Jerusalem municipal planning committee approves plan to demolish 22 Palestinian homes in the Silwan neighborhood of East Jerusalem to make room for a tourist center.
The East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan Photo by: Emil Salman
The Palestinian Authority on Monday slammed Israel’s decision to raze 22 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, saying the dangerous move requires both American and international intervention.
The Jerusalem municipal planning committee approved Monday a contentious plan to raze 22 Palestinian homes to make room for a tourist center that Palestinians fear would tighten Israel’s grip on the city’s contested eastern sector.
The plan, which affects the neighborhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem, risks more U.S.-Israeli friction just two weeks ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama.
The Palestinian government issued a statement in regards to the plan, in which it emphasized that “these dangerous steps require American and international intervention.”
According to Israel Radio, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat commented on the plan as well and said the move shows Israel wants to destroy the indirect peace talks with the Palestinians.
Erekat called on the international community to “halt these dangerous steps” and said that the move “proves that Israel has decided to destroy the indirect talks with the Palestinians.”
The U.S. State Department also issued a statement regarding Netanyahu’s announcement in which they opposed any “unilateral actions that could pre-judge negotiations.”
“The United States has made clear that it disagrees with some Israeli practices in Jerusalem affecting Palestinians in areas such as housing, including evictions and demolitions, and has urged all parties to avoid actions that could undermine trust,” a statement issued by the U.S. State Department said.
“This underscores the need for a permanent status agreement that resolves all outstanding issues between the parties, including Jerusalem, that results in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the statement said.
Tensions have already been raised in Jerusalem, when conflict erupted during the meeting between committee members and the residents of Silwan. Silwan residents starkly objected to the plan and demanded the committee discuss their alternative plan, which does not include razing homes.
Several lawyers representing the residents spoke out against the committee’s decision.
“I also want to have a park in the neighborhood where I can sit on the weekends and dip my feet in the water, but if the committee has the courage to approve a plan against the will of the residents, and to raze their homes for it, then it should have the same courage to discuss their alternative plan as well,” said one of the lawyers.
Barkat first floated the plan months ago, but agreed to a last-minute request from Israel’s prime minister to consult Palestinian residents before breaking ground. Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes has in the past provoked harsh reaction from the United States.
Palestinians hope to build the capital of a future state in East Jerusalem and see any Israeli construction there as undercutting their claims to the land.
Although Israel claims it is simply enforcing the law by knocking down illegally built structures, many of the unapproved homes have gone up without authorization because Palestinians have a hard time obtaining construction permits in East Jerusalem.
Barkat says the plan gives a much-needed facelift to Jerusalem’s decaying al-Bustan neighborhood, which Israel calls Gan Hamelech, or the King’s Garden.
The plan calls for the construction of shops, restaurants, art galleries and a large community center on the site where some say the biblical King David wrote his psalms. The 22 displaced families would be allowed to build homes elsewhere in the neighborhood, though it’s not clear who would pay for them.
Israel annexed East Jerusalem immediately after capturing it from Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Israeli sovereignty there has not been recognized by the Palestinians or the international community, and the fate of the city is one of the core issues dividing the two sides. Nearly 200,000 Jews have moved to East Jerusalem since Israel captured it, living in an uneasy coexistence with 250,000 Palestinians.
Activists in Al-Bustan, who had sought to block all demolitions, said in a statement that the plan comes in the general context of (the) fast-track Judaization of East Jerusalem.
It pre-empts “the possibility of Jerusalem ever being a shared city, or indeed capital of a Palestinian state,” the statement said. “This in itself precludes peace.”
The contested site is a section of a larger neighborhood called Silwan, which is home to some 50,000 Palestinians and 70 Jewish families. Demolitions elsewhere in Silwan have made the neighborhood a hub of tension between Palestinians fearful of eviction and Jews determined to keep the city Israel’s undivided capital.
Apparently fearing stiff criticism from the U.S., Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured Barkat in March to hold up the plan to consult with Palestinians who stood to lose their homes.
“Now, after fine-tuning the plan and seeking more cooperation with the residents as far as their needs and improving the quality of their lives, the municipality is ready to submit the plans for the first stage of approval,” Barkat spokesman Stephan Miller said Monday.
The prime minister’s office said Netanyahu “hopes that since this project is only in a preliminary stage, that the dialogue can continue with those who have built homes on public land and it will be possible to find an agreed solution in accordance with the law.”
The U.S. Embassy had no comment.
Since Netanyahu initially delayed the plan, he has found himself in deep conflict with the Obama administration over Jewish construction in East Jerusalem.
Monday, 21 June 2010 A controversial plan to demolish 22 Palestinian homes for a tourist centre in Jerusalem’s eastern sector was approved by the mayor today.
Nir Barkat’s decision threatened to raise tensions and draw renewed international fire on the heels of the Israeli sea raid.
Mr Barkat first floated the plan months ago, but agreed to a last-minute request from Israel’s prime minister to consult Palestinian residents. Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes has previously brought harsh international reaction.
Palestinians hope to build the capital of a future state in east Jerusalem and see any Israeli construction there as undercutting their claims to the land. Although Israel claims it is simply enforcing the law by knocking down illegally built structures, many of the unapproved homes have gone up without authorisation because Palestinians have a hard time obtaining building permits in east Jerusalem.
Mr Barkat says the plan gives a much-needed facelift to Jerusalem’s decaying al-Bustan neighbourhood, which Israel calls Gan Hamelech, or the King’s Garden.
The plan calls for shops, restaurants, art galleries and a large community centre on the site where some say the biblical King David wrote his psalms. The 22 displaced families would be allowed to build homes elsewhere in the district, although it is not clear who would pay for them.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem immediately after capturing it from Jordan in the 1967 war.
Israeli sovereignty there has not been recognised by the Palestinians or the international community, and the fate of the city is the most charged issue dividing the two sides. Nearly 200,000 Jews have moved to east Jerusalem since Israel captured it, living in an uneasy coexistence with 250,000 Palestinians.
Activists in Al-Bustan, who had sought to block the demolitions, said that the plan “comes in the general context of (the) fast-track Judaisation” of east Jerusalem.
It pre-empts “the possibility of Jerusalem ever being a shared city, or indeed capital of a Palestinian state. This in itself precludes peace.”
The contested site is a section of a larger area called Silwan, which is home to some 50,000 Palestinians and 70 Jewish families. Demolitions elsewhere in Silwan have made it a hub of tension between Palestinians fearful of eviction and Jews determined to keep the city Israel’s undivided capital.
Apparently fearing stiff criticism from the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured Mr Barkat in March to hold up the plan to consult with Palestinians who stood to lose their homes.
“Now, after fine-tuning the plan and seeking more cooperation with the residents as far as their needs and improving the quality of their lives, the municipality is ready to submit the plans for the first stage of approval,” the mayor’s spokesman said.
UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees calls on Israel to fully lift the blockade on Gaza.
Nothing short of the full lifting of Israel’s blockade on Gaza would allow the territory to be rebuilt, the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees said on Monday, a day after Israel said it would ease its siege.
Israel, which sealed off the coastal territory to prevent its Hamas foes from arming, is under international pressure to lift the blockade after its forces killed nine people in an assault on an aid flotilla on May 31.
Under the blockade’s previous rules, any item that was not explicitly permitted was banned. Israel says it will now allow items to enter Gaza unless they are on a list of banned items, including weapons and materials that can be used to make them.
However, critics say the new rules could still make it difficult to import building materials to rehabilitate the territory, damaged by war in 2008-09.
“We need to have the blockade fully lifted,” said spokesman Christopher Gunness of UNRWA, the United Nations relief agency that looks after Palestinian refugees. He spoke to Reuters on the sidelines of a conference in Cairo.
“The Israeli strategy is to make the international community talk about a bag of cement here, a project there. We need full unfettered access through all the crossings.”
International donors at a conference in Egypt pledged $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza after the war, but the blockade has hampered the inflow of building supplies.
Gunness said he was not confident that the new Israeli system would resolve the difficulties UNRWA has faced determining what can get through the blockade.
“The list of restricted goods is a moving target. We are never told this is banned and that is banned,” he said.
“Israel’s blockade became a blockade against the UN.”
Gunness said Israel must open the Karni cargo terminal north of Gaza, which is large enough to allow industrial-scale cargoes of cement, building materials and aid. Instead, trucks are routed to a narrower crossing.
EDITOR: Something to frighten the children with…
I mean the one-state solution. There is no better mantra for the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it in Israel. Of course, it will be the end of Jewish ‘democracy’ of the Zionist variety. Why is that such a ‘bad thing’? After all, it is this idea fix which has driven Israel to its worst crimes over the six decades of its existence.
An Israeli leader who gives up on progress in the negotiations toward a two-state solution is dooming his grandchildren, and perhaps his children too, to a binational, one-state solution.
By Akiva Eldar
At times, when I’m watching my little grandchildren, my thoughts turn to Grandpa Bibi. Doesn’t Shmuel’s grandfather also wonder what kind of country our generation will bequeath to theirs? Grandchildren turn the future from a mere political, social or economic concept into concrete reality, replete with responsibility. Doesn’t Benjamin Netanyahu ask himself what he is doing to ensure that his grandson will raise his children in a Jewish and democratic state? Is it possible that this man, who has taken upon himself for the second time supreme responsibility for the fate of the Zionist dream, believes that time and his own inactivity are working for the good of future generations?
The dramatic speech Netanyahu delivered last July at Bar-Ilan University elicited hopes that he had begun to free himself of the shackles of the past and to overcome the fears of his revisionist father. He addressed the Palestinians as neighbors, not enemies, calling on them “to give our young generation a better place to live” and to act together to advance the two-state solution, each state with its own flag and government. He placed the partition of the land at the center of his political vision.
The leader of the right spoke of the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state as a Zionist interest, and not as a forced response to external pressure.
In the year that has passed since that “historic” speech, no Israeli or Palestinian child, including the infant Shmuel, has been born into a better world. Negotiations over the two-state solution have devolved into small-time haggling over neighborhoods in the West Bank and buildings in East Jerusalem.
Instead of discussing the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which is gradually fading away, the government occupies itself with shopping lists of Gazans. Most of the time and energy of the decision makers is devoted to putting out fires in international relations. Not only doesn’t the government advance a solution to the conflict, it is not even managing it correctly and preserving the status quo.
Any child who has ever ridden a bicycle knows that if you stop pedaling you fall flat on your face. An Israeli leader who gives up on progress in the negotiations toward a two-state solution is dooming his grandchildren, and perhaps his children too, to a binational, one-state solution. This is no longer the nightmare scenario of lunatic-fringe leftists who have lost their faith in the god of the status quo. Moshe Arens, Netanyahu’s first political patron, who appointed him deputy chief of mission at the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. in 1982, argues that the only realistic alternative to partition is extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and giving Israeli citizenship to the Palestinian residents.
Although all of the official documents Israel has signed declare that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank form a single entity, Arens has unilaterally erased the 1.5 million Gazans from the demographic equation. But even if his forecast proves correct, when the time comes for Shmuel to enlist in the armed forces of “Isratine” (Muammar Gadhafi’s term) most of his age group will be followers of Allah and Mohammed, his prophet, or believers in the supremacy of halakha over the law of the land, or supporters of an apartheid government of isolated pariahs.
He will live, along with the grandchildren of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, if they remain here, in a state torn between fanatical Muslims and fanatical religious Jews. Sooner, rather than later, they will be an absolute majority and no Supreme Court will be able to intervene in the education of future generations of the enemies of progress and democracy.
You don’t believe me? In Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, Jews who believe in the sovereignty of the Knesset are already in the minority.
Since the Bar-Ilan speech, Shimon Peres has been telling all guests to the Presidential Residence, albeit a little more hesitantly recently, that Netanyahu understands the dimensions of the “historical responsibility” that he bears. This is no mere inflated cliche: His actions and derelictions in coming months will affect Israel beyond 2010. When Grandpa Bibi plays with little Shmuel, he should know that his survival games are an irresponsible gamble on the fate of today’s grandchildren.
Before it started, the ‘investigation’ has concluded its work. One has to agree with at least one of its conclusion (though not in the way it was meant…): “The soldiers lacked intelligence”… There was no need to get any information from survivors, of course.Again, Israel is speaking mainly to itself, like some demented maniac, looking in the mirror and asking: “are you talking to me?
Investigation concludes that commando reaction was appropriate as the soldiers did not expect a mass offensive, lacked sufficient intelligence.
The Israel Navy’s internal probe into its deadly commando raid of a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip has found serious defects in the planning and intelligence aspects of the operation, Israel Radio reported on Sunday.
The internal Israel Navy probe concluded that the commando unit that embarked on the May 31 raid of the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara was inadequately prepared and lacked sufficient intelligence when approaching the activists.
The probe concluded that due to the fact that a mass offensive against Israel’s commando officers was not taken into account, the officers acted accordingly under the circumstances.
“The soldiers wanted to wear their ceremonial uniform, they expected to engage with the passengers in conversation, and that was a defect,” a military official told Israel Radio. “In light of the situation that developed they acted accordingly.”
The soldiers inquired during the investigation into the reason they lacked intelligence information of the fact that the passengers on board the Turkish-flagged aid ship were preparing an attack.
The investigation concluded that the raid on the ship should have only been conducted after hosing the attackers down with water hoses and smoke grenade.
“Operation Sky Winds 7,” the Navy commandos operation to takeover the ship, was carried out according to standard operating procedures established during a ‘mock exercise’ with more than 50 soldiers.
The navy admitted that they were prepared for “resistance like we encounter in Bil’in, but there wasn’t a sense that it would be a walk in the park,” an officer said, adding that there was a general consensus of a need for greater mental preparation of the force before the operation’s execution as not enough emphasis was placed on preparing for every possible contingency.
‘The major defect in the preparations and gathering of intelligence was that we did not know that we would be coping with tens of rioters,” the top military commander involved in the attack told Haaretz.
“This was not disorderly conduct that deteriorated,” he said, “This was a planned terrorist attack.”
Another commander involved in the attack said that “I still awake at three A.M. every morning and ask myself: Damn it, how did we not know more?”
Lebanese sources tell Al-Hayat that flotilla organizers had not filed for the necessary permits, adding that travel to an Israel-controlled port is illegal.
A reported Gaza-bound aid flotilla may not be allowed to depart from Lebanon, Lebanese sources told the Arab daily Al-Hayat on Sunday, saying it was illegal for a vessel leaving a Lebanese port to dock in a port under Israeli occupation.
Earlier Sunday, Haaretz reported that Israel had initiated diplomatic efforts designed to prevent the departure of at least one vessel, carrying 50 to 70 Lebanese women and food aid. Israel has been in touch with the UN, United States, France, Spain and Germany. It has also been speaking with the Vatican because the ship is expected to include several dozen Catholic nuns.
