Breaking news!
Just announced – Cambridge University Israel Society cancels Benny Morris’s lecture!
The Cambridge University Israel Society have cancelled a talk by former Cambridge student Benny Morris after pressure from students.
The political historian, who was due to speak at Catz, has been accused in the press of ‘Islamophobia’. The decision to cancel the talk was made by Israel Society after a letter was sent to CUSU signed by over a dozen University employees and students, including committee members of the CU Islamic Society, and English Faculty staff. The letter called on CUSU to “reassure the university’s Muslim students” by condemning the talk, asking “What would happen if a registered CU society invited someone to speak who was on record speaking like this about the ‘Jewish mentality’, or who described British descendents of Caribbean immigrants as a ‘dangerous threat’ that has ‘penetrated’ the West?”
King’s student, Jamie Stern-Weiner led a campaign on Facebook to have the talk cancelled. The group, which today had 40 members, described the invitation extended to Morris as “offensive and appalling” and questioned why “an official student society would want to invite such an individual”.
Stern-Weiner said “This is not a political issue, it’s about making a clear stand against hateful opinions and the impact they have on the atmosphere on campus.” Such “hateful opinions” include Morris’s belief that ethnic cleansing can be justified when dealing with Muslims and Palestinians.
In an interview in 2004 he said that Palestinians should be “contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us. Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.” Other controversial remarks include the following, printed in his book One State, Two States:
“Arabs, to put it simply, proportionally commit far more crimes… [and] lethal traffic violations than do Jews. In large measure, this is a function of different value systems (such as the respect accorded to human life and the rule of law)”.
The Israel society posted an update on their website following the cancellation, stating “We want to clarify that the intention of the Society was never to give racism a platform”. They also apologised for any “unintended” offence caused to university members and antiracism campaigners.
Excellent article by Avi Shlaim about the famous war criminal, Tony Blair, who protects the other war criminals in Israel:
Blair: Gaza’s great betrayer: The Guardian
It’s more than a year since Israel launched its immoral attack on Gaza and Palestinians are still living on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. So what has Tony Blair done to further peace in the region? Virtually nothing, argues the historian Avi Shlaim
The savage attack Israel unleashed against Gaza on 27 December 2008 was both immoral and unjustified. Immoral in the use of force against civilians for political purposes. Unjustified because Israel had a political alternative to the use of force. The home-made Qassam rockets fired by Hamas militants from Gaza on Israeli towns were only the excuse, not the reason for Operation Cast Lead. In June 2008, Egypt had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters. When Hamas retaliated, Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks as the excuse for launching its insane offensive. If all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from Qassam rockets, it only needed to observe the ceasefire.
While the war failed in its primary aim of regime change in Gaza, it left behind a trail of death, devastation, destruction and indescribable human suffering. Israel lost 13 people, three in so-called friendly fire. The Palestinian death toll was 1,387, including 773 civilians (115 women and 300 children), and more than 5,300 people were injured. The entire population of 1.5 million was left traumatised. Across the Gaza Strip, 3,530 homes were completely destroyed, 2,850 severely damaged and 11,000 suffered structural damage.
The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, tending to the needs of four million Palestinian refugees, stated that Gaza had been “bombed back, not to the Stone Age, but to the mud age”; its inhabitants reduced to building homes from mud after the fierce 22-day offensive.
War crimes were committed and possibly even crimes against humanity, documented in horrific detail in Judge Richard Goldstone’s report for the UN human rights council. The report condemned both Israel and Hamas, but reserved its strongest criticism for Israel, accusing it of deliberately targeting and terrorising civilians in Gaza. The British government did not take part in the vote on the report, sending a signal to the hawks in Israel that they can continue to disregard the laws of war. Gordon Brown’s 2007 appointment as a patron of the Jewish National Fund UK presumably played a part in the adoption of this pusillanimous position.
One year on, the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas on earth, continues to teeter on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza, in force since June 2007, restricts the flow not only of arms but also food, fuel and medical supplies to well below the minimum necessary for normal, everyday life. Reconstruction work has hardly begun because of the Israeli ban on bringing in cement and other building materials to Gaza. Thousands of families still live in the ruins of their former homes. Hospitals, health facilities, schools, government buildings and mosques cannot be rebuilt. Nor can the basic infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, including Gaza City’s sewage disposal plant. Today, 80% of Gaza’s population remain dependent on food aid, 43% are unemployed, and 70% live on less than $1 a day.
Meanwhile, the so-called peace process cannot be revived because Israel refuses to freeze settlement expansion on the West Bank. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently agreed to a temporary freeze of 10 months, but this does not apply to the 3,000 pre-approved housing units to be built on the West Bank or to any part of Greater Jerusalem. It’s like two men negotiating the division of a pizza while one continues to gobble it up.
Politically, the disjunction between words and deeds persists. Appeals to the Israeli government to lift or relax the blockade of Gaza were not backed up by effective pressure or the threat of sanctions. In fact, the only effective pressure was applied by the US on the Egyptian government – to seal its border with Gaza. Egypt has its own reason for complying: Hamas is ideologically allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic opposition to the Egyptian regime. The tunnels under the border separating Egypt from the Gaza Strip bring food and material relief to the people under siege. Yet, under US supervision and with the help of US army engineers, Egypt is building an 18-metre-deep underground steel wall to disrupt the tunnels and tighten the blockade.
The wall of shame, as Egyptians call it, will complete the transformation of Gaza into an open-air prison. It is the cruellest example of the concerted Israeli-Egyptian-US policy to isolate and prevent Hamas from leading the Palestinian struggle for self-determi nation. Hamas is habitually dismissed by its enemies as a purely terrorist organisation. Yet no one can deny that it won a fair and free election in the West Bank as well as Gaza in January 2006. Moreover, once Hamas gained power through the ballot box, its leaders adopted a more pragmatic stand towards Israel than that enshrined in its charter, repeatedly expressing its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire. But there was no one to talk to on the Israeli side.
Israel adamantly refused to recognise the Hamas-led government. The US and the European Union followed, resorting to economic sanctions in a vain attempt to turn the people against their elected leaders. This cannot possibly bring security or stability because it is based on the denial of the most elementary human rights of the people of Gaza and the collective political rights of the Palestinian people. Through its special relationship with the US and its staunch support for Israel, the British government is implicated in this shameful policy.
At present the British public is preoccupied with Tony Blair and the war in Iraq. What is often overlooked is that this was only one aspect of a disastrous British policy towards the Middle East, inaugurated by Blair, and which shows no sign of changing under his successor.
One of Blair’s arguments used to justify the Iraq war was that it would help bring justice to the long-suffering Palestinians. In his House of Commons speech on 18 March 2003, he promised that action against Iraq would form part of a broader engagement with the problems of the Middle East. He even declared that resolving the Israeli- Palestinian dispute was as important to Middle East peace as removing Saddam Hussein from power.
Yet by focusing international attention on Iraq, the war further marginalised the Palestinian question. To be fair, Blair persuaded the Quartet (a group consisting of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia) to issue the Roadmap in 2003, which called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2005. But President George Bush was not genuinely committed and only adopted it under pressure from his allies. Ariel Sharon, Israel’s hard-line prime minister at the time, wrecked the plan by continuing to expand Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Could Blair really not have realised that for Bush the special relationship that counted was the one with Israel? Every time Bush had to choose between Blair and Sharon, he chose Sharon.
Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 was not a contribution to the Roadmap but an attempt to unilaterally redraw the borders of Greater Israel and part of a plan to entrench the occupation there. Yet in return for the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon extracted from the US a written agreement to Israel’s retention of the major settlement blocs on the West Bank. Bush’s support amounted to an abrupt reversal of US policy since 1967, which regarded the settlements as illegal and as an obstacle to peace. Blair publicly endorsed the pact, probably to preserve a united Anglo-American front at any price. It was the most egregious British betrayal of the Palestinians since the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
In July 2006, at the height of the savage Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, Blair opposed a security council resolution for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire: he wanted to give Israel an opportunity to destroy Hezbollah, the radical Shi’ite religious-political movement. One year later, in June 2007, he resigned from office. That day he was appointed the Quartet’s special envoy to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. His main sponsor was Bush and his blatant partisanship on behalf of Israel was probably considered a qualification. His appointment coincided with the collapse of the Palestinian national unity government, the reassertion of Fatah rule in the West Bank and the violent seizure of power by Hamas in Gaza.
Blair’s main tasks were to mobilise international assistance for the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, to promote good governance and the rule of law in the Palestinian territories, and to further Palestinian economic development. His broader mission, was “to promote an end to the conflict in conformity with the Roadmap”.
On taking up his appointment, Blair said that: “The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community – that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution.” His appointment was received with great satisfaction by the Israelis and with utter dismay by the Arabs.
In his two and a half years as special envoy, Blair has achieved remarkably little. True, Blair helped persuade the Israelis to reduce the number of West Bank checkpoints from 630 to 590; he helped to create employment oppor tunities; and he may have contributed to a slight improvement in living standards in Palestine. But the Americans remained fixated on security rather than on economic development, and their policy remains skewed in favour of Israel. Barack Obama made a promising start as president by insisting on a complete settlement freeze on the West Bank, but was compelled to back down, dashing many of our high hopes.
One reason for Blair’s disappointing results is that he wears too many hats and cannot, as he promised, be “someone who is on the ground spending 24/7 on the issue”. Another reason is his “West Bank first” attitude – continuing the western policy of bolstering Fatah and propping up the ailing Palestinian Authority against Hamas. His lack of commitment to Gaza is all too evident. During the Gaza war, he did not call for a ceasefire. He has one standard for Israel and one for its victims. His attitude to Gaza is to wait for change rather than risk incurring the displeasure of his American and Israeli friends. As envoy, Blair has been inside Gaza only twice; once to visit a UN school just beyond the border and once to Gaza City. His project for sanitation in northern Gaza was never completed because he could not persuade the Israelis to allow in the last small load of pipes needed. A growing group of western politicians has publicly acknowledged the necessity of talking to Hamas if meaningful progress is to be achieved; Blair is not one of their number.
Blair has totally failed to fulfil the official role of the envoy “to promote an end to the conflict in conformity with the Roadmap”, largely for reasons beyond his control. The most important of these is Israel’s determination to perpetuate the isolation and the de-development of Gaza and deny the Palestinian people a small piece of land – 22% of Mandate-era Palestine, to be precise – on which to live in freedom and dignity. It is a policy that Baruch Kimmerling, the late Israeli sociologist, named ”politicide” – the denial to the Palestinian people of any independent political existence in Palestine.
Partly, however, Blair’s failure is due to his own personal limitations; his inability to grasp that the fundamental issue in this tragic conflict is not Israeli security but Palestinian national rights, and that concerted and sustained international pressure is required to compel Israel to recognise these rights. The core issue cannot be avoided: there can be no settlement of the conflict without an end to the Israeli occupation. There is international consensus for a two-state solution, but Israel rejects it and Blair has been unable or unwilling to use the Quartet to enforce it.
Blair’s failure to stand up for Palestinian independence is precisely what endears him to the Israeli establishment. In February of last year, while the Palestinians in Gaza were still mourning their dead, Blair received the Dan David prize from Tel Aviv University as the “laureate for the present time dimension in the field of leadership”. The citation praised him for his “exceptional intelligence and foresight, and demonstrated moral courage and leadership”. The prize is worth $1m. I may be cynical, but I cannot help viewing this prize as absurd, given Blair’s silent complicity in Israel’s continuing crimes against the Palestinian people.
Avi Shlaim is professor of international relations at St Antony’s College, Oxford, and the author of Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations (Verso, 2009). His fee for this article has been donated to Medical Aid for Palestine
Gaza’s fishermen look to farms, not the sea: BBC
It is six in the morning at the main port in Gaza City and the sun’s not yet up. From the town itself the call to prayer rings out over the water. A pink sky slowly creeps out over the minarets and tower blocks.
It’s early but for the fishermen of Gaza City it’s all hands on deck. The first boats are just coming in.
Fishermen like Hamid Saleh cannot fish more than three miles from shore
Weather-worn workers unload crates of shrimps, crabs and sardines on to waiting donkeys and carts.
The trouble is, the catch is not what it used to be.
There’s virtually nothing weighing more than a kilo and lots of the fish are much smaller than that.
“Since the Israelis stopped us fishing more than three miles out, fishing has been very hard,” says Hamid Saleh, whose family has fished here for four generations.
“Fishing now is very weak. But what else can I do? It’s all I know. There’s nothing else to do here.”
In 2000 Israel introduced restrictions on the areas Palestinians could fish in.
Up until then the fishermen of Gaza used to go out into deeper waters up to 20 miles (32km) from the shore.
For the past 10 years they’ve been able to fish only a narrow stretch of water up to three miles (4.8km) out or risk being fired on by the Israeli navy boats that patrol the coast.
Israel says the restrictions are necessary to stop weapons being smuggled into Gaza.
Thousands of rockets have been fired by Palestinian militants from Gaza into Israel over the past decade.
For the fishermen of Gaza though, the restrictions have meant the limited area they can fish in is virtually fished out.
“There used to be 6,000 fishermen in Gaza catching 3,000 tonnes of fish a year. Much of it was exported to Israel. Now there are just a couple of hundred fishermen left,” says local economist Omar Shaban, director of the Gaza-based Palestinian think tank PAL-Think.
Mr Shaban says the fishing industry has been hit hard by the Israeli economic blockade that started in 2007 because Palestinians can no longer export fish out of Gaza.
It has also made it hard to import fish to make up for the lack of stocks in the sea.
Israel says the blockade is necessary to put pressure on the Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza.
Partial solution
Far fewer fish are now imported from Israel and many fish are having to be smuggled in through the tunnels from Egypt.
For many Gazans, with their long history of fishing, the idea of bringing fish to Gaza is a little akin to taking tea to China.
Now though, there could be at least a partial solution – fish farms.
Gazans have tried farming fish before, but many farms were destroyed during last year’s major offensive by Israel.
Through necessity they are beginning to thrive again.
“There are no fish in the sea,” says Suhail Khail, who has a small fish farm just south of Gaza City.
