May 24, 2010


BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS!

EDITOR: Nuclear Apartheid!

Two states were born illegally in 1948. First cam the South African Apartheid state, then cam the Israeli state built of the forced exiling of 80% of the Palestinians from their homes. Ever since their inception, the two states had obvious mutual appreciation, and have exchanged many commodities, especially military hardware and knowhow – both had similar problems, and used similar ‘solutions’. For many years it was known that Israel has supplied SA with nuclear knowledge, and some have argued that the great unexplained explosion in the early 1980s off the coast of Africa was indeed a nuclear test carried out by Israel and South Africa, but until today proof was lacking.

The opening of the archives in SA, despite Israel’s pressure on the SA government, has finally provided this proof. Israel and South Africa, two renegade, pariah regimes based on racism and oppression, have collaborated on nuclear arms which could have brought an untold destruction in Africa and elsewhere. It is clear that the secret services of the leading countries in the west were aware of this illicit and immoral relationship, which places such governments in the dock, together with the two main culprits. And what do those countries do right now? They try to stop Iran, which does not have a bomb, from producing nuclear fuel for peaceful uses, to satisfy the demands made by Israel, a country with over 300 nuclear devices, more than France and the UK put together, more than China! It seems that this time, the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons will not go away!

Some of you may well be wondering – why so little from the Israeli and US press? Well, you may well ask. They mostly pretend this is not happening, avoiding the topic altogether. Also, do not ask me about the BBC – they never heard about it – apparently nobody there reads the Guardian. Do not help them to bury bad news – spread it far and wide!

Israel’s nuclear capability and policy of strategic ambiguity: The guardian

Formally, Israel says it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East

The nuclear plant at Dimona, in the Negev desert, was built for civilian use. Photograph: Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty Images

Israel is an undeclared nuclear power: it has a nuclear plant in the southern city of Dimona, in the Negev desert, and is believed to have a formidable nuclear arsenal, but the government has always maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity”. Israel – like India, Pakistan and North Korea – is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The main atomic reactor in Dimona, officially for civilian use, was built with French help and became operational in the early 1960s.
Within a few years the CIA concluded Israel was producing nuclear weapons at the plant, but it was not until 1986, when Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at Dimona, spoke to the Sunday Times that the extent of Israel’s nuclear arsenal became clear.

Four years ago Israel’s then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, accidentally acknowledged Israel’s nuclear capability when he told German television: “Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?” Formally, Israel says it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East and has led calls for a hardline policy to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The current prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has said a nuclear-armed Iran is the greatest security threat facing his country.

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons: The Guardian

Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons
Chris McGreal in Washington
Monday 24 May 2010

The secret military agreement signed by Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and P W Botha of South Africa. Photograph: Guardian

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.
The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of “ambiguity” in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa’s post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky’s request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week’s nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel’s attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a “responsible” power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were “never any negotiations” between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials “formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal”.

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: “In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: “Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available.” The document then records: “Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice.” The “three sizes” are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.

Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel’s prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.

South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.

The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with “special warheads”. Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.

Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: “It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement… shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party”.

The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.

The existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.

Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.

Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. “The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date,” he said. “The South Africans didn’t seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime’s old allies.”

Continue reading May 24, 2010

May 23, 2010

EDITOR: The Boat Comes in Again…

And this time, there is a whole flotilla, with hundreds of people on board. The Israelis plan to sink the boats like they did so many times before – an act of piracy on the high seas, for which no doubt the great western powers will support by closing their eyes to this inhuman and illegal act being prepared. This time, they may kill many people. Nothing is said by the high and mighty O’Bummer, so interested in human rights when Israel is not involved.