However, according to the Al-Hayat report, it is possible that the flotilla would not be allowed to leave Lebanese shores, as Lebanon forbids a vessel departing one of its ports to reach a port under Israeli occupation. This fact has led Lebanon officials to estimate that organizers would submit a travel plan to a different destination, perhaps Cyprus, only to change course during the course of their voyage.
Sources have also told Al-Hayat that organizers failed to appeal the government for the necessary permits, which include authorizing their departure as well as their travel.
Lebanese officials told the Arab daily that the bureaucratic procedures needed to approve such an endeavor included authorizing the ship’s permit by the Lebanese ministry of transportation, including the approving the intended travelers, as well as the type of cargo the flotilla is to hold.
A senior Lebanese official added that, regardless of the procedures required, Lebanese law did not permit the transport of weapons on board ships.
Lebanon’s Minister of Labor Ghazi Al Aridi told Lebanon’s Al-Nahar that no official “request regarding the flotilla had been submitted,” saying that Lebanon would not “allow anyone to preach us over our support of the Palestinians, but there are rules and they must be followed.”
Al Aridi added that a permit could be given to any port but Gaza, since it was under Israeli occupation.
Earlier Sunday, Israel informed the United Nations and – through diplomatic channels – the Lebanese government that it reserves the right to use all means necessary to stop ships seeking to breach the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip.
In a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Israel warned that the attempt by the organizers to sail from Lebanon and deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza could escalate tensions and affect peace and security in the region.
“Israel reserves its right under international law to use all necessary means to prevent these ships from violating the existing naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip,” wrote Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev.
Cabinet agreed in principle last week to relax Israel’s four-year land siege, in plan coordinated with Mideast envoy Blair.
Senior cabinet ministerss on Sunday approved steps toward easing Israel’s blockade on the Gaza Strip, days after Jerusalem had issued a non-binding declaration supporting such a move.
The Prime Minister’s Office announced late last week that the security cabinet had agreed in principle to relax Israel’s blockade on the Gaza Strip. However, no binding decision was made during the cabinet meeting.
The ministers held a long discussion on Wednesday afternoon and another onThursday morning on the topic of altering Israel’s policy ,following the three-year siege on the Hamas ruled territory. The siege was imposed after Hamas violently seized control over the Gaza Strip in 2007.
The aim of the discussions was to approve a plan drafted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the envoy of the Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators Tony Blair. The discussions spanned a total of six hours, but no decision was ever made.
During both meetings, many ministers voiced their opinions regarding the blockade, and the defense establishment presented the plans for the “liberalization” of the blockade. However, upon concluding the discussions, the ministers did not vote on any binding practical draft of the decision.
In fact, the policy by which the government is currently bound is the one decided by the security cabinet during the previous term of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, by which the blockade remains as it was.
A senior defense official said Thursday that Israel had “every intention to increase the transfer of goods into Gaza even before the cabinet meeting. We have notified the Palestinians, regardless of the cabinet meeting, that we will allow the entry of food items, house wares, writing implements, mattresses and toys. Beyond that, we have not said a thing.”
Sources at the Prime Minister’s Office admitted that there was no decision, and no vote, during the security cabinet meeting. One of the sources said that “it was a briefing by the prime minister,” and another source said it was a “declaration of intent.”
“A meeting will be held soon, and we hope that a binding decision will be taken then,” the prime minister’s office said, explaining that the reason for the delay is “the need for continued contact with allies within the international community in order to gain support for the liberalization plan.”
This despite the fact that most of the international community has already voiced support for the plan, following a campaign launched by Blair, who drafted the plan with Netanyahu.
The international community has welcomed Israel’s announcement, stating Israel’s intention to ease its land blockade of the Gaza Strip, with the White House saying the announcement was a “step in the right direction.”
Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth. He is author of Blood and Religion (2006), Israel and the Clash of Civilizations (2008) and Disappearing Palestine (2008).
The first reports of Israel’s May 31 commando raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla surfaced among the country’s 1.4 million Palestinian citizens alongside rumors that Sheikh Ra’id Salah, head of the radical northern wing of the Islamic Movement of Israel, had been shot dead on the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara. Salah is alive, but at the time his demise seemed confirmed when it emerged that large numbers of police had been drafted into northern Israel, where most of the Palestinian minority lives, in expectation of widespread violence.
At the first spontaneous demonstrations in the north, participants expressed shock that Israel had killed international peace activists in international waters — a rumored number of 20 dead later dropped to nine. But in a community used to intermittent bouts of extreme violence from Israel’s security forces, few seemed to doubt that the order might have been given to execute Salah. The sheikh, who has repeatedly been arrested and is facing a series of trials, has long been public enemy number one among Israeli Jews for his campaign to protect the Haram al-Sharif from what he regards as an attempted Israeli takeover. The Haram al-Sharif is a compound of mosques in the Old City of Jerusalem that includes al-Aqsa and is believed by Jews to be built over two ancient Jewish temples. Half-jokingly, a protester in Nazareth wondered aloud whether a military commander had overheard the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, ask: “Who will rid me of this turbulent sheikh?”
Breaking the Siege of Gaza
The flotilla, which was attacked more than 60 miles off Israel’s coast early in the morning, was not the first to bear aid for Gaza, but it was the first to include a delegation of Palestinian leaders from inside Israel. Palestinians are roughly one fifth of Israel’s population. Most of the main Israeli-Palestinian political factions and institutions were included: Salah and his counterpart in the Islamic Movement’s more moderate southern wing, Sheikh Hamad Abu Da‘bas; Muhammad Zaydan, head of the Higher Follow-Up Committee, the umbrella body dominated by local mayors; and Hanin Zu‘bi, a first-term member of the parliament, the Knesset, from the nationalist Tajammu‘ party (Balad in Hebrew). Alongside them was Lubna Masarwa, a resident of Kafr Qara‘ in northern Israel and an activist with the Free Gaza Movement, which organized the aid convoy.
Before they set off, the group of Palestinian-Israelis knew their participation would upset a broad swath of Israeli Jewish opinion. Since 2006, when Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, Israel has been progressively tightening a blockade of Gaza to the point that today only a few dozen items are allowed in and less than a quarter of the cargo trucks that once entered the enclave each day are still permitted to do so. The policy has become more severe as its goal has become less clear: Is it to stop “arms smuggling” by Hamas, as Yuval Diskin, the head of the Shinbet, Israel’s secret police, claimed on June 15; or to wage “economic warfare,” as suggested by a recent Israeli document, punishing Gaza’s inhabitants for voting for Hamas; or to act as leverage on Hamas to stop rocket fire on nearby Israeli communities, although such attacks all but ceased long ago; or to force the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held captive by Hamas since 2006? Most Israeli Jews do not seem overly concerned which justification is deployed.
Rather than investigating Israel’s deadly raid of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla, an international inquiry should look into how Israel managed to sell its destructive Gaza policies to the countries of the world.
By Zvi Bar’el
They want an international commission of inquiry to investigate the events of the raid on the Gaza flotilla? No problem – on condition that it is truly international: the kind that has UN secretaries-general over the years give testimony, as well as U.S. presidents, European leaders, Turkish presidents past and present, and all those who turned their backs when they knew what was going on in the Gaza Strip and agreed to the siege policy until the flotilla. All those who allowed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to go on undisturbed and who felt that Gaza was a humanitarian, not a political problem.
It is fascinating to read UN resolutions on the Gaza Strip. They are perfectly laid out and usually begin with words like “we call on the sides,” “we regard with gravity,” “we support the Arab initiative,” “we endorse previous UN resolutions,” which were never implemented, of course. Empty words that were wasted on the sentences in which they were used. There was no banging on the table, not a single resolution on dispatching an international force, as if Gaza were not a combat zone but an unavoidable natural disaster; something the aid organizations should handle, not the politicians; a solution with aid convoys, not sanctions.
True, Israel is the one that imposed the siege and jailed 1.5 million civilians in a prison into which it threw food and medicine, following a very orderly list and in line with the number of calories each person needs to survive. Everyone watched, heard and remained silent – the Turkish prime minister and president, who until Operation Cast Lead did not really raise their voices, two American presidents, two UN secretaries-general, and European heads of state. In other words, they spoke endlessly, initiated resolutions, tried to mediate, but in the end raised their hands in surrender. After all, it is an internal Israeli-Palestinian matter that does not really pose a threat to world peace. A million and a half jailed Palestinians? It’s Hamas’ fault, not Israel’s.
Until suddenly it turns out that the Gaza Strip, an empty area without petroleum or diamond wealth, strategically insignificant for the powers, could stir an international crisis. Relations between Israel and Turkey hit a reef, relations between the United States and Turkey are being reevaluated, the Jewish lobby is working overtime in Congress to push the administration to censure Turkey, Germany and the United States are trying to mediate between Israel and Turkey, and Turkish assistance to the international force in Afghanistan is being weighed. Meanwhile, Turkey enjoys great popularity in the Arab and Muslim world, but also threatens the Egyptian and Muslim monopoly for resolving the conflicts in the region. And Israel once more appears to be an irrational burden on U.S. policy in the region.
It also suddenly turns out that when the Gaza Strip manages to stir an international crisis, it is possible to ease the conditions of the siege. The list of items that can be imported is stretched like a rubber band. And people are beginning to talk about conditions for operating the Rafah crossing, the European Union is once more proposing to come back and supervise it, and mostly, Washington has awoken and is flexing a muscle. Not because the people of Gaza have been transformed into something the world is genuinely interested in; they have become a strategic threat. Where were all these critics, all the countries that have signed the UN’s human rights conventions, when the siege was put in place and the blockade became asphyxiating?
An international inquiry into the foolishness of Israel’s policy is unnecessary. There is no need to busy the world with something that is obvious and needs no proof. An international inquiry into the reasons and ways Turkish citizens were killed should also not be created. This is a subject for a joint Turkish-Israeli inquiry that should be set up quickly.
An international inquiry should have a different mandate: to look into how Israel managed to sell its destructive policy to the countries of the world, how they agreed to the jailing of 1.5 million people without a UN resolution. They should look into the international significance of the fact that a member of the UN decides to take such a step, and the international organization that now wants to investigate can’t prevent that step, or forcefully act to cancel it. This is not a commission of inquiry against Israel but against UN headquarters in Manhattan. This is also the reason that such a committee will not be formed. It is much simpler to reach a plea bargain with Israel.
20 June 2010
BBC News, Gaza City
“I don’t need ketchup or mayonnaise from Israel. I need my business back,” says Nasser al-Helo standing on a busy street in Gaza City.
Mr Helo used to run a business making steel doors in the Gaza Strip. Before the blockade he was able to import metal from Israel and would produce more than 300 doors a month.
“Now, it’s a big zero,” he says. “I’ve lost $300,000 in the past three years.”
Private industry has been devastated by Israel’s blockade, which was tightened in 2007 after the Islamist group Hamas seized control of the coastal territory.
Factories making anything from furniture to textiles, floor tiles to biscuits have gone under.
The Israeli blockade has starved them of the raw materials they need to produce their goods.
Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs. The United Nations estimates unemployment is at 40% in Gaza. Mr Helo used to employ 32 people at his factory. Now there are only four.
‘Not enough’
The overwhelming feeling among Gazans is that Israel’s announcement on Thursday that it is “easing the blockade” is simply not enough.
Continue reading the main story
We are living on a black-market economy
The details of how the blockade will be “liberalised” are still not clear, but reportedly the Israeli authorities will allow more civilian goods to enter, including all food items, toys, stationery, kitchen utensils, mattresses and towels. Construction materials for civilian projects will be allowed in under international supervision.
“Of course it’s not enough,” says Omar Shabban, an economist at the Gaza-based think tank PalThink.
“What about the blockade on people for starters?” he asks.
“One-and-a-half million people are trapped in a prison unable to leave.”
Israel maintains tight control of the border with Gaza, only allowing out a limited number of people to seek medical treatment. Israel says this is needed to protect itself from “terrorist” attacks.
The Rafah crossing into Egypt has also been closed since 2007, although special medical cases are also sporadically allowed to pass through it.
Desperate vendors
Mr Shabban argues that what is really needed in Gaza is not a few more food items – many of which are already available through smuggling tunnels running under the Egyptian border – but a total lifting of the blockade to allow people to work in Israel, as over 100,000 people used to do.
Gaza also used to export many goods to Israel and beyond. Strawberries and flowers are still two of Gaza’s most famous products, but most of them never get beyond the barrier into Israel.
Instead, in strawberry season in January they are sold dirt-cheap off huge wheelbarrows on street corners, the vendors desperate to sell them at any price before they rot.
Israel has argued that the blockade is necessary to put pressure on Hamas.
The group came out top in the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, but the EU, the US and Israel refused to recognise Hamas in government unless it renounced violence and its commitment to destroy Israel.
Then in June 2007, Hamas ousted its secular rival, Fatah, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority security forces from Gaza.
Rockets
Over the past decade, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into Israel, killing more than 20 Israelis.
When in season, strawberries are available at rock-bottom prices
But since Israel’s major offensive on Gaza in 2009, which devastated the territory and left more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead, the number has dropped dramatically. One person – a Thai farm worker – has been killed in southern Israel by a rocket fired from Gaza in the past 12 months.
Hamas has tried to rein in rocket fire, but it does not control all the militant groups in Gaza and sporadic, usually ineffective rocket fire continues.
Israel says it is the responsibility of the Hamas authorities to stop all rocket attacks, and that the blockade is necessary to stop weapons being brought into Gaza.
But at least until now the list of items banned from entering Gaza has gone far beyond weapons. Coriander, chocolate and children’s toys have famously been excluded.
Low expectations
In actual fact, such things are readily available in the supermarkets in Gaza.
Millions of dollars worth of goods are smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt.
Most goods are smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt
There is food on the shelves and in the markets but the blockade means it is too expensive for most people to afford. A kilo of beef smuggled from Egypt costs around $15, more than most Gazans earn in a day.
“We are living on a black-market economy,” says Mr Shabban.
Gazans have little faith in Israel’s announcement. At best, they will wait and see if anything changes in the coming weeks and months.
Indeed, like most places in the world, people here are more preoccupied with the World Cup. The cafes of Gaza City on Friday were full of people cheering on Algeria as they thrashed out a dire draw with England.
The beaches in Gaza are packed this weekend with thousand of children enjoying summer camps and frolicking in the Mediterranean Sea.
But as they play in the water, a reminder that the blockade of Gaza is still very much in place – the sound of machine-gun fire just a few kilometres off the coast.