“I asked myself how can we solve this problem and the only answer was fish farms.”
Mr Khail is standing next to two huge tanks which each contain 10,000 fish.
He pulls out a net and plunges it into the water scooping out three or four small orange fish.
“These are red tilapia,” he beams. “They need a couple more months and then they will be ready to sell.”
Each month Mr Khail says he produces and sells around 500kg of farmed fish.
Changing tastes?
“I expect the fish farming sector to grow,” says economist Omar Shaban.
“Good fish from the sea is now too expensive because of the restrictions applied by Israel. Fish from the sea has become a luxury food and farmed fish is much cheaper,” he says.
“We need to support and invest in the fish farming sector but if the Israeli blockade continues it will be difficult because fish farming relies on lots of technology in order to succeed and it is hard for the farmers to get the equipment they need because of that blockade.”
The question is will the fish connoisseurs of Gaza be able to turn their tastes to farmed fish?
“Psychologically as a fisherman I cannot bring myself to eat farmed fish,” says Munir Abu Hassira, who owns one of the most popular fish restaurants in Gaza City.
“I like the unique taste of the ocean and seafish is better for you.”
Omar Shaban is not so sure, though.
“I prefer fish from the sea, but I can’t really tell the difference. It all depends on how your wife cooks it,” he laughs.
But Mr Shaban says the Israeli blockade limiting the amount of fish that can be imported, coupled with the restrictions on where Gazans can fish, mean that in the future “there may be no choice other than farmed fish”.
Al Jazeera TV has compiled an excellent series of reports for the first anniversary of the attack, and over the next few days I will include here a selection of those:
What the Gaza war meant for Israel: Al Jazeera online
By Orly Halpern
Some Israelis feel the war on Gaza should not have ended without the release of Gilad Shalit [EPA]
Omri Buson says his “blood boils” every time he hears about the negotiations between Hamas and Israel over the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
From his point of view, Israel should have never ended last year’s military offensive on Gaza without Shalit’s return.
“We needed to hurt them and not have mercy … to destroy every house till [we] found that soldier,” says Buson, who dropped out of law school to open clothing shops in Jerusalem.
He admits that his views have become “very extreme in the last year because of the war”.
But he is not alone. Israeli Knesset members have expressed similar views.
Operation devastation
The Israeli military offensive named Operation Cast Lead killed more than 1,400 Palestinians, more than 1,000 of them civilians, including 400 children.
Thirteen Israelis were also killed, three of them civilians.
Its declared goals were to “Bring Gilad Home” and to stop Qassam rocket attacks on Israel. It ended after 22 days due to international pressure on Israel.
Despite the high number of civilian Palestinian casualties, most Israelis consider the operation a success because, although Shalit did not “come home”, the rockets stopped.
War against protests
Now, one year since Operation Cast Lead, not only have the so-called red lines for what you can do to your enemy moved dangerously forward, but so have the lines of what the government can do its own people.
Israeli polls and surveys reveal that Israeli society and government are less tolerant than ever of views that oppose the government stance, which is held by the mainstream.
Last month the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) revealed an alarming trend in its annual survey on the protection of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories – the conditioning of rights.
“The realisation of the entire spectrum of rights is now more than ever dependent on what we say or believe, what ethnic group we belong to, how much money we have, and more,” says the ACRI.
“We have the freedom to express ourselves and demonstrate – only if we don’t say anything displeasing; we have the right to equal treatment and opportunities – only if we are “loyal” to the state.”
In the streets, the Israeli security forces are waging a war against protests by Jewish left wing and human rights activists, who non-violently protest against Israel’s separation barrier or against Jewish settlers taking over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.
Many have been arrested and some were attacked by the security forces.
However, right-wingers protesting against the government’s decision to temporarily freeze building in settlements are accorded much more leniency by Israeli law enforcement agencies.
During Operation Cast Lead about 800 Israeli citizens, most of them Arab, were arrested, with criminal charges brought against most of them.
In a recent editorial, the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz called the arrests “an evil omen regarding the state’s attitude toward protesters” and said that as a result, “concern is growing over Israel’s image as a free and democratic country”.
‘Moral bankruptcy’
Right wing protesters have been treated more leniently than those on the left [EPA]
The infringement on the rights of Jewish Israelis comes as no surprise to Neve Gordon, an Israeli political science professor at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev.
“The war itself revealed the moral bankruptcy of Israel because if we look back we see the vast majority killed were citizens including hundreds of children,” said Gordon, who has been under attack for his criticism of Israel and most recently for his call for an international boycott on his country until it ends the occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
“I don’t think it’s good for the morality of the country to kill children.”
Buson disagrees: “If it were up to me I would close the water and electricity [to Gaza] until they return Gilad. Let them starve and die.”
He says he opposes a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas. “I’d rather Shalit die there than do a deal with Hamas.
“It’s not about one soldier’s life. It’s about deterrence. They need to understand with whom they are dealing. Our deterrence was damaged after the second Lebanon war. Now we got it back.”
‘Lesson through force’
Indeed many Israelis were more concerned about ‘teaching the other side a lesson’ by using overwhelming force, than with the hundreds of dead civilians and the devastating destruction of infrastructure.
For the Israeli political leadership, military and much of the Israeli public, the Gaza war, as Israelis refer to it, was about scaring the other side into submission, so that it will not dare to hurt Israel again. And, many believe, that was what Israel succeeded in doing.
Yehuda Shaul, the co-director of Breaking the Silence, the Israeli human rights organisation that collects the testimonies of soldiers about abuses committed while serving in the Occupied Territories, says: “What I find most disturbing is that the military and most Israelis perceive [the war on Gaza] as a great success. They don’t recognise the price tag.”
“And the fact that the military sees it as a great success means that the second round will be similar,” Shaul adds.
Shaul’s organisation was attacked by the office of the Israeli military spokesperson, but he nevertheless hopes that some Israelis recognise the gravity of their actions.
He points to the poll by Tel Aviv University’s War and Peace Index.
When testimonies from soldiers were published soon after the war, few Israelis believed them, according to the index. But when Breaking the Silence published its report of chilling testimonies in July, the War and Peace Index found that the numbers who believed the testimonies rose from about 20 per cent to 43 per cent.
‘Cast Lead II’
Still, the overwhelming majority of Israelis (76 per cent) saw no need to reinvestigate the operation in light of the testimonies. The pollsters believe that because of the prevailing view that the campaign was moderately or very successful (79 per cent), “the Israeli Jewish public is reluctant to deal with the question of its moral and human cost”.
Some Israelis who supported the war see it very differently.
Marek Glezerman, the director of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department at Rabin Medical Center, says: “I thought it should be a short operation to stop the rockets.”
“But it turned it to be a full blown war without concern for the other side and that leaves a very bad feeling,” adds the doctor who is a friend and colleague of the Gaza doctor Ezzedin Abouelaish.
Glezerman believes that the quiet from the Gaza Strip is temporary: “The violence will come back. But at what price? It has not brought us closer to peace.”
Meanwhile, some Israelis are talking about when Operation Cast Lead II will begin.
