Palestinians as they tried to reclaim property that had been stolen from them. These many years later, Israel appears no less determined to keep non-Jews out of its precious villa.

The bunker state is almost finished. The question is whether, from the outset, that was the true goal of Israel’s founders.

 Israel arrests Palestinian parliament speaker: AL Jazeera English

Abdel Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the defunct parliament and a member of Hamas, was arrested near Ramallah.

Last Modified: 19 Jan 2012 22:35

The speaker of the defunct Palestinian parliament, a member of Hamas who was previously detained in connection with the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, has been arrested.

Abdel Aziz Dweik was arrested on Thursday at a checkpoint near Ramallah, in the West Bank, Hamas said. The Israeli military confirmed Dweik’s arrest.

Hamas accused Israel of arresting Dweik in an attempt to derail talks between Hamas and its rival Palestinian faction, Fatah, which have reportedly been trying to broker a deal that will unite them.

The Palestinian parliament has not functioned since Hamas seized control of Gaza from Fatah in 2007. Since then, the Western-backed Fatah governs the West Bank and Hamas runs Gaza.

Israel has targeted Dweik before. In 2006, after Israeli army soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas during a cross-border raid, Israel arrested Dweik and others and kept him in jail for nearly three years.

Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, won the most seats in the Palestinian election in 2006, but Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas called for new elections, and the conflict slid into a brief war between the two sides.

EDITOR: Gideon Levy in his patriotic mode, again

Every now and then, Gideon claims to be areal patriot, and seems to really believe in this claim. As he is still a Zionist, despite what his detractors on the right are saying, he ends up using this position frequently, trying to save Zion ism from itself. He is bound to fail, of course… As one cannot out-Herod Herod, one cannot be more nationalist than an ultra-fascist, neither should one try…

Israel owes a great debt to Haaretz: Haaretz

I have no idea whether the newspaper is proud of me, but for the information of reader Netanyahu, I am so proud to write for Haaretz and so proud that Israel has Haaretz.
By Gideon Levy
This is the way they express themselves in private conversations and this is what they think. Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman calls Haaretz “Der Sturmer,” the notorious Nazi propaganda tabloid; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers Haaretz one of Israel’s two greatest enemies, along with The New York Times. Even the denial issued by Netanyahu’s bureau over the remarks by Jerusalem Post editor, Steve Linde, was weak and foggy: “Iran is the greatest enemy,” with nary a word about Haaretz.

That is to be expected: the attack on Israeli democracy will not pass over Haaretz. Netanyahu and Neeman are expressing their worldview. They want Israel without the High Court of Justice, without nonprofit associations, without Haaretz. There is no point in explaining to them and their ilk the task of the press, particularly when the other protective mechanisms of democracy are being increasingly undermined. They will not understand.

A person who excoriates one of the world’s most widely-admired newspapers, The New York Times, attests more to his own character than to that of the object of his assault. But we shall say this to both of these individuals: Your Israel, the one you are shaping now, owes a great debt to Haaretz. No other media outlet gives Israel a better name than the one you attack. No other whisper coming out of Israel engenders so much respect for Israel because Haaretz is one of its newspapers.

Sometimes, it is even misleading. Quite a few people throughout the world mistakenly think Haaretz is Israel. No, Haaretz is not Israel, unfortunately, but it is a different voice – the minority voice, which must be heard. It proved every day, both locally and to the world, that Israel is not only Avigdor Lieberman.

One day of Operation Cast Lead gave Israel a worse name than everything that has ever been written in Haaretz, including articles by this writer. One month of Netanyahu in the prime minister’s office and Neeman as justice minister will do more damage than all the critical articles combined.

A great danger now threatens some of Israel’s media outlets, but the closure of only one of them will change this country’s image unrecognizably. It is not the most popular, far from it, but in certain respects it is the most important. Israel without Haaretz will be a different country. There are no other media outlets about which this can be said with such certainty. If Channel 10 closes – perish the thought – Channel 2 will fill the void; if Maariv shuts down, Yedioth Ahronoth will do the same work. If Haaretz distorts itself or closes, Israel’s image will also be distorted.

To be immodest for a moment, the cultural and artistic life of Israel would look different without Haaretz’s Gallery section and the literary supplement; social protest in Israel would look different without TheMarker; Israeli democracy would look different without the newspaper you are reading at this moment.

Israel’s greatest enemy is now standing guard, perhaps more than any other protective mechanism. Who covers racism like Haaretz does, or legislation, the occupation, corruption, exploitation and discrimination? Imagine Israel only with MK Danny Danon? Who would expose the shameful expulsion of 2,000 Cote d’Ivoire citizens, the lack of Amharic-speaking welfare workers, the role of Arab architects in Israeli life and David Vogel’s just-discovered book, all of which were covered in Friday’s Haaretz? It’s not what you thought it was, and certainly not what the prime minister thinks – and this is what they call “Der Sturmer” and an “enemy of Israel”!

In the spring of 1964, I published my first lines in the weekly children’s publication Our Haaretz. “One day a friend comes over. I want to play with him and who pushes himself in the middle? My brother, of course.” Eighteen years later I joined Haaretz. I have no idea whether the newspaper is proud of me, but for the information of reader Netanyahu, I am so proud to write for Haaretz and so proud that Israel has Haaretz.