Israeli navy ships, which continue to occupy and control Gaza’s territorial water, regularly open fire on Palestinian fishing boats that stray beyond the limits of where Israel allows them to fish.
Yet most of the children did not even bat an eyelid at the gunfire.
The blockade here has been come a way of life. Few people are optimistic that will change.
KEY ENTRY POINTS INTO GAZA
• Rafah – under Egyptian control. Since flotilla deaths, opened indefinitely for people only. Has been closed for the vast majority of the time over the last three years. Makeshift tunnels in this area used to smuggle in goods, including weapons
• Erez – under Israeli control. Crossing for pedestrians and cargo. Access restricted to Palestinians under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and to Egyptians or international aid officials
• Karni – main crossing point for commercial goods
• Sufa – official crossing point for construction materials
• Kerem Shalom – for commercial and humanitarian goods. These last three crossings have been frequently closed by Israeli army since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007
• Opening of seaport and bus routes to West Bank had been agreed in 2005 but plans since shelved
• Airport – bombed by Israel in early years of the 2000 Intifada
• ‘Buffer zone’ inside Gaza where it borders Israel. Gazan farmers forbidden to enter the zone
What does the Israeli patriot want? What state exactly does he dream of before falling asleep at night? What society does he hope for while immersed in his morning routine?
By Gideon Levy
What does the Israeli patriot want? What state exactly does he dream of before falling asleep at night? What society does he hope for while immersed in his morning routine? Incitement, slander and boycott campaigns have recently been launched here against Turkey, Sweden, the High Court of Justice, B’Tselem, the New Israel Fund, the media, Richard Goldstone, Noam Chomsky, Elvis Costello, the Pixies, Ahmed Tibi, Hanin Zuabi, Tali Fahima, Barack Obama, Anat Kamm and the rest of the world, and also a bit against yours truly. A hypocritical, fallacious and depressing worldview emerges from these campaigns.
No, he is not a villain, the Israeli patriot – he is merely brainwashed and blind.
He would like to live in a democracy – of course he wants democracy; after all, he was taught in school that it is a good thing, and he boasts to the world that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” But it’s a democracy without most of its mechanisms. He is satisfied with elections and majority rule: The majority will make the decisions, and to hell with the minority.
The Israeli patriot wants to open a newspaper and turn on the television and see what’s going on in the world – but only a world in which everything is good. Well, if not the entire world, then at least Israel, as long as it’s all good. He wants to take in lots of World Cup soccer, entertainment programs, loads of gossip, and most importantly – only good news. He wants only commentators who “smash” the Arabs and “bash” the left-wingers and other Israel haters, and who call for strikes on Gaza, Hezbollah, Iran and Istanbul again and again.
He is a man of peace, the patriot, but he also wants a war once every two to three years and he wants the media to say so, too. He doesn’t really want to know what happened during Operation Cast Lead, or what the world – which hates us – thinks of us and why. He doesn’t want to know what is going on in the territories or among the poor, screwed, underprivileged people.
But wonder of wonders, if he feels deprived, where does he run? To the newspapers and the TV, which he loves to hate. He also loves to hate those left-wingers from the High Court of Justice, but the moment he’s in any kind of trouble, where does he turn? To the court, of course.
The Israeli patriot wants the world to love us unconditionally and without limits. Yet at the same time, he wants to ignore the whole world and spit contemptuously on its institutions, conventions and laws. He wants a package deal with Turkey, all-inclusive, but not including listening to what the Turks have to say. He wants to spread white phosphorus in Gaza and have the world recite, like himself, that it’s white rain. He wants the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran, but to disregard its own resolutions related to Israel. He wants a half-Iranian regime here, but portrayed as liberal in all the tourist guidebooks.
The world according to the Israeli patriot consists, in fact, only of the United States – but even then only to a certain extent. Obama’s America is also starting to get suspicious. The patriot wants America to foot the bill and shut up. He wants the Jewish world to contribute money, to embrace us, to come here in masses with the Taglit-Birthright program. But if J Street, JCall, Goldstone or Chomsky arise from among the Jews, he will hasten to brand them anti-Semites. They’re either with us or against us – even the Jews.
He wants a Knesset that represents the people, meaning his kind of people – without Ahmed Tibi and Hanin Zuabi, preferably without any Arabs at all, and if we must then only Ayoob Kara. Let them travel overseas to stretch out on tzadiks’ graves, but only in Jewish communities, not in Libya. Let them fight to free abducted soldier Gilad Shalit, but not the myriad prisoners of their own people.
Shalit? The Israeli patriot wants his release, as all Israelis do, but not, under any circumstances, in exchange for freeing terrorists. He also wants NGOs around and donations coming in from abroad, but only to synagogues and hospitals. And above all, he wants to protect Israeli soldiers and their commanders, unconditionally. They must remain immune from any criticism. They killed two women waving a white flag in Gaza? They shot a Jerusalem driver at close range? They killed – perhaps unnecessarily – Turks on a flotilla? Anyone who mentions such things is a traitor.
This is the patriot’s impossible country. It is doubtful whether even he actually enjoys living in it. So when will he criticize his beloved country? In the never-ending traffic jam, in the endless queue, and of course, when the IDF isn’t killing enough. Any other criticism? No thank you, I’m a patriot.
German development minister said Israel has made a ‘large foreign policy mistake’ by barring him from visiting the Gaza Strip.
Israel reacted with surprise Sunday to criticism by German Development Minister Dirk Niebel, who said Israel had made a “large foreign policy mistake” by not allowing him to visit the Gaza Strip.
“There is a clear policy,” an Israeli Foreign Ministry official said. “We have explained that we do not allow the entry of foreign politicians to the Gaza Strip.”
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the German Press Agency dpa that Israel feared the Islamist Hamas movement, which administers the coastal salient, would exploit visits by foreign politicians for propaganda purposes. This would also weaken the moderate, West Bank-based government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, he said.
He added that Israel had no problem with visits to the enclave by foreign experts and officials who wish to observe development projects, or by representatives from multi-lateral organizations, such as the United Nations.
Niebel had planned Saturday to visit a sewage plant financed by German development aid. He said Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip was “not a sign of strength, but evidence of unspoken fear.”
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle added his criticism of Israel’s stance on Sunday.
“I regret the decision by the Israeli government to deny minister Niebel entry to the Gaza Strip,” Westerwelle said in a statement, in which he also called on Israel to completely drop its blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Western countries have placed a diplomatic and political embargo on Hamas, after the organization, which won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, refused to change its charter to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and honor previous Israeli-Palestinian
agreements.
Israel imposed its blockade on the Gaza Strip in June 2006, after militants staged a cross-border raid and snatched an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who is still being held in the salient as negotiations for his release have so far come to naught.
The Israeli siege was tightened in June 2007, when Hamas militants seized control of the Strip’s security installations, after routing officials loyal to Abbas and to the Palestinian Authority.
Israeli President Shimon Peres said Sunday that Israel would end the siege if Hamas ended attacks against Israel and released Shalit.
The letter below, from human rights defender, Ameer Makhoul, was released and distributed today by Makhoul’s family and friends. It was written on May 30th, after Makhoul had spent 3 weeks in prison without access to even pen and paper, not to speak of lawyers, family visits, due process, humane and legal conditions. It made it’s way to his home by snailmail and then the original Arabic was translated into English.
Like many other citizens of Israel—both Jewish and Palestinian—who have held repeated protests against Makhoul’s imprisonment as well as that of Omar Said, I believe that that “Makhoul is being detained and severely harassed for exercising his right, under Israel’s Basic Laws, to free speech and political expression,” as pseudonymous publicist “Moshe Yaroni” put it (see previous JPN posting on the topic at: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-israeli-democracy-losing-ground.html). Amnesty International has called on Israeli authorities to stop Makhoul’s mistreatment (see: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel-must-stop-harassment-human-rights-defender-2010-05-12).
As a long time activist, here in Israel, I am both dismayed and determined these days; Dismayed at how the state I share in proceeds, with great speed, to discard remaining vestiges of democratic governance. Determined to continue resisting this process with all the means at the disposal of activists and civil society.
For comprehensive information on the interrogation and almost definite torture of Makhoul and Said as well as contact information for taking action, see: http://freeameermakhoul.blogspot.com/. I hope that each of you will spread the information further and take action in other ways.
Rela Mazali
——————————————————————————
May 30, 2010
Letter from Gilboa Prison, Ameer Makhoul
After being allowed to get a pen and a piece of paper, which has been banned for the last three weeks, and after being allowed to get out of my total isolation, it’s a moment to write a short letter from my jail (Gilboa).
It’s a great opportunity for me to express my sincere thanks, greetings & appreciation to all the colleagues, friends and solidarity groups, organizations & persons, internationals, Arabs in the region, Israelis & Palestinians in the homeland & in the Diaspora. A very special salute to all those who visited my family and supported them after the trauma they passed in May 6 & since that late night.
It’s a moment to express my great appreciation to all the international & local human rights organizations which raised their voices loudly.
Also to Ittijah partner organizations all around the world which supported my/our struggle for justice and for a fair trial in order to get to prove my innocence.
Physically I am still suffering very much but morally it’s a great feeling to know what solidarity means.
My story is that the Israeli intelligence, “the shabak”, assumed something without knowing & without any evidence. I was requested and forced to explain to them in a very detailed way how exactly I did what I didn’t do, ever. In case of any logical problem for them to complete the puzzle, they have the legal tools to fill it in by so-called secret evidence, which my lawyers and I have no legal right to know about.
According to the media in Israel, I’m already guilty, a terrorist & a supporter terror. The rule of the game here is that I’m guilty whether or not I prove that I’m not. This collective assumption is prior to court & trial procedures.
The abuse of evidence & fair legal procedures are crucial. The Shabak can tell lies to the court by so called “secret evidence”, “banning meetings with lawyers”, “banning the publication of information,” “imposing total isolation” & other very sophisticated ways of torture, which leave no direct evidence although it is very harsh. (See Adalah: www.adalah.org). I believe that my case is an opportunity to examine these tools as tools for the criminalization of human rights defenders.
I would like to highlight again your support & solidarity. I look to it as a very essential & crucial message of support the victim and to stop the oppressor. Thank you. Let us continue with the way for justice, human dignity, human rights and ensuring an opportunity for a fair trial.
by Ram Cohen
Ynet Hebrew, June 18 2010
http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3907144,00.html
Translation Adam Keller
On Monday, June 21, I am to appear before the Knesset Education Committee and the Minister of Education, Mr. Gideon Saar, following my unequivocal words to my students, condemning the 43 year-old occupation and rule over the life of the Palestinian people.
A school principal should have a clear and unequivocal moral position about any subject and issue on the agenda of Israeli society. A principal is not an educational clerk. A principal must have, for example, something to say about the deportation of the children of migrant workers, trafficking in women, the separation fence, the withdrawal from Gaza, minimum wage law, settlers attacking Palestinian villagers to exact a `price tag`, the removal of Arabs from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, the siege on Gaza, corruption in government, or the relations of religion and state.
It is the duty of a school principal to take a stand and to defend it if necessary. A principal can not rest content with nodding and mumbling when students ask questions about the conflicts in Israeli society. The one who gives evasive answers is a hollow person, not worthy of being called an educator. Being an educator means to uphold a set of universal and national values which deserve to be part of the state`s symbols.
Being at the storm center of controversy, I was recently obliged to introduce for discussion at our school a spectrum of opinion for and against our presence in the Occupied Territories, and I must admit that this was very difficult for me. When I believe that our country does not respect International Law and its own laws, nor does it have proper regard for human rights – I frankly find it hard to admit into the school representatives of views which support the status quo. Since the expulsion from Paradise it is our duty to distinguish right from wrong. It is my duty to point out the wrong, and to strongly condemn it.
Those who demand that I prepare students for recruitment should know that my duty is also to tell them that they would enter a territory which was occupied 43 years ago, in which human rights are being shamefully violated on a daily basis by means of our military superiority. In future, these children will have to account for themselves, and they will ask if their school has revealed to them the terrible secret called occupation. Yes, occupation. An occupation, not a liberation, not a return to an ancestral land. Not even a return to dry water holes which have been re-filled with tears. *
In the school which I run, there is no entry to proponents of the racist Kahane ideology. There is no place for people who advocate the use of drugs for relieving stress, nor to rabbis who argue that discrimination of Sephardi girls is justified due to the internal codes of their religious community, to those who promote a multiculturalism which includes female genital mutilation – and to those who justify the discrimination against Arab residents of this country or the `encouraging` of them to emigrate.
Wherever there is a conflict, any decision will be a political decision. When I decided seven years that this school would teach Arabic rather than French, that was a political decision. The same when I decided that school hikes will not include the `City of David` settlers.**
On the other hand, also school principals who let their students go to a protest against the withdrawal from Gaza and who present it as the deportation of Jews from their land are performing a political act. To talk to students about a holy duty of settling Jews from the sea to the Jordan River, on the basis of a Divine promise, is a political act. Expressing opposition or support to the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilead Shalit – what is that if not taking a political stand?
So what are the limits of freedom of expression at school? My answer is: everything is permitted provided that it does not contradict such basic values as democracy, universalism and humanism, as well as observing the laws of the State of Israel which should conform to the norms of the Family of Nations.
I can not end this statement without noting that this Knesset debate would probably not have taken place had Professor Yuli Tamir still been Minister of Education and Haim Oron Still headed the Education Committee***. The obvious conclusion is that free speech in the schools is not determined solely by the innocuous expedient of `examining the boundaries`. Rather, it varies according to the political perceptions of those who at the moment occupy the top positions in the educational system, the Knesset and the government.
Ram Cohen is an educator and principal of the Aleph High School in Tel Aviv.
* This is a reference to the song `Jerusalem of Gold`, embodying the nationalist euphoria of 1967, which includes the words `We have come back to the waterholes`.
** The settlers group known as `Elad` have established themselves at Silwan Village, directly south of the Old City of Jerusalem, where they claim King David had his palace 3000 years ago, with the proclaimed aim of `Judaising` it. They have expelled Palestinian residents from several homes and took them over, and the `archeological` diggings conducted by settlers undermine the foundations of many other houses. The `National Park` maintained by the settlers is recommended by the Ministry of Education as a venue for school hikes.
*** Yuli Tamir and Haim Oron, of respectively the Labor Party and the Left-Zionist Meretz Party, held the positions mentioned until the accession of Binyamin Netanyahu to power.
Mad Israelis section
This section is devoted to the many unhinged in Israel whose voice should be heard…. to separate its contributors from others, less nutty correspondents, their names have been coloured red.