Displaced and desperate in Gaza: Al Jazeera online
By Safa Joudeh in Gaza
A year after the war, many displaced families still live in tents [GALLO/GETTY]
One year has passed since the beginning of Operation Cast lead, Israel’s 22-day military assault on the besieged Gaza Strip and suspended is a word that best describes daily life in the Strip; the internal reconciliation process, peace talks with Israel, and most importantly, reconstruction being halted until further notice.
On the street, conversations shift between two topics: The first is the ‘internal peace process’ between rival parties Fatah and Hamas. The other is a possible, even partial opening of the borders by Israel to allow rebuilding to begin; a topic alluded to casually with much cynicism and little hope.
Israeli ground and air raids between December 27, 2008 and January 17, 2009 left extensive damage and mass devastation in its wake.
Factories, businesses, public service buildings, farms, mosques and schools were targeted, hundreds destroyed or damaged. About 15,000 homes were either demolished or severely damaged.
One year later and 20,000 people are still displaced, living with relatives, or in makeshift shacks. Many of them have almost resigned themselves to living in temporary accommodations permanently.
‘Help is not coming’
Abu Subhi, a resident of Beit Lahi, is one of thousands who received a tent from the Red Cross, following the destruction of his home during the war on Gaza.
Today, his tent serves as an extra room to an adjoining shack he built from wooden planks and corrugated iron sheets to house his family.
“I used to have a home and six children. My oldest son was killed in the war and I lost my home. It has been one year and all I’ve gained is the knowledge that help is not coming. The siege before the war was brutal. The siege after the war is pure evil,” he says.
And while a small number of displaced families remain in tents, shacks like Abu Subhi’s have sprung up on the sites of demolished homes all over the Strip.
The few who can afford it have rented apartments, but in one year not one single house has been rebuilt.
Nevertheless, there have been efforts on the part of international NGOs to prepare for the reconstruction of public and private buildings.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a rubble removal project that discarded 600,000 tonnes of rubble left over after the war, as part of its early recovery process.
Frustration and despair
The images of the mounds of rubble in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, one of the areas most heavily hit during the war, became representative of the scale of the destruction left behind.
Today, the same areas of this neighbourhood have been cleared, and where residents hoped new homes would be built, shacks, trailers and even mud houses have been erected.
According to a report issued by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the damage to the civilian infrastructure after the war equals four times the size of the Gaza economy.
Over $4bn were pledged by the international community for reconstruction in March.
The reconstruction process would not only put the Strip on the road to recovery, but would also provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in a multitude of sectors, and assist in decreasing the unprecedented 60 per cent unemployment rate.
But, the continued indefinite delay has created an overwhelming sense of frustration and despair among Gazans.
‘Downhill from rock bottom‘
At least 20,000 people were displaced by Israel’s war on Gaza [EPA] In the vegetable market in Gaza City vendors arrange and rearrange their produce, occasionally catering to the odd customer; a far cry from the hustle and bustle of what was once one of the liveliest areas in Gaza.
Raafat Hijazi supports a family of 15, his wife and three daughters, in addition to 11 nephews and nieces whose parents – Rafaat’s brothers and their wives – were killed during the Israeli aggression.
Raafat considers himself fortunate. Although business is slow, there will always be customers to buy his fruit and vegetables.
“Before the war we thought it could not get any worse. But despite the siege, things weren’t as bleak as they are now. You really can go downhill from rock bottom. At most only 10 truckloads of produce are allowed in through the Israeli controlled crossings,” he says.
This is compared to 70 truckloads during the two year blockade preceding the war on Gaza; already only 25 per cent of the amount required to meet the needs of the population.
Paying tunnel prices
But the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt are yet again a means to make up the shortages of produce in the market.
Items such as oranges and Guava are now being brought in through the tunnels.
But Raafat points out that the prices are so high, shoppers prefer not to waste money on what they call ‘luxury items’ such as fruit.
“By the time the produce, or any other items, make it to the stalls and shelves in the market they cost three or four times as much as they typically should,” he explains.
The same goes for items ranging from fish and cattle, to electronics, clothing and fuel, each ranging in the disparity between original price and tunnel price.
On one hand, the tunnels allow for the entry of necessities that would otherwise not be available, on the other tunnel trade is costly to both merchants and customers.
During the past 12 months the amount and range of items brought in through the tunnels has increased significantly, a development resulting directly from Israel’s tightening of the siege on the Strip.
Today, 15 per cent of food requirements in the Gaza Strip are being met by items that come in through tunnels, and yet 76 per cent of the population has become food insecure, as opposed to 53 per cent before the war.
‘Dying a slow death’
But despite ingenuity in dealing with the challenges posed by the continued blockade, Israel’s war on the Strip, resulted in billions of dollars worth of damage to the civilian infrastructure, which was already suffering major breakdowns following a two year blockade before the war.
One year later, electricity, water and sanitation systems not only fall short of providing the residents of the Strip with the minimum supply required for each household, but are also on the verge of collapse.
One fifth of the Gaza shore is polluted due to improper disposal of waste water into the sea. The waste water system sustained extensive during the war, and one year later there have been no repairs or maintenance.
A large portion of the costal area in Gaza is not fit for swimming or fishing, depriving Gazans of one of their only recreational outlets and most important industries.
But the majority of the population believes that this is the lesser of two evils.
In the town of Khan Younes in the central Gaza Strip locals are only too familiar with the occurrence of sewage water flooding their streets and even their homes.
Nabil Shakshak, a schoolteacher and father of three, lives only metres away from a sewage lake, created as a temporary holding place for the neighbourhood’s waste water until reconstruction of a waste water treatment plant can begin.
“This is a health and environment hazard,” he says. “My children are constantly sick, the ground, air and water we drink is contaminated.”
“What we don’t understand is that the resources, the funding, the workers, the skill, it’s all there. We’re dying a slow death because Israel chooses to say no repairs can be made. Someone explain this to my children.”
Nabil’s sentiments are not uncommon among the population of the Gaza Strip.
Many also believe that until the international community actively takes a stand against Israel’s collective punishment measures, Israel will never allow the rebuilding process to begin.
IDF estimates security fence to be completed in 2020: Ynet
Army largely satisfied with fence around West Bank that will bring new decade low in number of forces deployed in territories. Soldiers in compulsory service will be given time for training and number of reservists will be reduced. Fears of terrorist infiltrations near Mount Hebron
On the one hand, many of the central sections have been completed, which will result in an additional decrease in human resources deployed in the area. On the other hand, a number of regions, mainly those near South Mount Hebron where ground has yet to be broken, are likely to become fertile ground for terrorist cells.
From the IDF’s perspective, the good news is that in the upcoming year, the fence will be built up along the western route near the Jerusalem vicinity. By the end of 2010, there will be continuous fence from Tirat Zvi from the north, through Ein Yael to Metzudat Yehuda.
A senior IDF official said Tuesday that the fence has played a significant part in the decline in IDF companies deployed against terrorism. This upcoming year will see an additional decrease when the human resources deployed in the arena will reach a decade low. This will afford the IDF much more flexibility in training soldiers in the compulsory service and a reduction of reservist operational deployments.
The less encouraging news is that the entire fence project is not slated to be completed until 2020 – in other words, 18 years after the Sharon government decided to put it into action.
This includes all parameters, from the legal controversies, the problematic sections of the fence’s route that will likely anger the US, budgetary issues, and even the understanding that a central part of the fence has already been completed – a point that is not universally agreed upon within the IDF.
Will Americans delay process?
The fence’s route has undergone no small number of changes and corrections, some of which have already been made and other which are still being discussed in the High Court. Up until now, more than 500 km (about 310 miles) have been built. Another dozen or so kilometers will be completed by the end of the year.
But completing the entire length of the fence, which will stretch along some 810 km (about 503 miles), seems pretty far off.
The pace of building has slowed notably in the past two years, mainly due to budget problems and disputes with the American administration regarding sections meant to include the settlement blocs.
There are currently legal proceedings under way regarding some of the sections of the fence. Another issue on the table is the environmental one relevant to the sections near South Mount Hebron. A kind of dialogue is being conducted between the environmental organizations regarding the fence’s route and its characteristics. In addition, budgetary issues have arisen that have slowed any real progress from occurring.
The IDF believes that delaying the construction of the fence in this area (which amounts to some 60 km, or 37 miles) will result in attempts by terrorist cells to send terrorists into Israel via this section, as occurred in the terrorist attack in Dimona in February 2008 that was dispatched from the South Mount Hebron region.
Some background notes by Haim Bresheeth
The Orwellian machine never stops in Israel, demising any and every Palestinian act, action, intention and statement, a total instrument of war-mongering. The Israeli media is an integral part of this machine, in the same way that the white media was an integral and crucial part of the apartheid system in South Africa. Currently, the media in Israel is preparing the public for three military adventure:
1. Cast Lead II – a repeat performance in Gaza, making life in Gaza even more impossible, and turning gaza into a proper concentration camp
2. Iran – under the guise of destroying Iran’s nuclear capability, actually destroying Iran military and civilian infrastructure, and sending Iran, a modern and technologised nation, back to the middle ages. This will serve US interests in the middle east, where the growig power of Iran is threatening the tottering regimes of the Gulf
3. Hizbullah in Lebanon – a side swipe at Iran through its satellite in Lebanon, as it is seen by Israel. To weaken Lebanon is a major policy target of Israel since the 1970s. A strong democracy in Lebanon is bad news for Israel, as would be any other strong democracy in the middle east.
The preparations for those attacks are not only military – the media propagates in true Orwellian manner, the universities and research centers run strategic ‘studies’ and ‘seminars’, all designed to justify and contextualize such attacks, and the whole social structure is gearing up for this madness with abandon. We will ignore such preparations at our peril, in Europe and elsewhere, where our own governments are part of the master plan. This plan, despite Obama’s sham speech in Cairo, is still the Bush II plan, based closely on the Huntigton ‘Clash of Civilizations’ sickening and poisonous thesis. Below is just one example of how it is done in Israel:
New threat from Gaza: Ynet
Ron Ben Yishai
Sunday’s botched terror attack shows Palestinian effort to develop new capabilities
The explosive devices uncovered Sunday on the Ashdod and Ashkelon beaches apparently got there in the framework of a test undertaken by several Palestinian groups in the aims of developing maritime warfare capabilities. Despite what a senior terror figure told Ynet, it’s unreasonable to believe that the attempted attack was a well-organized act of revenge for the assassination of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. It is also hard to believe that the Palestinians indeed attempted to targeted an oil rig.
The attempted attack got underway on Friday. Navy vessels spotted two explosions at sea, about two kilometers away from Israel’s shores. Two days later, two explosive devices were washed ashore. The northern one reached Ashdod, while the southern one reached Ashkelon.
As far as we know, the explosive devices uncovered on shore had no engine. Hence, it is unreasonable to assume that the masterminds of the attempted attack intended to hit a specific target, as these “explosive barrels” lacked any navigation or homing means.
As result of the devices’ heavy weight, it would be unreasonable for a swimmer to drag them or push them ahead of him for a long distance. However, there is a possibility that Palestinian organizations were able to acquire small underwater vessels that enable them to move explosive devices weighing 80 kilograms. However, such vessels are hard to acquire, and in any case there is no information about their availability to terror groups in Gaza.
The most reasonable possibility is that the attack masterminds did not intend to hit a specific target for the time being, but rather, wanted to check whether the water current can be used at certain times in order to direct bombs to Israel’s shores or towards Israeli Navy vessels patrolling the area.
Friday’s explosions may have been meant to draw Israeli ships to the area, and the bombs that eventually washed ashore may have been meant to hit these vessels.
All of the above possibilities are being looked into, yet for the time being the maritime sabotage capabilities in the Gaza Strip are likely at a very early stage. In the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, the Fatah and other Palestinian groups had maritime forces operating from Lebanon that included commandos, ships, booby-trapped boats, and mines. Today, Hezbollah has a maritime fighting force that uses similar means. Gaza groups may now be attempting to also develop similar capabilities, possibly with Hezbollah’s assistance.
Harassing Arab MKs: Haaretz Editorial
The decision to remove Said Naffaa’s parliamentary immunity, like the decision to prosecute the Balad MK to begin with, is unwarranted, harmful and smacks of political persecution based on nationality.
MK Naffaa went to Syria in 2007 at the head of a delegation of Druze clergy who wanted to make a pilgrimage to their holy sites. The grave indictment against Naffaa says that while there, he met with the deputy chairman of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (Ahmed Jibril’s group), and also visited the offices of Khaled Meshal, who heads Hamas’ political wing. As a result, he is charged with visiting an enemy country and making contact with a foreign agent. Naffaa denies that these meetings took place.
Advertisement
Naffaa is not the first Arab lawmaker to go to an Arab country, and prosecuting him seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat, in order to warn off others: Let the Druze be warned that they must not radicalize their positions, and let all Arab MKs be warned that the state is watching their actions closely and seeks to prevent them from visiting Arab countries. After all, no one suspects Naffaa of conveying security-related information to the enemy or aiding and abetting terrorist activities.
The Druze clergymen’s trip to Syria, where many of their community live, is essentially no different than any other pilgrimage, such as the one thousands of Jews routinely make to Egypt to prostrate themselves on the grave of Rabbi Yaakov Abuhatzeira. And the handshake between MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) and Syrian President Bashar Assad in Paris a year ago is no different than the handshake between Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beiteinu) and his Iranian counterpart in Spain.
Instead of calling on Arab lawmakers to act as a bridge between Israel and the Arab world, Israel puts them on trial under a law that should never have been passed in the first place. The law barring MKs from visiting Arab countries is not merely a harmful one that impedes their efforts to engage in public activity on behalf of their voters. It is also discriminatory, because it is aimed only at them.
Whether the purpose of a visit is to make contacts in Arab countries to help advance the cause of peace, to see relatives, or to make a pilgrimage, the state should give Arab MKs freedom of action and of movement, on condition, of course, that they do not commit security-related offenses.