EDITOR: The world is upside down
Against all that we have been told, it is the Palestinians who have occupied the territories and are building settlements, not the Israelis…You live and learn. How come we got it wrong for so long? That we did not know that the victims of apartheid are the Israeli Jews? Well, at least we know now.
While Jews can’t build in West Bank, Palestinians constructing new city Yoaz Hendel, 06.13.10
A total of 4,000 housing units at the heart of Samaria, bulldozers working day and night, construction companies and contractors gaining profits, Palestinian laborers and Jewish architects, and warm support from Obama, Qatar’s government, and Tel Aviv too – this is no dream, ladies and gentleman; this is the city of Rawabi, a Palestinian vision that is turning into reality.
Here, there are no construction freezes, no crises vis-à-vis the White House, and no enraged op-eds by people who usually enjoy making dire predictions in respect to the construction of homes in occupied areas.
Among the parties involved in this enterprise we find businesspeople, Palestinian leaders Abbas and Fayyad, officials in Washington, and of course us Israelis, who for years now had been longing for some settlement activity without provoking the world’s wrath. And so, even the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an organization whose officially declared goal is to “salvage Eretz Israel land for the benefit of the Jews” ends up planting tree in the territories, but not for the benefit of Jews, but rather in support of the Palestinian vision.
I am not envious of the new Palestinian town, or the $700 million being invested there, or of the replacement of empty hills with modern homes. I’m not even jealous of their vision vis-à-vis our vacuum. People, whether Palestinian or Jewish, need homes, communities, and cities, regardless of which ethnic group or religion they belong to.
Used to being guilty
Yet I am bothered when I see the attitude of the very same people who support Rawabi and its residents to their future neighbors, those natives who the world refers to as settlers. While monitoring the construction of balconies in the settlements has turned into a noble sport among Europeans and on the White House lawns, the members of other religions are allowed and encouraged to build in the area.
We got used to the world referring to the war against Palestinian terrorism as apartheid, we got so used to being guilty, to the point of failing to notice that the construction apartheid is happening to be directed against us. The Arabs are allowed to buy homes anywhere, while the Jews are not. The Arabs are allowed to build, expand, and engage in family-reunification. The Jews are forbidden.
What we have here is not an American attempt to decipher the depth of Israel’s willingness to compromise, as nobody over there no longer believes in a solution. All we have here are the narrow interests of a different Administration, issues of image vis-à-vis the Arab world, and the desire of a president who is indifferent to Israel to reject the Jewish settlement enterprise (at this time, in Judea, Samaria, and in Jerusalem, and if necessary, tomorrow it will expand to the Galilee and Negev.)
Indeed, in this game, there is no room for the JNF and the other remnants of Zionism
EDITOR: Another honorary Israeli…
While Julie Burchill is not Israeli, she admits she is Gaga on Israel. In a piece which should get the Melanie Phillips Hold Me Down award, she proves to be worthy of the title of Honorary Israeli.
By JULIE BURCHILL
06/18/2010
In Britain, tabloids get excited about roistering royals, fickle footballers and sex maniac MPs. But broadsheet papers only really get excited about Israel.
Over here in Britain, the tabloid newspapers get excited about roistering royals, fickle footballers, priapic pop stars and sex maniac MPs, among other things. They get excited about celebrity love-rats, three-in-a-bed romps and cocaine hells. They’re pretty excitable all round, bless ’em! But some of the broadsheet newspapers only really get excited – really excited, parasexual excited – about one thing: Israel behaving badly!
Of course, one hack’s bad is another hack’s baaad, and of course my first reaction was, “Ooo, which part of ‘don’t mess with Israel’ don’t these bed-wetters understand?”
On the phone later with my equally philo-Semitic gentile friend, she predicted that “if there’s any English on board, one of them will have a hyphen. You wait and see!”
I must point out here that unlike the situ in your gorgeous country, having a hyphenated name here doesn’t mean you’re the proud son of someone, i.e. Ben-Whoever. Rather, it means that you’re an upper-class, peasant-exploiting, in-bred half-wit.
In some extreme cases of overcompensation for what is clearly lacking in other departments, a mere double-barrelled name is considered too, too common, and families will add yet another hyphen – hence the Cave-Browne-Cave (sounds like code for a a pervy sex act) and Vane-Tempest-Stewart (one of the daughters, Annabel, left her husband for a Jew – an exception to the half-witted rule). And imagine how tragic your sense of your own worth must be to actually bother with four surnames (Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax) or even five (Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Greville – you’d have nodded off by the time the introductions were done). For some reason (and while not implicating any of the above named), the spawn of the ruling class is often drawn to anti-Israel activity.
IF YOU read Agatha Christie’s stories from before she realized she shouldn’t call people names any more (pre-1950s, or maybe the year when her publishers decided that the next printing of Ten Little Niggers should instead be called And Then There Were None would be the watermark), you’ll find loads of dodgy stuff. There’s “men of Hebraic extraction, sallow men with hooked noses, wearing flamboyant jewelry.”
There’s “the long-nosed Mr. Lazarus,” of whom somebody says, “He’s a Jew, of course, but a frightfully decent one.” And Christie was a smart toff!
Jews are very clever and the English ruling class are very stupid, so naturally English Jews have taken from the poshos a bit of the wealth and property that once was theirs, snatched from the peasantry and bequeathed by robber barons long ago. Nowadays their thick, unemployable children can find an outlet for their inborn anti-Semitism in pro-Palestinian protest. And sure enough I turned on the TV the day after the flotilla was floored, and there was a man called Lort-Phillips, bewailing the plight of his sister, one Alexandra Lort-Phillips, late of the ship of fools, who was now hopefully getting what she deserved in Eretz Yisrael.
A few days later a piece turned up on the society page of the Daily Mail explaining that Lort-Phillips is the great-niece of Dame Frances Campbell-Preston, a woman of the bedchamber (not as fun as it sounds) and friend of the late queen mother of England, who inexplicably claimed, “I am very proud of her. She is standing up for her principles.”
Wow, from royalty-flunky to Hamas-groupie in two generations – that’s the spirit that made this country great! At least, though, the old broad has the excuse of being 91 years old to spout such twaddle. What’s everyone else’s excuse?
It was poor Mark Regev, your charming spokesman, who took most of the flak. On BBC’s Newsnight, the female presenter allowed the love boat cheerleader enough time and space to practically make the Gettsysburg Address on behalf of these savage clowns (they came off like a pair of those weird women who write offering marriage to serial killers, to be frank) before subjecting Regev to such a relentless interrogation that he had to plead to be allowed to make his point.
Over on Channel 4, Jon Snow (a respected journalist but rather strange man, who several years ago refused to wear a red paper poppy – the British symbol of respect for fallen soldiers – in the week approaching Remembrance Day on the grounds that doing so was “poppy fascism”) took up the war of words against Regev, becoming as overheated as a teenage fan of Justin Bieber on coming face-to-face with a supporter of Miley Cyrus, claiming that – ahem – the Turkish president might be about to order warships to accompany Turkish aid vessels headed for Israel.
“What are you gonna do, what are you going to do, eh? What are you going to do if Turkish warships show up?” Snow railed, basically doing a Chris Morris “it’s war!” routine which had Regev incredulous. Cut to the end of the show, when Snow had to make a grovelling apology. The Turks had obviously been on the blower; the president never ordered any warships. And Snow had used a heated exchange to provoke and promote some very dangerous propaganda.
Not once did I hear a British interviewer ask any of the so-called secular radicals participating in the flotilla why they are allied with Islamic supremacists who subjugate women, persecute gays, oppress non-Islamic minorities and seek to impose Islam globally. But Sarah Montague on Radio 4 was a breath of fresh air in her interview with a Gaza-groupie:
Sarah Montague: Are you saying that Israeli soldiers who boarded that ship opened fire and there was no provocation for it?
Sarah Colborne: That’s what I am saying, yes.
SM: You saw that. You saw them fire when there was no attack on them?
SC: I saw them, well, I saw them, what I saw was them coming down from a helicopter onto the roof, I saw them trying to board the boat via dinghies.
SM: Were they attacked by those on board?
SC: They – the people on board, as you can see, were trying to stop…
SM: Hitting them with metal bars…
A JEWISH lawyer I know, as level-headed and laid-back a man as you could find, told me that he has never seen the British Jewish community as frightened as it is now. With the honorable exception of people such as Miss Montague and the brilliant Brendan O’Neill on spiked.com (who doesn’t even support the State of Israel, but writes with sparkling contempt of the reason he despises the Gaza-groupies), the British media must take some responsibility for creating this climate of fear. When British Jewish children are beaten up on school buses, as has happened increasingly over the past few years, I hope they feel proud of themselves and their mission to inform and enlighten.
The writer has been a journalist since the age of 17 and an admirer of Israel since the age of 12. The television adaptation of her teenage novel Sugar Rush won an International Emmy in 2006.
EDITOR: And another honorary Israeli…
Melnie Phillips is not a stranger to our readers, one hopes… She has been the Shining Light of the Loony Right for a long time, and a supporter of Israel as long as one wishes to go back, whatever Israel might do. Her antipodean logic is on record.
The reaction to Israel exercising its legal right is but the latest example of the West’s willingness to wallow in lies and hypocrisy
By Melanie Phillips, June 10, 2010
The flotilla episode provided the trigger for a frenzied demonstration of the world’s collective loss of mind over Israel.
Israel did what it was entitled to do and what any other country at war would do: intercept boats that might be carrying weapons for an aggressor regime. Since six out of the seven intercepted boats then proceeded peacefully to Ashdod where their cargo was checked, this was demonstrably not an Israeli “attack”.
Conversely, as everyone could see from the video evidence, on the main boat the attack took place against the Israelis – who then killed nine of their jihadi assailants solely to protect themselves from being lynched, kidnapped and murdered.
Yet, for this, Israel has been hysterically denounced across the world for an act of aggression and even piracy – an onslaught, in effect, upon Israel’s right to defend itself, without which no country can exist.
How is it possible that so many – Jews included – believe all these lies?
The claim that Gaza is starving is the opposite of the truth: its markets are stacked with produce, and every week Israel allows in thousands of tons of aid across the border. As its organiser admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian aid at all but was designed to break the sea blockade – and thus open up a weapons channel for Hamas. This manipulative and mendacious exercise was but the latest attempt to weaken Israel ready for the slaughter through an ever tightening noose of lies, demonisation and delegitimisation.
We have endured the fabricated claims of Israeli massacres in Jenin, the 2006 Lebanon war and Cast Lead; the charge that Israel is an “apartheid” state, that it has committed genocide, ethnic cleansing and is starving the people of Gaza; that it is the aggressor in the Middle East.
How is it possible that so many believe all these lies? How can so many Jews believe them? As I have described in my new book, The World Turned Upside Down (please forgive the commercial) the witch-hunt against Israel is the pivotal example of the West’s repudiation of reason itself, leading to a widespread inversion of truth and lies, justice and injustice, right and wrong.
The “progressive” left-wing intelligentsia now subscribes to a world-view that, over a wide range of issues, subordinates truth to ideology. This manifests itself in utopian creeds that hold that the world would attain a state of perfection if only it wasn’t for capitalism/America/ industrialisation/men/the nation state/those damned Jews.
Since these creeds are axiomatically the embodiment of virtue, all who dissent must be treated as moral outcasts and their views stifled. From this Manichean mindset, which decrees that all who are not the left are a) the right, and b) intrinsically evil, it follows that anyone who challenges the lies generated by ideological dogma is by definition right-wing and evil. As a result of this knee-jerk name-calling, people dismiss such inconvenient truths even when they stare them in the face.
This terrifying mindset is the left’s default position. That is why this madness towards Israel is not confined to gentiles. Indeed, even Jews who consider themselves to have the interests of Israel at heart sometimes tragically end up believing the lies and supporting positions that would destroy it.
Which partly explains why some communal leaders busily suck up to the enemies of Israel in the faith or political worlds, even telling them on occasion that “in private I agree with you”.
So we find ourselves in this nightmare situation. The Great Flotilla Derangement has created the impression that, as Iran moves towards completing its genocide bomb, the rest of the world senses an endgame and is moving in on Israel for the kill.
Turkish PM says ‘Turkey’s problem is with Israel’s government, not its people,’ says the country will continue to fight Israel’s ‘piracy,’ seek solutions to fight Gaza flotilla raid within international law.
Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov slammed Turkish Prime Minister Recap Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday, saying that while Turkey isn’t Israel’s enemy, Erdogan is.
“The Turkish people aren’t the enemy, but Erdogan is Israel’s enemy,” said Misezhnikov in response to Erdogan’s earlier comments that Turkey’s problem is with the Israeli government, and not the Israeli people.
“This isn’t a healthy situation, and unless he leaves office there is no room for optimism,” Misezhnikov said during a cultural event in Bat Yam. He added that there are indications that Erdogan isn’t speaking as a representative of the Turkish people and that the country is divided in its support for him.
The tourism minister also called on Israelis to heed the government’s warnings and refrain from traveling to Turkey. The tourism ministry is due to meet on Sunday to discuss ways to draw travelers toward staying in Israel for their summer vacation.
Earlier on Saturday, Erdogan said that his country did not have a problem with Israel’s people but rather with its government’s policies, the Turkish news agency Andolu reported.
The Turkish PM stressed that his country would continue to investigate Israel’s attack on the Turkish-flagged aid flotilla the Mavi Marmara in which nine activists were killed.
“We have not remained silent against this piracy and injustice, and we will not do so, and we will seek solutions within the framework of international law,” Erdogan told reporters in Ankara.
Meanwhile United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Israel to agree to an international investigation of its deadly commando raid on the Turkish ship trying to bring aid to Gaza and do “much more” to meet the needs of the Palestinians living there.
Ban said Friday that Israel’s investigation of the May 31 flotilla raid is important but won’t have “international credibility,” which is why he is continuing to urge the Israeli government to agree to an international panel with Israeli and Turkish participation.
Last week Israel, under mounting international pressure, formed an internal five-person panel – including two foreign observers – to investigate events surrounding its May 31 interception of a six ship convoy heading to the Gaza Strip.
‘Ajami’ reveals the brutality of life in Tel Aviv’s ethnically mixed Jaffa neighbourhood through the eyes of those who live there. As the film is released in Britain, Donald Macintyre meets its stars
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Dusk is falling rapidly as Esther Saba – Arab, Israeli citizen and Christian – sits in her yard dispensing lemonade and mint tea to her visitors and talking about her problems.
She mentions the eviction order hanging over her home, her husband’s heroin addiction, the wealthy new Jewish residents moving into her home town’s rapidly gentrifying neighbourhoods and the worry of bringing up three children safely in a district where there was yet another fatal drive-by shooting only a fortnight ago.