The struggle within Israeli society about the real meanings of the carnage in Gaza is now only beginning, but it has now got going at last. Below is historian Prof. Ze’ev Tzahor, President of Sapir College facing the Gaza Strip, analysing Netanyahu’s lying discourse:
verbal juggling act: Ynet
Auschwitz speech, response to Goldstone characterized by dishonesty
Ze’ev Tzahor
Two days separated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Auschwitz and Israel’s response to the Goldstone Report. The two texts were very different in terms of their importance, length, and their intended audience. The Netanyahu speech was aimed at the Polish government, which currently holds an important EU status, while Israel’s response to the Goldstone report was meant to appease the UN.
Yet despite the differences, it appears that the same person is responsible for drafting both texts; someone who specializes in verbal deception.
Speaking at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, the greatest extermination facility in history, which was built in Polish territory (and not coincidently) and was operated by Poles, Netanyahu managed to skip the enthusiastic role played by the Poles in the Holocaust. In terms of their dedication to persecuting Jews, turning them over to the Nazis, and their active role in the extermination industry, the Poles were second only to the Germans, and sometimes even more devoted than them to the extermination work.
The murders within Polish territory continued even after the German were defeated. According to estimates, about 1,500 Jews were murdered in independent pogroms approved by the new regime; many of them took place on city streets while an excited Polish crowd cheered on. The Righteous Gentiles among them were few, at the very margins of society.
Yet the Netanyahu speech aimed to blur this terrible story. The address sought to turn the central theme – that is, the lively popular anti-Semitism – into the margins, while turning the margins of the Righteous Gentiles into the central theme.
No wrongdoing
Israel’s response to the Goldstone Report is premised on the very same verbal juggling act. Israel has declared that it adheres to universal war conventions, but according to these conventions Israel agreed not to use white phosphorous bombs. Were such bombs used in Operation Cast Lead? It’s a trivial question, as all of us saw these bombs being fired, and the results, on television. We saw them time and again even in photos released by the IDF spokesman.
And were hundreds of Palestinian children killed? This time, Israel did not deny. How could it? However, “we found no evidence that would justify a criminal investigation.” The same was true in respect to cases where the IDF fired at medical teams. According to Israel’s response, the judge advocate general launched dozens of thorough investigation, but somehow everything and everyone turned out to be fine.
According to the judge advocate general, thus far authorities have not uncovered even one affair where the army misbehaved. After all, we are the world’s most merciful and most just army and we take the greatest precautions not to hurt civilians. No wrongdoing was found even in the case of the inexplicable fire directed at the home of Gaza doctor Abu al-Ayash and the killing of three of his daughters.
However, in the interest of accuracy and to prove that the IDF indeed does everything to maintain its purity of arms, authorities did uncover one severe case of wrongdoing. They found that a soldier stole a Palestinian’s credit card during the operation. The soldier was tried and punished; apparently, this soldier is our atonement.
At last, Fayyad has woken up from his long hibernation, it seems. It is pity he is speaking at what is Israel’s leading right wing forum. Who is he speaking to? He should speak to the world, not appeal to Israeli generals:
Fayyad: Israel building inside our state: Ynet
Palestinian prime minister addresses Herzliya Conference despite death threats, says Palestinians planning to establish independent state by 2011. Defense Minister Barak speaks before him, says ‘Israel has a silent majority for peace, which leans to the right at the polling stations’
Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Tuesday attended a rare joint discussion about the peace process at the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center.
Fayyad stressed in his address that “the state being built here is Palestinian, and who should build it rather than us? A peace process is needed, because this will lead to the end of the occupation.
In Herzliya conference address, president lauds Palestinian prime minister for his efforts to establish state, slams those calling for bi-national state. ‘There is no country that can hold two nations,’ he says
“We want to be ready for a state which is about to be established, and we are ready to establish it by 2011. We are encouraged because we have made progress in creating an infrastructure in the past two years.”
According to the Palestinian prime minister, “We did not get our rights from the Israelis. I believe it is important that the process of recognizing the Palestinian state will be accepted by the international community. There cannot be peace unless the perception that the Palestinians must have a state is fully accepted.”
He hinted that he expects additional gestures: “Too much time has been invested in issues between the lines and not on the actual matter. We are currently in a situation of political deadlock. There is not practical dialogue. There have not been negotiations for the past 16 years and we have lost a lot of time.
“Instead of returning to the Oslo Accords, we must be led by a way which will make us understand that the occupation is about to withdraw. We need a political horizon which will result in a Palestinian state. We, the Palestinians, want to live next to you, in peace, security and welfare.”
Fayyad addressed the Palestinian Authority’s demand for a complete settlement freeze, clarifying that Israel must evacuate the settlements as part of a permanent agreement.
“The Palestinian state must be built in the areas where the settlements are today. One of the main ways to move forwards towards an implementation of the Road Map is by stopping Israel’s infiltration into territories slated to be part of our state.
“People ask why the Palestinians are making so much noise when it comes to the settlements. The issue is presented in a very materialistic manner, and they are trying to present it in a very simplistic manner. The Palestinians declare that their state must be built exactly on the territories you are building on.”
He left no room for doubt on what those territories include, saying that “east Jerusalem is an integral part of the future state of Palestine.”
Addressing Barak’s remarks as to Israel’s demand for sufficient security arrangements, Fayyad called on the Jewish state to hand over to the PA the security responsibility for additional areas in the territories.
“Security is also a Palestinian interest, not just an Israeli one,” the Palestinian prime minister said. “It’s time to stop the IDF raids. The Palestinians can have an official security presence outside Area A as well.”
He also said that he does not agree with Barak’s statement that the Middle East is a “tough neighborhood”.
“Today this situation has changed,” he said. “If the Palestinians have the right to live in a state of our own alongside the State of Israel, we will be able to guarantee security. I agree with Mr. Barak that there must be stability, security and peace, but I believe that this will not happen unless a Palestinian state is established.”
As for the Hamas control of the Gaza Strip, Fayyad said that “the Palestinian state must be united, and the separation between Gaza and the West Bank must end. I believe that our people must enjoy a sovereign right to hold elections.
He criticized Israel’s policy towards Hamas in Gaza, saying that “the blockade on the Strip is a mistake that must be stopped, and this will help the dynamics in reuniting the state. Continuing the siege will not lead to a positive solution.”
Fayyad concluded by saying that “the people in Israel have a long history of pain and aspirations. We respect that, because we too have experienced pain and suffering throughout history, and our aspiration is to live beside you in peace and harmony.”
Earlier, Defense Minister Barak said in his speech that during his term as prime minister, he had told then-PA Chairman Yasser Arafat and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that “the toughest decisions must be made while facing your people, and (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu will also have to make tough decisions with our public.
“The decisions are tough. Israel has a silent majority in favor of peace, although it leans to the right in the voting station,” he said.
According to Barak, “Under the surface, there has been a change on the Palestinian side as well. Salam Fayyad has brought about a Palestinian entity, concrete and practical thinking about building an economy, institutions and more, and a demand to recognize their results.
“I am a great believer in cooperation and in reaching out when possible. We have a responsibility for the security issue. The settlers are also saying that the security situation is better than ever, and that is thanks to the work of both sides.”