At an intersection a couple of blocks away, armed police use their two Jeeps as a temporary checkpoint to examine the IDs of passing local Arab youths. The checkpoint would seem entirely normal in the West Bank – but not here on Israel’s picturesque Mediterranean coast, less than five minutes’ drive from the heart of Tel Aviv.
For this is the Ajami district of Jaffa, the eponymous setting for the relentlessly gripping Jewish-Arab feature film of crime, poverty and violent feuding in an ethnically-mixed community. It took less than a month to shoot on a shoestring budget with local amateur actors, but has won a string of awards and was nominated for an Oscar. It went on release in Britain for the first time yesterday.
One of the film’s stars Shahir Kabaha is now back working in his father’s bakery, after a trip to Hollywood for the Oscar ceremony. He acknowledges that the film initially upset some of the city’s residents for unflinchingly “washing their laundry in public”. But Mrs Saba, in her yard, says emphatically: “This movie is my reality; the reality of each one of us.”
The film grew out of Jaffa’s streets as well as being filmed on them. Scandar Copti, the co-director with his Jewish colleague Yaron Shani, is from here. He is a Christian, Palestinian-Israeli son of a local school principal who trained as a civil engineer before becoming a film-maker.
The story captures with vivid authenticity what the producers describe as the “the tragic fragility of human existence in the enclosed community of Ajami, where enemies must live as neighbours”.
It is told first through the eyes of Nasri, a sensitive 13-year-old, whose family is at risk after his uncle killed a member of a Bedouin clan running a protection racket. A neighbour fixing his car is killed in a drive-by shooting when he is mistaken for the teenager’s older brother, Omar. There is a weave of other characters: Malek, the West Bank Palestinian with a desperately ill mother who sneaks into Israel to work; Dando, the hard-bitten Jewish Israeli cop, haunted by the disappearance of his own brother; Abu Elias, a well-off Christian restaurant owner whose daughter is in love with Omar but cannot marry him because he is a Muslim; Brinj – played by Copti himself – whose dreams of a future with his Jewish girlfriend are upset by a street brawl in which his brother is accused of involvement in the stabbing of a Jewish neighbour. But at the core of the film is Omar’s desperate struggle to raise a huge sum – agreed at a reconciliation meeting, a sulha – to end the feud.
If Ajami sounds over-plotted – and this is only the half of it – it doesn’t seem like it. It has been compared to City of God. While the Brazilian film is much more violent, the two share a willingness to confront the audience with an uncomfortable reality; one that has no neat, happy ending. While Ajami exposes the tensions within as well as between ethnic, religious and socio-economic groups, it never treats its main characters – Arab or Jewish – as cardboard cut-outs but as suffering, painfully understandable, individual human beings. The constant use of improvisation, albeit within a tightly scripted storyline, often gives it the spontaneous feel of a documentary. All but three of the actors in the riveting sulha sequence were told that it was for real, making the tension and anger all the more credible. Every Saturday for six months, Copti went to genuine sulhas to understand how they worked. “Then I brought a lot of people to Jaffa for what they thought was a real sulha and told them that there would be a crew filming it for a documentary. We filmed about an hour and twenty minutes, including the eating of the lamb [which ritually celebrates the reconciliation] and then cut it to about four or five.”
Yaron Shani had originally conceived an urban crime drama shot in this way when he was a student at Tel Aviv’s famous film school. But the idea only came alive years later when he met Copti, who had entered a short film in a contest Shani was helping to organize. Shani asked Copti if was interested on working on “something bigger” and the seven-year, intensely co-operative, mutually dependent process of bringing Ajami to the screen was born. Shani had thought a Jewish-Arab setting might be “very interesting” but until he met Copti he was, by his own admission, among the many Israeli Jews who know little about the country’s 1.5m Arab citizens, despite the fact that most speak Hebrew as well as Arabic (the reverse is only true for a minority of Israeli Jews) and vote in the same elections. A characteristically Israeli row erupted over the film hours before the Oscars, when Copti said he did not see himself as representing Israel “because I cannot represent a country that does not represent me.” Right wing politicians queued up to denounce what they saw as Copti’s ingratitude for state funding which had helped to finance the film. Yet Copti’s remark – and the film – highlights some of the underlying problems of the Arab minority in Jaffa and, by extension, that in Israel.
You don’t have to spend long in the real Ajami to have a glimpse of what a few of the grievances are: employment discrimination, municipal neglect; a hostile police force; poor schooling. Mrs Saba is convinced that the recent murder – a drive-by from a motorcycle just like in the film in a suspected gang hit – will remain unsolved, like dozens of others in the last decade. “I can take you to Kedem [a street in Ajami] and there’s a police patrol going by every five minutes,” she says. “Yet it took them half an hour to get to where the shooting happened.” Perhaps the murders are unsolved because witnesses won’t talk to the police? “That’s true,” says Mrs Saba’s friend Theodora Deeb. “If the people who did this found out you had talked, you would be the next one in the grave.” Mrs Saba agrees, but insists – an almost universal complaint by Palestinians in Jaffa – that there is a completely different standard of law enforcement between cases in which Arabs and Jews are the victims. “If the government really wanted to make Jaffa a better place they could. They know exactly who the killers are, but they think: ‘Let them [the Arabs] kill each other.'”
As with the police, so with education and employment, say the two women. The 49 per cent drop-out rate at Arab Jaffa state schools is much worse than in neighbouring, overwhelmingly Jewish Tel Aviv and Mrs Saba believes the municipality just doesn’t care. “I can take you to a park near here where you will see all the nine-year-olds hanging out instead of going to school. But nobody calls the parents.” Mrs Saba, a manicurist and the household’s only breadwinner, says there are few role models and incentives to suggest that education is worthwhile. “If a youngster goes for a job from high school what is the first question they ask? What he did in the Army? What is his ethnicity? They have left the Arabs the jobs like drug dealing, killing, shooting and stealing.” It’s a relief, against this bleak background, to meet Shahir Kabaha, who plays Omar in the film. Over a narghila in his local café, Mr Kabaha, 25, defends Copti’s remark. “If Tarantino made a film about the war in Iraq, does that mean his movie represents America or Iraq? No, it’s a Tarantino movie.” He says that a loss of traditional control by the sheikhs – or community leaders – in Jaffa has much to do with crime and schools that are “out of control”. But he agrees with Mrs Saba about the police. “About 15 years ago three Arab guys killed a Jewish guy in Jaffa and one of them ran away to Gaza. They got him even in Gaza. But if an Arab kills an Arab they don’t do anything.” Mr Kabaha, who wants to act full-time, is too intelligent to give up his day job for now. He works in Abu Shadi, the bakery run by his father, which is famous for its stuffed pastries, or bourekas. He admits to being “frustrated” by finding he cannot get Jewish roles – the large majority – in television drama. He could do it with consummate ease, as he was partly educated at a Jewish school, speaks faultless Hebrew and is physically indistinguishable from any other Israeli 25-year-old in his trainers, jeans and t-shirt. Mr Kabaha is proud of having “many” Jewish friends. Almost half the customers at Abu Shadi are Jewish. But he distinguishes between the many Jewish residents of Jaffa, who relish living in a mixed community, from two other groups. The most recent arrivals are ideologically-minded former settlers evacuated from Gaza in 2005 who have come to Ajami with the deliberate goal of helping to “Judaise” a mainly Arab neighbourhood. The others are wealthy Jewish incomers eager for a substantial home by the sea, sometimes in a gated complex, close to the historic Old City of Jaffa.
Every Palestinian in Jaffa believes that eviction orders have been served on around 500 houses, including Mrs Saba’s, to make way for such developments. In the 1948 war, Jaffa was bombarded relentlessly for three days by Jewish paramilitary forces. The fighting and the flight of refugees from Jaffa reduced the Palestinian population from more than 70,000 to around 4,000 (a number which has now more than quadrupled). Most of those that remained had to rent houses that had been confiscated by Israel after the war. From the early seventies, in exchange for paying “key money” to the public housing authority, most tenants in the Arab quarters like Ajami paid low rents, which were often not even collected. But from the nineties, the land developers moved in and the authorities began to issue eviction orders, for previously overlooked “offences” like rent arrears or, in as in Mrs Saba’s case, for adding extensions without a permit, something that is notoriously hard to come by. “They want to push out the people from Jaffa,” says Mr Kabaha. “This would be the most perfect country in the world if it was based on people who want to solve problems and not on people who want to make money on the back of those problems.” One of the several achievements of Ajami is not only that, as Copti puts it, it digs “deep into Palestinian society”, but also that it tells its compelling story without clunking exposition of all this political context. Instead it shows the consequences of it, leaving debate for after the film has ended. “We felt that dealing with the human side is the only way to address the big issues that are behind everything,” as the two directors, one a Jew the other an Arab, put it jointly in the promo notes for the film. “But all the social problems revealed in the stories of Ajami are governed and generated by politics.”
Dina Ezzat finds little evidence that Arab countries are poised to break the siege imposed on Gaza
While the severity of the siege of Gaza may be lessened in the coming weeks, a total lift of the Israeli imposed blockade is not on the cards. That, at least, is the assessment of Egyptian, Arab and Western diplomats in Cairo.
But any easing of the blockade, according to an Egyptian official, would not be through the exclusive use of the Rafah crossing. Crossings into Gaza under Israeli control would also help ease the siege.
Egypt, which closed its borders with Gaza in the wake of the Hamas takeover of the Strip, is still determined that crossings will only resume routine operations after Fatah, Hamas’s political rival, is “fully re-instated in Gaza”.
“There will be no operation of the borders before the Palestinian Authority [PA] is back in Gaza. We cannot afford otherwise,” insisted a high level Egyptian official.
In the past few months Egypt has strengthened security measures along its 14km border with Gaza, including installing underground steel plates to prevent smuggling via tunnels. “Of course we will continue with these measures,” the same official noted.
Egypt, say officials, has promised both the US and Israel that it will not tolerate the smuggling of any arms, or materials that could be used to develop primitive arms, into Gaza. It is a commitment that persists despite the increasing number of voices calling on Cairo to ease restrictive controls on its border with Gaza.
Egypt does, however, seem willing to display more flexibility in mediating the so-far elusive national reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah. Cairo, according to Egyptian officials and Hamas sources, is showing new signs of acceptance of Hamas.
Hamas sources, who spoke to Al-Ahram Weekly in Gaza on Sunday, say the one-day visit Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa made to Gaza earlier this week is a clear sign of a new Egyptian — and maybe Arab — position on Hamas. Moussa, according to both Hamas and Egyptian sources, had been lobbying for months to gain Egyptian, and wider Arab, approval for the visit.
“This siege has to be broken. No country should accommodate, or show any respect to, this siege. This is not just about Arab countries but all the countries of the world. We shall break the siege,” Moussa said in Gaza on Sunday.
During his talks with Palestinian political factions, including a tête-a-tête with the Gaza-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, and in meetings with families who suffered from Israeli brutality during the three-week war on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, Moussa repeatedly promised he would work towards ending the siege. Moussa, the first Arab official to visit the Strip since July 2007, was shown endless examples of the destruction caused by the war and subsequent siege.
He spoke with families who had lost children during the war and who risk losing more members due to poor healthcare facilities, and received complaints from Palestinian medical staff and UN officials trying to provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza’s 1.5 million beleaguered residents. Moussa said that he was committed to ending the blockade. But while he mocked Israel’s announcement, on Sunday, that four items — mayonnaise, tomato sauce, sewing needles and shoe-laces — would henceforth be allowed entry to Gaza, he warned that any lifting of the siege would be gradual.
During talks with representatives of the squabbling Palestinian factions, Moussa stressed that reconciliation would speed up the chances of the siege being lifted. “He told us it would help Egypt to operate the Rafah crossing if the PA returned to Gaza,” said one Hamas source.
In Sharm El-Sheikh on Monday, a day after his meetings with Hamas leaders in Gaza, Moussa discussed with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “some ideas” to find an exit out of the impasse that Egyptian mediation on national Palestinian reconciliation has hit. While sources suggested a breakthrough was not yet round the corner, they did not exclude some movement in the next few weeks.
“There will be meetings and talks and messages, and there might even be some goodwill gestures,” said one informed source. This, he added, could help in easing the siege since it would encourage Egypt to be more forthcoming in its own operation of the borders and allow Abbas and Cairo to pressure Israel to show more flexibility on the borders it controls.
“Israel should open all seven crossings [linking Gaza with the outside world],” Abbas said following talks in Sharm El-Sheikh on Tuesday with President Hosni Mubarak. European sources in Cairo say proposals that are currently being examined with both Egypt and Israel could allow for the easier transport of commodities, and maybe even individuals, in and out of Gaza. “We are still in the discussion phase. Nothing is concluded yet,” said one European source.
The current commotion, many Palestinians in Gaza believe, is a result of Israel’s bloody assault on the peace flotilla that was attempting to break the siege on 21 May.
European diplomats in Brussels now believe Israel’s stranglehold of Gaza has been discredited.
“That logic must now be abandoned,” said a joint statement signed by the foreign ministers of Italy, France and Spain. If not, more tragedies will occur, warned the three European ministers.
Israel’s leading food chains plan to stop importing Turkish-made pasta, flour
Published: 06.18.10
Israel’s leading supermarkets have joined the boycott against Turkey following the flotilla affair and will soon stop importing products made in the country.
The main victim of the boycott is expected to be pasta imported from Turkey, which was marketed by the food chains due to its cheap price.
Youths hang signs informing shoppers that most clothes sold by fashion chain are made in Turkey and that ‘by buying them you are funding anti-Israel terror’
Full story
“Although I am against boycotts and believe the problem between Israel and Turkey must be solved on the diplomatic level, I am considering stopping the imports of pasta from Turkey,” said Willi Food CEO Zvi Williger, one of the main importers of pasta from Turkey.
He added that “all the suppliers from Turkey are pro-Israel and against the anti-Israeli policy.”
The Mega chain, which markets Turkish-made pasta under its private label, said Sunday that it would also stop importing pasta and flour from Turkey. The chain noted, however, that the Turkish products could still be found in the stores until the stock run out.
Rami Levy, the owner of Shivuk Shikma, has also joined the move. “We will stop importing pasta from Turkey and start importing past from Italy instead, although it is more expensive than the Turkish pasta,” he said.
“I believe the consumers will support our move and I hope that all retailers importing from Turkey will join the initiative and found an alternative in other countries,” he added.
The Shufersal chain said Sunday that it was still looking into the matter.
Netanyahu’s PR, which plays on the paranoia and deepest fears of the ghetto , is working – but only internally.
By Doron Rosenblum
War criminal Benjamin Netanyahu at a weekly cabinet meeting
If the Israeli public employed the classification system famously used by Napoleon Bonaparte – who made light of the courage and cleverness of officers who were recommended to him, focusing instead on the question “But are they lucky?” – there is no question that not only would Defense Minister Ehud Barak drop to the bottom of the popularity scale, but so, and to the same degree, would Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
It is hard to be certain which of them is the schlemiel and which the schlimazel, or whose luck is worse. But one thing is clear: Every time those two grab the steering wheel – whether together or separately – they find themselves battered and bruised, limping from mishap to fiasco, from screw-up to snafu, and from there to all kinds of bad luck that have not yet even made it into the slang dictionaries.
It wouldn’t matter if it were only them. The problem is that those two get all of us into trouble: Shortly after the journey begins, the entire Israeli bus finds itself overturned on the side of the road with its wheels spinning uselessly on top.
In order to understand why public opinion surveys nevertheless tend to fault the ticket taker more than the driver, you have to get to the bottom of the difference, which does exist, between Barak’s schlimazel personality and Netanyahu’s schlemiel personality. The former, despite his great expectations, sees every initiative blow up in his face. But the latter has no intention of succeeding, and never did have.
In his ambition to perform spectacular pirouettes that will take the region’s breath away, Barak repeatedly finds himself on the boards. Netanyahu gets even more battered, but somehow looks less ridiculous, since he repeatedly tries – and repeatedly succeeds – to prove his standard opening argument: The floor is crooked. It was, still is and always will be. Or as he summed up his own failure of statesmanship this week, “Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy.”
For Barak bad luck is random, an accident (even if it is a multivehicle pileup ). For Netanyahu, bad luck is a worldview, a psychological situation assessment, almost an ideology – the decree of “Jewish” fate. That is precisely the difference between Barak’s premature assertion in the city square – “This is the dawning of a new day” – and what Netanyahu told the Likud Knesset faction this week: “Benighted medieval forces are rising up against us … A wave of hatred is flooding us … They are trying to grip us in an iron vise of missiles and terror.” Perhaps these words were a boastful “I told you so,” or perhaps they were a type of vision: a pessimistic vision that, whether consciously or not, fulfills itself every day as long as the prophet of destruction – this Job, who scratches himself with a potsherd – continues to serve as prime minister.
Is it by chance that during the term of “Mr. Public Relations” of all time, Israel has become one of the most ostracized and misunderstood countries in the world? Ironically, the person who built his entire political career on being a fluent spokesman for Israel’s righteousness to the outside world changed the direction of the loudspeaker the moment the responsibility became his. He has turned into the great rebroadcaster of every external threat for internal consumption – into a person who repeatedly plays on the paranoias and deepest fears of the ghetto mentality.
In that sense, Netanyahu’s PR has in fact succeeded, but only internally: The national PR man has once again succeeded in explaining to the domestic consumer, who is wallowing in his fears and hatreds, that there really is a reason for the sense of siege, isolation and persecution: The world is hypocritical, the wave is getting stronger, the vise is closing in.
Ostensibly, his reason for doing so is clear: to obviate the need for action and to avoid personal responsibility. For if this is a deterministic existential situation, there is nothing to be done: There is no point in further shaking up the ship that is being flooded in any case, or in trying to navigate it. All that remains is to sit and curse the entire world. But in that case, one question arises: Why did Netanyahu want to be prime minister, and for a second time yet?
After all, he can be a “concerned citizen” at home, too. So why is he behaving this way? Where is he actually trying to lead us? What does he want to promote, if anything – even according to his own lights? The answers to these questions have long since gone beyond the political realm. They apparently belong to the realm of the soul. And not only Netanyahu’s.
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
18 June 2010
Israel announced yesterday it would “liberalise” the flow of goods to Gaza in a statement which stopped short of a pledge to allow in raw materials needed to revive the besieged territory’s paralysed manufacturing sector.
The EU and aid agencies welcomed the Cabinet decision, taken after two days of deliberations, as “a step in the right direction” but warned that much more needed to be done to restart Gaza’s moribund economy and boost post-war reconstruction. Israel had been under mounting international pressure for a significant relaxation of its three-year-old embargo since its lethal commando raid on a pro-Palestinian flotilla earlier this month.
The inner Security Cabinet said it had agreed to expand the shipment of construction materials needed for internationally supervised infrastructure projects. And it said further decisions would be taken in the coming days on “additional steps to implement this policy”. Some such projects, requiring strict security guarantees from international organisations like the UN, will be exempted from a general prohibition on materials like cement which Israel says it fears will be used by Hamas to build up its “military machine”.
Raed Fattouh, the Palestinian co-ordinator for the shipment of goods from Israel into Gaza, said a newly expanded list of goods would now include food items, toys, stationery, kitchen utensils, mattresses and towels. There was no sign however of goods like industrial margarine or glucose which could be used for food processing being allowed in.
There was no mention in yesterday’s Cabinet statement of a switch from an “allowed” list of goods to a “banned list” – something which Tony Blair, representing the “Quartet” of the US, EU, UN and Russia, said on Monday in Luxembourg had been agreed “in principle” by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A senior Israeli official said yesterday that the idea of the switch from a “white list” to a “blacklist” was still “on the table.” The list would make it more difficult for the Israeli authorities to ban items like raw materials to revive private sector production but which did not pose a threat to Israel’s security.
Western diplomats have been pressing Israel to take more concerted action in what could be a relatively short window before a fresh flotilla poses a fresh maritime crisis by setting out from Gaza, on the grounds that it is much easier to condemn the flotillas if the blockade is being relaxed. At least two Lebanese organisations are threatening to send boats to the territory.
The EU’s foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton said the European Union had noted the development with “great interest” but hoped “the in-principle statement by the Israeli government can now be followed up very quickly with the detail which we shall look at with interest”.
A Foreign Ministry official in Turkey, nine of whose citizens were killed in the commando raid this month, said Ankara wanted to “evaluate” the Israeli move. “However, our attitude on the issue is obvious, we expect that the blockade be lifted altogether,” the official added.
While in Gaza one Hamas official condemned the move as “window dressing,” the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Israeli decision was “not sufficient”. He added: “With this decision, Israel attempts to make it appear that it has eased its four-year blockade…. In reality, the siege of the Gaza Strip, illegally imposed on Palestinians, continues unabated.” Continue reading June 18, 2010
EDITOR: The cracks appear in Israeli intransigence
Make no mistake about it – any easing of the Gaza Blockade will make real difference for Palestinians, and it is a sure sign of the anger and shock after the Flotilla murders which has brought about enormous public pressure on Israel, forcing it to mitigate its illegal and immoral blockade. However, this is only a chink in the Israeli armour; important in that it tells of a new trend, it will not, in itself, be enough. Gaza cannot be rebuilt in this manner, and that is what Palestinians need now. Some people with little knowledge of the conflict may even think that this is humanistic measure by Israel… It is definitely planned to affect them in that way. This reaction will be mistaken, of course. Israel moved because it was forced by public opinion.
It seems that this is also an important lesson: for three years, and ever since the Gaza massacre of Dec 2008 – January 2009, Israel has been shouting from the rooftops that nothing will force it to ease the blockade, yet here they are doing exactly that. We should redouble our effort on the BDS front, to put even more pressure on this criminal regime, before it has a chance to commit more war crimes.
17 June 2010
A Palestinian labourer collects gravel at an abandoned airport that was damaged by past Israeli air strikes, in Rafah in the southern
Israel agreed today to ease its land blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, hoping to quell growing worldwide outrage following a deadly raid on an international flotilla bound for the Palestinian territory.
In one of the major changes, Israel will now allow in more desperately needed construction materials for civilian projects, provided those projects are carried out under international supervision, government and military officials said. Israel has barely allowed in materials such as cement and steel, fearing Hamas militants could use them to build weapons and fortifications.
That policy has prevented rebuilding after Israel’s brief but fierce war with Hamas in Gaza last year.
An Israeli military official told The Associated Press that all foods would be freely let in to Gaza, effective immediately. Israel has previously allowed a narrow and constantly changing list of authorized food items.
A brief government statement announcing today’s decision also indicated the naval blockade on Gaza would remain in force.
Israel will “continue existing security procedures to prevent the inflow of weapons and war material,” it said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that if the naval closure is lifted, then the Iranian-backed Hamas would turn Gaza into an “Iranian port.”
There was no mention of lifting or easing bans on exports or the import of raw materials that would be crucial to galvanizing the territory’s battered economy. And the statement contained no specifics on what else would be allowed into Gaza.
But the fact that Israel was forced to respond to an international outcry over the blockade was evidence of the intense pressure the country’s leaders felt.
The European Union cautiously welcomed the decision.
“This is a step in the right direction,” said Cristina Galach, spokeswoman for the bloc’s Spanish presidency.
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said officials wanted to see how the Israeli decision is carried out. “The detail is what matters,” she said.
Israel must “make sure that many, many more goods can get in to Gaza to enable people to reconstruct their homes, to build schools, to place infrastructure, and also enable people to get on with ordinary lives,” she said.
UN spokesman Chris Gunness said the blockade has prevented the United Nations from bringing in construction materials needed to carry out an internationally approved plan to rebuild thousands of homes and other buildings Israel damaged or destroyed in last year’s war in Gaza.
The closure has also shuttered hundreds of factories, put tens of thousands of people out of work and brought the territory’s fragile economy to a standstill, mainly hurting ordinary Gazans.
EU officials will discuss the possibility of helping reopen Gaza’s border crossings, Ashton added. The EU helped monitor Gaza’s southern border with Egypt until Hamas took power in 2007.
The partial lifting of the siege did not satisfy Hamas.
“We want a real lifting of the siege, not window-dressing,” said Hamas politician Salah Bardawil.
Israel, with Egypt’s cooperation, imposed the blockade three years ago after Hamas, which calls for Israel’s destruction, violently wrested control of Gaza. For the most part, only basic humanitarian goods have been allowed in.
But the blockade failed to achieve its aims of stanching the flow of weapons to Gaza, weakening Hamas or winning the release of an Israeli soldier held in captivity in Gaza for years. A network of smuggling tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border became a conduit for both weapons and commercial goods sold at black market prices. Gazans sank deeper into poverty, turning their anger against Israel and not their Hamas rulers.
Israel drew new scrutiny of the embargo when it sent naval commandos to stop a blockade-busting flotilla in late May. The troops clashed with activists on board one of the ships, killing nine Turks. Both sides said they acted in self-defence.
In the West Bank, the rival pro-Western Palestinian government of President Mahmoud Abbas also criticized the Israeli decision. Negotiator Saeb Erekat said the closure should be ended altogether. “The siege is collective punishment and it must be lifted.”
Amid the heavy international criticism that followed the Israeli naval raid, Egypt opened its land border crossing with Gaza — the main gateway for some residents to enter and exit the crowded territory.
But most Gazans remained confined to the territory. Egypt is only letting in people with special travel permits, such as students and Gazans with foreign passports. In the past two weeks, only 10,000 Gazans have crossed into Egypt.
On Sunday, the Israeli commission appointed to investigate the flotilla attack met for the first time. Two international observers are to join the deliberations later.
EDITOR: Speaking in Tongues…
Read this please. Two announcements from the same Netanyahu office at the same time, but saying very different things, as one is in Hebrew intended internally, while the English one is for export…
Prime Minister’s office issues two statements, one in English announcing plan to ease blockade, and one in Hebrew devoid of binding decision.
The Prime Minister’s Office announced on Thursday that the security cabinet had agreed to relax Israel’s blockade on the Gaza Strip, but as it turns out, no binding decision was ever made during the cabinet meeting.
The Prime Minister’s Office issued a press release in English following the meeting, which was also sent to foreign diplomats, was substantially different than the Hebrew announcement – according to the English text, a decision was made to ease the blockade, but in the Hebrew text there was no mention of any such decision.
It is not clear whether this discrepancy was a deliberate attempt to buy time in the face of international pressure, or a clerical omission on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office.
The cabinet ministers held a long discussion on Wednesday and another one Thursday morning on the topic of altering Israel’s policy following the three-year siege on the Hamas ruled territory. The siege was imposed after Hamas violently seized control over the Gaza Strip in 2007. The aim of the discussions was to approve a plan drafted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the envoy of the Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators Tony Blair. The discussions spanned a total of six hours, but no decision was ever made.
During both meetings, many ministers voiced their opinions regarding the blockade, and the defense establishment presented the plans for the “liberalization” of the blockade. However, upon concluding the discussions, the ministers did not vote on any binding practical draft of the decision. In fact, the policy by which the government is currently bound is the one decided by the security cabinet during the previous term of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, by which the blockade remains as it was.
Two official statements came out of the Prime Minister’s Office in regard to the security cabinet meeting – one in Hebrew for the Israeli media and another in English for the foreign media and foreign diplomats. The English version said that “It was agreed to liberalize the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza [and] expand the inflow of materials for civilian projects that are under international supervision.” The Hebrew version addressed mainly remarks made by Netanyahu, but failed to mention any decision or agreement.
The Hebrew version also failed to mention whether the prime minister’s position was formally approved. “Israel will alter the system in order to allow more civilian goods into Gaza,” the Hebrew statement read.
In addition to the English statement, word was sent to foreign consulates and embassies indicating that the decision made by the security cabinet will be implemented immediately. However, according to the officials charged with the actual monitoring of the transfer of goods into Gaza, they have not been notified of any change in policy as a result of the cabinet meeting.
A senior defense official said Thursday that “there was every intention to increase the transfer of goods into Gaza even before the cabinet meeting. We have notified the Palestinians, regardless of the cabinet meeting, that we will allow the entry of food items, house wares, writing implements, mattresses and toys. Beyond that, we have not said a thing.”
Sources at the Prime Minister’s Office admitted that there was no decision, and no vote, during the security cabinet meeting. One of the sources said that “it was a briefing by the prime minister,” and another source said it was a “declaration of intent.”
“A meeting will be held soon, and we hope that a binding decision will be taken then,” the prime minister’s office said, explaining that the reason for the delay is “the need for continued contact with allies within the international community in order to gain support for the liberalization plan.” This despite the fact that most of the international community has already voiced support for the plan, following a campaign launched by Blair, who drafted the plan with Netanyahu.
Stéphane Hessel
Israel’s illegal and immoral attack on the Freedom Flotilla humanitarian aid convoy, which left at least nine dead and dozens injured, has rightfully stunned the world. The all-civilian convoy of 6 ships carried over 10,000 tons of critically-needed humanitarian aid and nearly 700 citizens from 40 countries. The Flotilla was an ambitious attempt to break the siege imposed by Israel on the 1.5 million Palestinians of the occupied Gaza strip, since 2007. Carrying distinguished parliamentarians, religious leaders, authors, journalists, a Nobel Peace Laureate, and a Holocaust survivor, the relief convoy aimed not only to provide relief supplies to Gaza; it sought to direct the international spotlight towards the humanitarian crisis imposed on Gaza’s residents and the imperative to end it. There is no denying that the latter objective has succeeded, albeit with tragic consequences.