The defense minister went on to call on the Palestinians to return to the negotiation table, saying that the Hamas rule in the Strip cannot continue. “We have several challenges. Hamas controls Gaza and this has to change. And in the security challenge, we don’t want to be left without security arrangements when we reach an agreement. The negotiations will take time, but it’s time to reach them.”
Despite some ministers’ objection to the two-state solution, Barak clarified that “our government’s stand is clear. It has adopted the Road Map and accepted the two states for two people principle. The goal is to end the conflict and establish a Palestinian state.”
Nonetheless, he concluded his speech in a pessimistic tone, saying that “a reality of a peace agreement, today, looks far away.”
Before taking the stage, the defense minister shook hands with the Palestinian prime minister. Sources in Fayyad’s entourage said he had received death threats following his decision to attend the conference.
IDF legal official: Israel should probe Goldstone Gaza report: Haaretz
The head of the Military Advocate General’s international law department during Operation Cast Lead said Monday that it may be necessary to establish a commission of inquiry to respond to the Goldstone report on Israel’s conduct during the conflict in Gaza last winter.
“It is possible that, in hindsight, it would be have been correct to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission,” Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch said in a private closed-door meeting in Tel Aviv. “It’s possible that had we cooperated with the commission, its report wouldn’t have been as bad. I don’t think anyone thought the report would be so severe.”
Sharvit-Baruch said she believes the report’s harsh condemnation of Israel’s conduct and its wide distribution on the Internet have been “very, very damaging” to Israel’s international standing.
Sharvit-Baruch found herself at the center of a highly publicized academic storm a year ago, after it emerged that officers in her bureau had granted permission to army units to carry out a number of operations that resulted in civilian casualties, such as striking a police officers’ course linked to Hamas. Several lecturers at the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law wrote letters to the department head asking that Sharvit-Baruch not be appointed a lecturer in international law there.
Sharvit-Baruch said she was concerned by the Goldstone report’s negative effect on Israel’s legitimacy in the global arena, and that Israel could potentially turn into “a kind of South Africa or Serbia” or a “criminal” or “racist” state in international opinion.
Sharvit-Baruch said she is less concerned with government reactions than international opinion. “The British government is influenced by public opinion, and cannot act against the views of its own population. Public opinion is important to democracies,” she said.
Asked whether Israel should establish a commission of inquiry to respond to the Goldstone report’s findings, Sharvit-Baruch said such a panel could provide “friendly countries” with the means to counter calls for Israeli officials to be tried in foreign countries or the International Criminal Court over alleged violations of international law.
“There is not necessarily a need for a commission of inquiry because we essentially know more or less what happened in terms of decision making, orders and targets,” she said. “As for the top brass, we have the protocols of government meetings.”
Nonetheless, she added, “We are now in a situation in which we need to give our friends – who don’t want to see lawsuits filed against us in their own courts – the tools to do away such claims, along with other charges against us,” she said.
“If they need a commission of inquiry then that’s what we’ll give them,” she added. “I really don’t think we have anything we need to hide.”
On the original choice over whether to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission, Sharvit-Baruch said Israeli decision makers felt that on the one hand such cooperation could lend legitimacy to the commission. They were concerned that “if we cooperate and a very bad report comes out, that basically means that they heard us, but ruled that we are war criminals. Then it’s harder to distance ourselves from its conclusions,” she said. On the other hand, cooperation with the panel “might lead to a less severe report. I don’t think anyone thought the report would be so severe.”
“In terms of orders and targets prepared in advance, I don’t think war crimes were committed,” she concluded.
Sharvit-Baruch added that had the Goldstone Commission released a less damning report, it’s likely that British authorities would not have issued arrest warrants against former foreign minister Tzipi Livni or Defense Minister Ehud Barak based solely on provisions within U.K. law to try suspected violators of international law.
Another success of the BDS campaign, just as Elton John is asked to refrain from going to Israel:
‘Santana canceled concert because of anti-Israel pressure’: Ynet
Sources in Israeli production team claim guitarist received messages that ‘it’s better’ not to perform in Israel
Guitarist Carlos Santana reportedly received messages that “it’s better” that he not perform in Israel, according to what a senior official in the Israeli music production market involved in producing Santana’s show told Yedioth Ahronoth on Saturday.
Over the weekend, the legendary guitarist’s team announced the cancellation of his show scheduled for early June at Bloomfield Stadium in Jaffa. Santana was to be brought to Israel by producer, Shuki Weiss. A few thousand tickets had already been sold to the show. Production agents have promised the tickets would be refunded immediately.
In light of the healthy rate of ticket sales, the Israeli production company was considering adding another show, but was surprised to receive news over the weekend from Santana’s team that the show would be delayed to an unknown date. According to the artist’s official site, he will give a concert in Lisbon, Portugal on May 25, a week before the show planned in Israel.
“Our clarifications revealed that he received messages from anti-Israel figures who pressured him to cancel the performance. Of course, no one there claimed that any connection between these pressures and the show’s
cancellation, but we are certain there is a very close connection,” said the production figure.
Pressures placed on artists from abroad performing in Israel by anti-Israeli groups and individuals are nothing new. Paul McCartney, for instance, was exposed to similar pressures leading up to his concert in September 2008, as was Leonard Cohen before his show this past summer. Ultimately, however, both of them decided to perform in Israel.
Sources in Israel’s music industry hope that Santana’s cancellation does not create a chain reaction. As published in Yedioth Ahronoth, Elton John , Rod Stewart , Rihanna, and The Pixies are all slated to perform in Israel over the summer.
Producer Shuki Weiss responded: “We have been aware for a few days of the difficulties that arose in everything surrounding the production of Santana’s concert in Israel. We apologize to the thousands of ticket holders and hope that they will continue to attend and enjoy the other cultural shows slated to arrive in Israel throughout 2010.”
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Santana Management Michael Vrionis said in an official statement: “We are sorry that our schedule has forced the postponement of certain dates previously scheduled.”
The following is an excellent report on the ‘Never Again’ evening organised by IJAN on Holocaust Memorial Day, January 27th, written by Yael Kahn. A Gaza activist, Dr, Haidar Eid, was invited to the meeting but was not allowed to leave by Israel. Throughout the meeting, Zionist were aggressively trying to sabotage it, and the police had to remove many of them by force. The fact that they were also anti-semitic towards a rabbi is of interest:
I was fortunate to attend the packed meeting on “Never Again: For Anyone” at Parliament in Portcullis House on 27 Jan 10, on Holocaust Memorial Day. This was one of the best meetings I have ever attended in nearly 40 years of
being an activist. I was inspired by the courage and resolve of 85 year old Holocaust survivor, Dr Hajo Meyer.
I was moved by the Palestinian speaker, Dr Haidar Eid, who spoke live from Gaza via telephone. The fact that he was prevented from attending this important event was a poignant reminder of the strangulating siege imposed by Israel. Not only did the Israeli nightly attacks on Gaza prevent him from speaking live via video link, but the telephone line was unavailable for the first part of the event. After a few failed attempts to connect by phone, the speaker schedule had to be quickly rearranged. When, eventually, a phone link was established the Boothroyd Room fell silent. I noticed the pain on many faces, hearing Dr Haidar Eid speaking calmly about the horrific suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, inflicted by Israel.