The Israeli attack on the unarmed aid convoy in international waters was “[a clear] violation of international humanitarian law, international law of the seas, and [by most interpretations] international criminal law,” to use the words of Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is a sad reality that world governments have for too long become either complicit or apathetic to Israel’s crimes and fostered its culture of impunity, under a shield of unquestionable backing by the US. Its initial condemnation notwithstanding, the US government has pressured the UN Security Council members, again, to adopt ambiguous language which relieves Israel of responsibility and creates parity between aggressor and victim.
Characteristically, the Israeli government has blamed the victims of its raid for attacking the Israeli soldiers, claiming “self-defense.” Prominent legal expert and Director of the Sydney Centre for International Law at Sydney Law School, Professor Ben Saul, squarely refutes Israel’s claim arguing: “Legally speaking, government military forces rappelling onto a ship to illegally capture it are treated no differently than other criminals. The right of self-defense in such situations rests with the passengers on board: a person is legally entitled to resist one’s own unlawful capture, abduction and detention.” He adds that “if Israeli forces killed people, they may not only have infringed the human right to life, but they may also have committed serious international crimes. Under article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.”
Despite UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s statement calling for an end to Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza, the Security Council has failed to call for an unconditional end to the blockade, allowing Israel to commit grave war crimes with impunity, as well documented in the UN Goldstone report.
The absence of meaningful action from governments to hold Israel accountable to international law leaves open one path for citizens of conscience: to take this responsibility upon themselves, as done against apartheid South Africa. Non-violent citizen-led initiatives, exemplified by the Flotilla and the various boycott and divestment campaigns around the world, present the most promising way to overcome the failure of world governments to stand up to Israel’s intransigence and lawless behavior. By flagrantly attacking the aid ship, Israel has inadvertently brought unprecedented awareness and condemnation not only of its fatal siege of Gaza but also of the wider context of Israel’s occupation practices in the Palestinian Territories, its denial of Palestinian refugee rights, and its apartheid policies against the indigenous, “non-Jewish” citizens of Israel.
The Freedom Flotilla brings to mind the kind of civil society solidarity initiatives which brought an end to segregation laws in the US and apartheid in South Africa, an analogy impossible to ignore. Like the apartheid regime of South Africa, Israel’s reaction has been to label this non-violent act an “intentional provocation.” As in the case of South Africa, the call for international solidarity, in the form of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) came from an overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society unions and organizations in 2005, and is being embraced by citizens of conscience and social movements worldwide. The BDS initiative calls for effectively isolating Israel, its complicit business, academic and cultural institutions, as well as companies profiting from its human rights violations and illegal policies, as long as these policies continue.
I believe that the BDS initiative is a moral strategy which has demonstrated its potential for success. Most recently, German Deutsche Bank became the latest of several European financial institutions and major pension funds to divest from Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. Last week, two main Italian supermarket chains announced a boycott of produce from illegal Israeli settlements. Last month, performers Elvis Costello and Gil Scott-Heron cancelled appearances in Israel. Reminiscent of the South African anti-apartheid popular struggle, the current generation of students across university campuses is actively calling upon their administrations to adopt divestment policies.
I endorse the heartfelt words of Scottish writer Iain Banks, who in reaction to Israel’s atrocious attack on the Freedom Flotilla suggested that the best way for international artists, writers and academics to “convince Israel of its moral degradation and ethical isolation” is “simply by having nothing more to do with this criminal government.”
Stéphane Frédéric Hessel is a diplomat, former ambassador, French resistance fighter and BCRA agent. Born German, he obtained French nationality in 1937. He participated in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
15 June 2010
He said Israel had been pressuring states like France and South Korea not to sell Jordan nuclear technology.
Israel, believed to be the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, has denied the accusation.
High oil prices are pushing countries to consider nuclear energy, but the spread of the technology increases the risk of proliferation, analysts say.
‘Underhanded’
In a lengthy interview in The Wall Street Journal, King Abdullah strongly criticised Israel for what he said were its efforts to persuade potential suppliers to abandon plans to sell Jordan nuclear power generating reactors, something Israel denies.
There are many reactors in the world and a lot more coming, so [the Israelis must] go mind their own business
King Abdullah
He said Israel’s “underhanded” actions have helped bring Jordan-Israeli relations to their lowest point since a 1994 peace agreement.
“There are countries, Israel in particular, that are more worried about us being economically independent than the issue of nuclear energy,” King Abdullah said. “There are many such reactors in the world and a lot more coming, so [the Israelis must] go mind their own business.”
Jordan, with US backing, is determined to develop nuclear power to escape from its near total dependence upon imported oil.
It hopes that nuclear energy will provide up to 30% of its power needs by 2030.
The desert kingdom recently short-listed a French-Japanese consortium, as well a Canadian and a Russian company, to build its first nuclear plant, due to be operational by 2019.
The Obama administration, while supportive of Jordan’s nuclear ambitions, is worried that the spread of nuclear power could open the door to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus reports.
So Washington wants to secure a nuclear agreement with Jordan under which the country would surrender its right to manufacture its own uranium fuel, our correspondent says.
That could prove a major sticking point between these two long-time allies, he adds.
Defense Minister says ‘the international preoccupation’ with Israel following the flotilla controversy emphasizes the need to rebuild ties with the United States.
Tags: Israel news Gaza flotilla Ehud Barak Benjamin Netanyahu
Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stressed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other members of the forum of seven senior ministers that Israel must put forth a “daring and assertive political initiative” in the coming months to emerge from its international isolation of the past year.
Barak will travel to Washington for talks with senior administration officials on advancing the peace process with the Palestinians.
A senior political source in Jerusalem said that in talks at the forum of seven after the Gaza flotilla incident, Barak spoke a great deal about the damage to Israel’s international standing. He repeated this stance in talks about setting up a commission of inquiry.
Barak said that “the international preoccupation” with Israel following the flotilla controversy emphasizes the need to rebuild ties with the United States.
“There is no way to rehabilitate ties with the administration without presenting an assertive political program that will address the core issues of a final settlement with the Palestinians,” Barak told Netanyahu and his other colleagues. “It is necessary to make decisions and take genuine political steps.”
Barak stressed that the flotilla incident and the assistance of the Obama administration at blocking the establishment of an international commission of inquiry prove how much Israel needs to assist the United States in pushing the peace process forward. If the United States’ standing in the world is undermined further, Israel is the one that will suffer, Barak said.
“A political initiative will break us out of the isolation and prevent phenomena like the flotillas to the Gaza Strip and international investigations,” Barak told the forum of seven.
“There have been governments in Israel that were able to operate freely from a military point of view only because they initiated political moves. We all need to think what the alternative would be to presenting a political program and what is the significance of continuing with the current situation. Israel’s isolation will only intensify.”
One reason Barak is trying to convince Netanyahu and the other ministers of the need for change is the growing pressure from within the Labor Party. Ministers from the Labor Party including Isaac Herzog and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer have questioned whether the party should remain in the coalition if the political standstill continues.
The head of the Histadrut labor federation, Ofer Eini, has joined the criticism; Eini is considered a future candidate for the post of party chairman.
The senior political source said that Barak did not pose an ultimatum or threaten leaving the coalition, but in many discussions with the prime minister he made it clear that there is little time left for Israel to present a political initiative.
The next six months are likely to be critical, with September marking the end of the construction freeze in the settlements. Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly will meet in October, followed by the congressional elections in the United States in November.
Barak says that this is the time frame for making a political decision. If an initiative is undertaken, it may be necessary to broaden the coalition by including Kadima. If not, Labor may leave, which would leave Netanyahu with a narrower coalition government including right-wing parties Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010 King Abdullah II of Jordan: ‘There will be many more reactors coming, so the Israelis should go mind their own business’
Jordan’s King Abdullah II has accused Israel of making “underhand” efforts to prevent the Middle Eastern country from developing a peaceful nuclear energy programme.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, King Abdullah said Israel had sought to persuade countries such as France and South Korea not to sell Jordan the nuclear technology it needs to develop its own civilian nuclear power industry.
“There are countries, Israel in particular, that are more worried about us being economically independent than the issue of nuclear energy, and have been voicing their concerns,” King Abdullah said. “There are many such reactors in the world and a lot more coming, so [the Israelis should] go mind their own business.”
King Abdullah, a vital ally of Israel in a largely hostile Middle East, warned that Israeli meddling in its nuclear ambitions had helped plunge relations between the two countries to their lowest point since a peace agreement was signed in 1994.
Israel, universally thought to have developed its own nuclear weapons, has long voiced its fears of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by the threat of Iran’s atomic ambitions. The United Nations and the West suspect Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy programme.
Jordan discovered huge deposits of uranium ore in 2007, giving the kingdom a tantalising glimpse of what an energy future free of dependence on costly oil imports might look like. Under an ambitious new energy strategy, Jordan envisages that nuclear energy will meet 30 per cent of its energy needs by 2030.
Crucially, Amman has won backing for its nuclear ambitions from Washington, which is seeking to promote the civilian use of atomic energy. Jordan is currently working out a nuclear cooperation deal with the US that would see American companies bring technology and know-how to Jordan.
The deal has been thrown into jeopardy, however, because the US does not want Jordan to produce its own nuclear fuel, the newspaper reported.
The accord would not prevent Jordan from mining the uranium, but it would not be allowed to convert it to fuel.
Jordanian officials have argued that the kingdom, a signatory of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, has the right to produce the reactor fuel that would help shore up the country’s economy.
King Abdullah argued that Jordan’s model to involve private companies in the project would allay international concerns, and set an example for other countries. Besides Iran, both Syria and Israel have tried to block external scrutiny of their nuclear capabilities.
“I believe nuclear energy in Jordan will be done in such a way where it is a public-private partnership so everyone can see exactly what’s going on,” King Abdullah said. “If we can be the model of transparency, it will push others.”
A spokesman from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office declined to comment on the Jordanian claims.
MK Afu Aghbaria, speaking at a hearing of the European Parliament, also said 700 Gazans have died at border crossings due to Israel’s actions.
Speaking at a hearing of the European Parliament, MK Afu Aghbaria (Hadash) accused Israel of deliberately harassing the residents of the Gaza Strip and called for Israeli leaders to be tried at the International Criminal Court.
The hearing, also attended by MK Nahman Shai (Kadima) and MK Einat Wolf (Labor), was organized by the Communist Party in the European Parliament.
“In its 62 years of existence, Israel has attacked its neighbors and its Arab citizens nonstop,” Aghbaria said.
“Israel prevents the passage of medicines and medical supplies to Gaza. As a result of this, 700 Gazans have died at the border crossings. [Benjamin] Netanyahu, [Ehud] Barak, [Avigdor] Lieberman and [Tzipi] Livni should be brought to the International Criminal Court in The Hague,” the lawmaker said.
Shai and Wilf quickly condemned Aghbaria’s words, in a joint statement.
“It is very grave that at a time when MKs are making every effort to calm spirits, lessen the damage and bring a positive message to the European Parliament, an Arab MK comes and arouses tempers and takes advantage of his position to call on the European Parliament to enact sanctions on Israel,” they said.
“We plan to bring the contents of MK Aghbaria’s speech to the attention of Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin.”
EDITOR: Is this a joke?
Now, after more than 18 months, with Israel leaders responsible for the senseless murder of over 1400 Palestinians in Gaza, the IOF has found fit to take ONE soldiers to court-martial for the ‘killing of two women”…
According to the Army Radio report, solider suspected of opening fire at the women in an alleged disregard of the IDF’s rules of engagement.
According to the Army Radio report, the solider will be charged with opening fire at the women in an alleged disregard of the IDF’s rules of engagement during Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s three-week war on Hamas which took place which took place in late 2008 and early 2009.
An Israel Defense Forces soldier is to face charges over the fatal shooting of two Palestinian women during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza early last year, Army Radio reported on Wednesday.
According to the Army Radio report, the solider will be charged with opening fire at the women in an alleged disregard of the IDF’s rules of engagement during Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s three-week war on Hamas which took place which took place in late 2008 and early 2009.
Israel’s military conduct during the Gaza war was severely criticized by a UN report compiled by former South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who charged both Israel and Hamas with war crimes and acts that amounted to crimes against humanity, saying that the conflict dominated by Israel’s military superiority had killed 1,400 Palestinians and caused widespread damage to properties in Gaza.
Earlier this year, Israel submitted its response at the end of a three-month deadline set by the United Nations General Assembly for issuing its own report on the Israel-Hamas fighting in Gaza Strip.
“This morning we handed the UN a report of the investigations and operations that took place during Operation Cast Lead,” Barak, who was speaking at a Jewish National Fund tree-planting ceremony near the Negev town of Omer, said. “This report stresses that the IDF is like no other army, both from a moral standpoint as well as from a professional standpoint.”
“All of the soldiers and officers whom we sent to battle need to know that the state of Israel stands behind them even on the day after,” Barak said.
The UN General Assembly has already endorsed the controversial investigation led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone on the 22-day fighting between December 2008 and January 2009.
Mad Israelis section
EDITOR: Melanie Phillips is not Israeli, indeed. But this piece by John Crace is too good to miss, so I have upgraded Melanie to an Honorary Israeli, so this can be included…
Encounter Books, £13.99
John Crace, 14 June 2010
This book arose from a sense of perplexity that almost everyone in the world thought I was clinically mad. Everywhere I looked there were people who believed boarding a humanitarian aid convoy in international waters and murdering nine people was a little bit naughty. So I did what I’ve always done as a columnist for the Daily Mail; go where my bigotry leads.
Conspiracy theories abound in public life. Almost all of them are based on myth. The simple fact is that global warming is a lie created by politically correct liberals who are holding the universe to ransom. The reality is that not a single glacier has melted in Israel over the last 50 years. Likewise, green activists try to claim the teeny oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an environmental disaster. How much oil has been washed up on the beaches of Eilat? None.
The legitimacy of the war in Iraq has been similarly subverted. Hard-line Trotskyists say we were led into the war on a lie. This is not the case. After Saddam Hussein was toppled, Mossad found huge caches of nuclear weapons in bunkers throughout the country. Understandably, Mossad chose not to go public with this because, as a responsible government agency, it didn’t want to worry anyone unduly.
Not that anyone has ever thanked Israel for this act of global compassion. But this is symptomatic of the way Israel is misrepresented. It is often suggested the Palestinians have an equal right to Israeli lands. This is demonstrably false. If you follow the Old Testament family tree from Adam to Abraham, you can see God gave the country to the Jews. Indeed, it is a mark of Israel’s tolerance that it allows some so-called Palestinians to live in the Gaza slums. And how do the Palestinians repay Israel? By throwing stones. How dare the world complain if Israel responds proportionately by returning the Palestinians to the Stone Age where they belong?
These falsehoods are presented as unchallengeable truths; in fact, they are anti-Semitic leftwing ideologies based on twisted evidence. We now live in a world of moral relativism where to believe in scientific inquiry or to be gay or a Muslim is socially acceptable. How can any right thinking person go along with this new age of Reason? The Enlightenment has a lot to answer for. Surely it must be apparent to even Richard Dawkins that he couldn’t have written the God Delusion without God’s help? Though obviously not the Muslim God because he doesn’t exist.
Secularism is the curse of modern life. If everyone went to Synagogue to thank the Intelligent Designer there would be no more conflict. Instead there is a global coalition of Muslims, environmentalists and vegetarians whose sole purpose is to destroy the state of Israel. The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre – co-ordinated by Osama bin Laden and George Monbiot – was nothing less than a dry run for a ram raid on the Burger King in central Tel Aviv.
Anti-Zionists claim the neocons are in the pockets of the Jews. Nonsense. Reason naturally aligns itself with reason. That is why no reasonable person can possibly be a Muslim. Many of the central tenets of Islam run contrary to Judaism and since Judaism is correct in every respect, ergo it must be irrational to be nice to Muslims. Yet such is our topsy-turvy world it is the Jews who get demonised for trying to do everyone a favour by preventing the Palestinians from becoming a recognised terrorist state.
The anti-Semitic lies proliferate at a terrifying speed. The most pernicious is that Israel has no sense of humour. What’s not to laugh about Mossad agents flying in to Dubai and taking out an Arab? All I can say is thank God there are still some fearless media outlets, such as Fox News and the Daily Mail, who are prepared to stand up for the truth. Hey? What’s with the strait-jacket? Where are you taking me?
Digested read, digested: Black is white.
12/06/10
Uri Avneri
If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:
What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?
If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?
Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?
What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?
Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?
Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?
Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?
If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?
Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?
Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?
Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement – to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port – in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?
Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it?
Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”?
Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip?
Questions concerning the decision to attack the flotilla: When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)
When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)
What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)
What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)
When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?
Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?
Were there others who also advised doing so?
Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?
If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?
In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?
Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?
Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?
Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?
Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?
Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult?
Questions concerning the planning of the action: What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)
Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?
Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?
Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?
If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?
Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?
If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?
How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?
Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?
Why was it executed in darkness?
Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”?
During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British?
Questions concerning the action itself: Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?
Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?
Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?
When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?
Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?
Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified?
Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?
Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?
Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?
Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?
Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?
Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?
Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?
Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?
Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?
Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?
Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?
Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?
Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”?
Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman: IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?
Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?
What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?
What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?
On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered?
Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?
If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?
Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?
Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?
What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”?
Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?
Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?
Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?
Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing?
Questions concerning the inquiry: Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?
Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify – but not to answer questions?
Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?
Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?
Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?
Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?
And, finally, the question of questions:
What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?
A committee whose makeup and authority are perceived as predetermined will be unable to satisfy international leaders and their constituencies abroad who demanded the inquiry in the first place.
The government yesterday authorized the creation of an independent committee to examine the events surrounding the raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla last month. Unfortunately, neither the committee’s membership nor its authority is suited to meet the challenges posed by the affair.
The committee should have been asked to examine the facts and hold responsible those who caused the incident to end as it it did, thereby allowing Israelis and their government to implement the lessons that need to be learned. Instead, the cabinet created a panel aimed at appeasing the world, in particular the United States. Its authority is too limited to conduct a real investigation, and its makeup raises the suspicion that it is designed more as a public-relations tool than to properly examine the events and reveal the responsible parties.
A panel that is not a state commission of inquiry will be unable to bring justice to bear on those found responsible for the operation’s failings. And no matter how esteemed the committee members may be, all have for decades been away from events in both the military and government, and will thus not be able to reach the necessary conclusions. Committee chairman Jacob Turkel’s observation ahead of his appointment that certain people must not be found at fault raises a question mark over whether he was selected precisely because of that remark.
Stopping the flotilla has already caused Israel immense political damage. Stopping a real investigation by appointing a committee with such limited powers is liable to lead to further damage not only to Israel’s image abroad, but also to its capacity to avoid similar imbroglios in the future. It is hard to believe that the newly appointed committee, even though it includes two international observers, will convince the world that Israel is seriously investigating the raid’s operational failures.
The government had an opportunity to try to control the damage it brought on itself by conducting an audacious and comprehensive investigation. Yesterday the government missed that opportunity. The strange hybrid that emerged instead – both its puzzling membership and weak mandate – bodes ill for Israel. A committee whose makeup and authority are perceived as predetermined will be unable to satisfy international leaders and their constituencies abroad who demanded the inquiry in the first place. It would therefore have been better if the Turkel committee had never been born, sparing us the deceptive appearance of a real investigation.
Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak canceled an official visit to Paris on Sunday (13 June), announcing he would stay in Israel while the government establishes an investigative committee to explore Israel’s deadly naval attack on the Freedom Flotilla.
The announcement comes after French activists who were aboard the Gaza bound aid convoy threatened to bring charges against Barak over the raid that killed nine. The suit would be filed under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a principle that allows the prosecution of suspected war criminals in countries that have no direct connection with the events, in France and in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, according to the Associated Press. Three members of French parliament have also joined the effort.
“We must stop this bloody Israeli escalation and the only way is international judiciary. We want to stop Israel through punishing its leaders who partook in the operation. We will mainly target the leaders who gave the orders and those who executed them,” said Lilian Jalok, who represents the French activists.
Barak was set to dedicate a new Israeli booth at the Eurosatory arms fair, which opens in Paris this week.
“We believe it is unacceptable and unjust that the French government hosts Ehud Barak honoring him with official ceremonies after he claimed responsibility for the attack on our flotilla and the bloodshed,” said Tomas Hud, one of the Freedom Flotilla activists.
A small French cinema chain also took action to protest the Freedom Flotilla attack. The Utopia art cinemas canceled screenings of the Israeli comedy “Five Hours from Paris” and replaced them with the documentary “Rachel,” about an American student crushed to death by a bulldozer in 2003 while protesting Israeli house demolitions in Gaza.
“It was a protest of our whole company,” Anne-Marie Faucon, the co-founder of Utopia, said in an interview. “We show many Israeli films, we organize a lot of debates on what happens in the world, but this time we reacted very strongly and in a very emotional way.”
“Rachel” is a documentary made by Simone Bitton, a Moroccan-born, French-Israeli director who emigrated to Israel with her family as a child, served in the Israeli army, became a pacifist and mostly lives in France, wrote the New York Times. Bitton is also the director of “Wall,” a 2004 documentary about the Israeli Separation Wall that is dividing Palestinian communities and carving up land.
After Israeli-Dutch director Ludi Boeken told the Utopia he planned to withdraw his film, “Saviors in the Night,” from the cinemas “in solidarity with the censored,” and Culture Minister of France, Frédéric Mitterrand, contacted Ms. Faucon voicing his “incomprehension” and “disapproval,” the cinemas relented.
It “was a symbolic and limited gesture” Ms. Faucon said, stating that Utopia had planned to eventually release the Israeli comedy. She called “Rachel” “a film that corresponds perfectly to this mission of participating in democratic debate.”
EDITOR: War Criminal Blair rises from his deep slumber
As a prize for his war crimes on behalf of the House of Bush II, Mr. Blair got this cushy job in Jerusalem, which also allowed him to collect $1million from Israel through the Tel Aviv University. He has spent the last few years in hibernation, seldom arising from his lair. He has managed to keep his silence through thick and thin, and now appears set to collect some coupons for the coming end of the blockade, when in reality he was one of the main supporters of the blockade. You can see what he said a week ago in the item below, speaking to the Jewish Chronicle.
By Geoff Meade, Press Association
Monday, 14 June 2010
The world must give “hope, help and prospects” to the people of Gaza, Tony Blair insisted today.
Emerging from talks with EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, he repeated his belief that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip will be eased within days.
The key, he said, was an agreement to change from a situation in which Israel operates a limited list of permitted goods allowed through border crossings into Gaza, to a prohibited list of goods – weapons and “combat material” – which are not.
“After my talks (with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), there is now in principle a commitment by Israel to move to such a list,” he said.
That would mean Israel maintaining the existing blockade to keep out arms while allowing in building materials and foodstuffs essential to normal daily life, Mr Blair said.
The change would simplify access for non-military goods, “rather than people struggling to get household items and foodstuffs in, rather than them having to fight over almost every bit of construction material”.
The former UK prime minister and current Middle East envoy added: “Most of all we must give the people of Gaza some hope, some help and some prospects.
“I believe and hope that we can reach a situation where we get a policy with regard to Gaza which is right regarding security, and regarding the people of Gaza and which gives the people of Gaza eventually the prospects of joining a two-state solution.”
Baroness Ashton, European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said EU governments were ready to send monitors to help police border crossings as part of any Israeli decision to ease access.
She gave a cautious welcome to Israel’s decision to launch an inquiry into how nine people aboard a flotilla of humanitarian aid ships attempting to breach the blockade were killed by Israeli fire when troops halted the convoy.
A spokesman for Baroness Ashton described the inquiry as “a constructive step” while Mr Blair said: “The issue of the inquiry continues to be an issue of strong political debate … it is a step forward.”
But some EU Governments, notably the Dutch and Swedes, want to see a full international investigation.
That view was included in a statement at the end of today’s talks in which EU foreign ministers expressed deep regret for the loss of life during “the Israeli military operation in international waters” and condemned the use of violence.
The statement declared that “an immediate, full and impartial inquiry into these events and the circumstances surrounding them is essential”.
It went on: “To command the confidence of the international community this should include credible international participation.”
The statement also called for “an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza including goods from the West Bank”.
It said the EU stood ready to contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza and its economic revival, adding: “To this end, full and regular access via land crossings, and possibly by sea, on the basis of a list of prohibited goods, should be the prime aim, while at the same time providing strict control over the destination of imported merchandise.”
Oxfam warned that the Gazan economy would continue to “unravel” unless the blockade was completely and immediately lifted.
Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International, said: “The blockade has unleashed a tragic chain reaction that has affected many of Gaza’s one and a half million residents. When a factory is forced to shut down because it can’t import or export, it doesn’t just affect the employees who lose their jobs – entire families relying on that salary also lose out, becoming dependent on humanitarian aid.”
He said that in recent months, Israel had allowed in an increasing number of food items, such as coriander, jam, biscuits and other sweets:
“While this is certainly welcomed, what Gaza needs most are jobs, raw materials for reconstruction and for industry, and the ability to export – not just short-term aid and consumer products like jam that, without a job, they can’t afford to buy.
“The civilian population has been kept just above the bar of a humanitarian crisis. It is trapped in a crisis of dignity that the international community must help resolve.”
Oxfam said Israel currently allows about 100 types of items into Gaza, compared with more than 4,000 before the blockade.
Meanwhile, a ban on political delegations entering Gaza angered Euro-MPs in Brussels today.
The Israeli embassy in Brussels has advised the European Parliament that Israel will no longer “facilitate the entry of political delegations to Gaza”.
The same ban applies to British MPs.
The Israeli letter to all MEPs said the accumulation of political visits “not only undermines Israel’s security but also undermines the efforts of the Palestinian Authority to lead the Palestinian people to peace”.
UK Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies, who has been to Gaza four times, said: “I’m not surprised that Israel wants to keep politicians away from Gaza: every time one visits they return horrified at the results of policies that leave more than a million people undergoing collective punishment.”
Mr Davies, a member of the European Parliament’s Palestine Delegation, urged the British Government to open direct talks with Hamas – described in the Israeli letter as a “brutal terrorist organisation which openly calls for Israel’s destruction and appears on the EU’s list of terrorist organisations”.
Mr Davies responded: “I don’t agree with the policies of Hamas but the organisation cannot be ignored. The new British Government should follow the recent lead of the Russian president and meet with their representatives face to face.
“You cannot make peace without talking to your enemies.”
June 9, 2010
Tony Blair said Israel has his full support
Tony Blair has said in an interview that Israel has the right to check supplies that are sent into Gaza.
Speaking on Israeli television, the former British prime minister and Middle East Quartet envoy said the Gaza blockade should be lifted but “when it comes to security, I am one hundred per cent on Israel’s side.”
Mr Blair added: “There’s no question that there are rockets fired from Gaza and that there are people in Gaza who want to kill innocent Israelis.
“Israel has the right to inspect what goes into Gaza.”
He also said that any probe into the clashes between pro-Palestinian activists and the Israel navy should be “full and impartial”.
Mr Blair reiterated concerns about Iran gaining nuclear weapons. “That is not something we should contemplate or allow,” he said.
Poland to rule within month on extraditing alleged Mossad man suspected of obtaining forged passport for January assassination of Hamas leader.
Tags: Israel news Israel Mossad Dubai assassination
Polish prosecutors will ask a Warsaw court to heed Germany’s request to extradite an Israeli man wanted there in connection with the Dubai assassination of a top Hamas official, a prosecutor spokesman said Monday.
The spokesman said prosecutors were not taking politics into consideration, but were acting in accordance with procedures, according to the Polish Press Agency.
An Israeli citizen using the name Uri Brodksy was arrested in Poland over the weekend on suspicion of fraudulently obtaining a German passport believed to have been used by a member of the hit squad that killed Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room in January.
A spokesman for the Polish court said earlier Monday that justices were to rule within a month whether to extradite the suspected Mossad agent in connection with the assassination.
Dubai has accused Israel of being behind the killing and provided the names of more than two dozen alleged members of a team it says tracked and killed the Palestinian, using fraudulent British, Irish, French, German and Australian passports.
Israel has neither confirmed nor denied any role in the assassination, prompting international indignation.
“The man sought by Germany was detained a week ago. He will be held for up to 40 days and during this time the court will have to rule whether to extradite him,” said Wojciech Malek, a spokesman for the Warsaw district court.
A spokesman in the Polish foreign ministry said there had been no formal request from Israel that its citizen be allowed to return home.
A spokesman for the German justice ministry declined to comment on the case, but said EU rules mandated that extraditions take place within 40 days of an arrest.
Mabhouh, born in the Gaza Strip, had lived in Syria since 1989 and Israeli and Palestinian sources have said he played a key role in smuggling Iranian-funded arms to militants in Gaza.
Australia and Britain have both ordered the expulsion of some Israeli diplomats over the use of fake passports in the assassination.