Hearing other speakers gave a glimpse to understanding how other genocides were planned, implemented and denied.
This event was by no means the only one on Holocaust Memorial Day, yet it attracted Zionist lead figures, among them: Louise Ellman MP [Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel], Jerry Lewis [Vice President, Board of Deputies]
and Jonathan Hoffman [Co-Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation]. Even Christian Friends of Israel came to the event organised by IJAN [International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network]. The presence of these Zionists was a confirmation of the significance they attributed to this event.
The conduct of many of the Zionists in attendance showed their purpose was not to learn from it, especially not from Holocaust survivor, Dr Meyer. Was it fear from his words that drew them into the Boothroyd Room? Most of the Zionists clearly came to silence the Holocaust survivor, Dr Meyer. As soon as he started talking they shouted at him. The first to shout was Jonathan Hoffman. He was also the first to be escorted out by police. This was after Hoffman’s repeated shouting at the 85 year old Holocaust survivor, preventing Meyer from giving his talk. The police gave him a number of warnings. The two MPs who chaired the meeting were eventually forced to ask for his removal.
Similarly, a bearded Zionist man repeatedly shouted at the 85 year old Holocaust survivor. When eventually he was escorted out by police, his conduct was most shocking. He stunned us when he made the Nazi salute and shouted the Nazi obscenity, “sieg heil”. We could only speculate on his motives.
A couple more Zionists were eventually escorted out by police, before Dr Meyer was able to complete his talk. There were other Zionists who also joined in the shameful and disruptive conduct of shouting at the speaker. They tried to silence the Holocaust survivor from speaking about his memories and lessons from the Holocaust. Even when Dr Meyer was talking about the extremely painful period of his life, under the anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany and Auschwitz the shouting of obscenities at him did not stop. Some of the shameful attacks were when Dr. Meyer spoke positively about Judaism.
I have never witnessed such contempt and disrespect to a Holocaust survivor. It is inconceivable that such conduct would have not been labelled anti-Semitic by the same people who were doing the attacking, had Dr Meyer not been anti-Zionist. It was a personal reminder of an attack on my father, who, like Dr Meyer, grew up in Nazi Germany. My father, Michael Kahn, escaped Nazi Germany in 1937. In 1988 my father joined us at a weekly protest at Dizengoff Circle [in Tel Aviv] against Israeli attacks on Palestinians. He was singled out by Zionist Israelis, who told him in Hebrew: “shame the Nazis didn’t finish you off”. The hateful remarks and lack of compassion for the Holocaust survivor, Dr Meyer, by the Zionists was compounded with their lack of interest in the Holocaust itself!
Despite the obscenities shouted at Dr Meyer, by the Zionist thugs, he did not give up delivering his talk. The 85 year old continued with his powerful and thoughtful talk, in spite of being interrupted many times, which forced him to stop his talk more than a dozen times. Meyer, who was a freedom fighter against the Nazis, until he was captured and sent to Auschwitz, demonstrated an amazing spirit. Clearly, the courage he had when joining the resistance against the Nazis has not faded over the years, and even at 85 he did not allow the Zionist attackers to intimidate him.
During and after the meeting Zionist thugs also singled out a Jewish Rabbi, Jacob Weisz. They were aggressive towards the Jewish Rabbi, who was in traditional Jewish garb and came to listen to Dr Meyer. The thugs were heard making disrespectful comments to the Jewish Rabbi at his traditional Jewish appearance… Other Jews were also attacked by Zionist thugs, including physical threats.
Yael Kahn
Below, you can read about Barak’s blunt admission that the Israeli policy which he was responsible for, with others since 1967, has not worked, and cannot work! A bit late to realise this, isn’t it? He seems to dislike the face staring at him from the mirror…
Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid: The Guardian
Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an “apartheid” regime.
His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.
There have been no formal negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in more than a year, but Barak was speaking at a rare joint event with the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, as part of an annual national security conference in the Israeli city of Herzliya. The pair shook hands and both were warmly applauded.
Barak, a former general and Israel’s most decorated soldier, sought to appeal to Israelis on both right and left by saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was the only way to secure Israel’s future as a “Zionist, Jewish, democratic state”.
“As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,” Barak said. “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
He described Israel and the Palestinian territories as the historic “land of Israel” to which Israelis had a right.
“We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel,” he said.
“We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints.” Barak is in a delicate political position. He leads the Labour party, supposedly a centre-left movement, but accepted a position in a rightwing coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, a decision that split his party.
Though Barak articulates a willingness for peace talks, he represents a government that has defied US and Palestinian calls for a full settlement freeze as a prelude to any negotiations. He was also defence minister during last year’s Gaza war in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
The Herzliya conference has echoed Israeli concerns about growing international criticism, particularly in the year since Gaza. Barak himself alluded to the danger that Israel might lose legitimacy if no peace deal was forthcoming. “The pendulum of legitimacy is going to move gradually towards the other pole,” he said.
He acknowledged that Washington was pushing the two sides towards “proximity talks” but said this was “only an initial stage” before any return to full negotiations.
Fayyad, who has a limited political following among Palestinians, called on Israel to stop settlement building in the occupied territories and to halt military incursions in Palestinian cities as a sign of seriousness about negotiations.
“Things have to begin to happen in order to give the suggestion that this occupation is going to end,” he said. “That Palestinian state is supposed to emerge precisely where settlements are expanding.” Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has refused to start fresh negotiations with Israel unless settlement construction stops, in line with the 2003 US road map. Nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, even though settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.
“How confident can we all be that once relaunched that political process is going to be able to deliver that which needs to be delivered, the permanent status issues and the key question of ending the occupation?” Fayyad asked.
Assad: Israel pushing region towards war: YNet
Syrian president meets with Spanish foreign minister in Damascus, tells him Jewish state ‘is not serious about achieving peace and all facts point to it being the one pushing the region towards war’
Syrian President Bashar Assad on Wednesday accused Israel of “pushing the region towards war”. During a meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Damascus, Assad said that the Jewish state “is not serious about achieving peace”.
The SANA news agency reported that the two officials spoke of regional issues and the “standstill peace process”. Assad told Moratinos, whose country is the current EU president, that “Israel is not serious about achieving peace and all facts point to it being the one pushing the region towards war and not peace”.
Moratinos arrived in Syria after a visit in Israel, during which he addressed the Herzilya Conference.
Assad spoke just hours after his foreign minister, Walid Moallem, said that “Israel knows that if it declares war on Syria, such a war will reach its cities as well.”
The Syrian minister was responding to remarks made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak earlier this week. Speaking at a forum of senior IDF commanders, Barak said a full-blown war with Syria was possible in case a peace agreement is not reached.
Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni criticized Barak’s remarks on Wednesday, saying that his “muscle flexing” is causing a deterioration in Israel’s security.
“On my way here, I heard the statements made by the Syrian foreign minister who said that if Israel is talking war then we will fight back – he is responding to statements made here. For us, whenever someone dealing with security flexes a muscle, then the other side flexes its muscle, and the situation deteriorates,” said Livni at the launch of “Desert Queen 2010” in Ness Ziona.