LET THE AID BOATS GET TO GAZA!: Gush Shalom

The State of Israel has no interest in flooding television screens all over the world with footage of its navy violently assaulting against peace activists at sea. It is time to remove the suffocating siege and allow residents of Gaza to have free contact with the outside world, freely operate sea and air ports of their own like any country in the world.
The Gush Shalom movement calls upon the government to allow the eight-boat aid flotilla from all over the world to reach the shores of Gaza, where they are scheduled to arrive next week, and unload the humanitarian cargo which is urgently needed by the residents of Gaza. In a letter to Defense Minister Barak, Gush Shalom calls upon him to cancel immediately the instructions given to Israeli Navy ships off the Gaza shore to intercept the aid flotilla.
“The whole world is looking. The State of Israel has no interest in flooding the international television screens with images of Israeli sailors and naval commandos violently assaulting hundreds of peace activists and humanitarian aid workers, many of them well-known in their countries. Whose interest will it serve when hours long dramatic live reports arrive from the Mediteranean, with the world’s sympathy given to hundreds of non-violent activists, on board eight boats, assaulted by the strongest military power in the Middle East?” were the words of a letter to the Defense Minister.
No harm whatsoever will be caused to Israel from the aid flotilla reaching Gaza Port and unloading a cargo of medical supplies and medicines, school supplies and construction materials to rebuild the houses destroyed by the Israeli Air Force a year and half ago and not yet been restored. On the contrary, it would be in Israel’s best interest to declare without delay that as a humanitarian gesture, the boats’ way will not be blocked. And in general, it is time to end once and for all the suffocating siege imposed on the Gaza Strip and causing terrible suffering to its million and a half inhabitants.
The siege on Gaza utterly failed in all the goals set for it by the government of Israel. The siege was supposed to result in toppling the Hamas government – and on the contrary strengthened this government, which relied on the support of a significant part of the Palestinian People. The siege was supposed to help in gaining the release of captured soldier Gilad Shalit – but on the contrary, the siege just delays that release, which could have been achieved long ago had the government of Israel agreed to the prisoner exchange deal, on which most of the details have been decided long ago. It’s time to end this cruel and pointless siege.
The residents of the Gaza Strip, like the citizens of Israel and of any other country in the world, have the right to maintain direct contacts with the outside world – to leave their country and return to it, to develop their economy, to import the products they need and export their own produce to anyone who wants to buy it, without asking or needing for permission from Israel, Egypt or any other country. Just as Israel needs no permit from any other country to operate daily the sea ports of Ashdod and Haifa and Eilat and the Ben Gurion International Airport, so are the Palestinians and their state to be entitled to run their own sea port and airport in the Gaza Strip. Let the flotilla of humanitarian aid from all over the world be given the honour of inaugurating the sovereign Palestinian Port of Gaza!.

IDF launches homefront drill amid rising tensions on Lebanon border: Haaretz

Hezbollah’s deputy head says the Shi’ite organization has stepped up its alert status ahead of the ‘war game’ being conducted on Sunday in Israel.
Israel’s annual national home front exercise began Sunday, as Hezbollah played up fears in Lebanon that the drill means a conflict might loom with its southern neighbor.
The exercise, “Turning Point 4,” was due to last five days and be carried out in all parts of the country. During the first three days the drill was to involve the Israel Defense Forces’ various command centers, the police, emergency services, ministries and other government offices.

The exercise, which is held annually in May, was to be broadened on Wednesday to include civilians, with a siren sounded at 11 A.M. throughout the country. Civilians were instructed to to seek cover in shelters or other secure areas.
Hezbollah’s deputy head, Nabil Qaouk, said Friday that the Shi’ite organization had stepped up its alert status ahead of the “war game” being conducted on Sunday in Israel.
Qaouk said thousands of Hezbollah fighters will not take part in one of the stages of Lebanon’s municipal elections today because they are preparing for the possible attack by Israel.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah called on voters to pick the candidates put forth by the coalition between Hezbollah and Amal, another Shi’ite group.
Joining Hezbollah in its worries, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said the Israeli exercise contradicts efforts to reach comprehensive peace in the region.
Hariri met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo Saturday, ahead of his visit to Washington.
Israel has relayed messages to Arab states about the drill, stressing that it has no plans to launch an attack.
The exercise will focus this year on the ability of municipalities to respond to the launching of thousands of missiles and rockets on Israel. Most municipal authorities, where around 70 percent of the country’s people live, will hold drills as part of the national effort, conducted by Home Front Command, the National Emergency Authority and the Defense Ministry.

Hundreds of police officers are scheduled to take part in the exercise; they will practice their three main tasks in the event of missile attacks: routine security, guiding traffic and maintaining order.
The police will be tested on how they respond to local emergencies while the force is spread out all over the country.
The main scenario for the police will be a strike on Be’er Sheva by missiles fitted with chemical warheads.

Another aspect of the drill will be surprise strikes at home front targets.

Many different elements of defense and rescue will be practiced. For the first time, for example, Israel will test its response to a blow to its computer and electronic-communications infrastructure after a cyber attack.
The authorities will also examine their ability to evacuate hundreds of thousands of civilians from areas hit by missile barrages or strikes by unconventional weapons.

The distribution of gas masks, something already underway over the past three months, will be expedited during the drill to include other parts of the country. Home Front Command will be tested on its ability to shift to emergency distribution on a national level.
Extensive participation by volunteers, nongovernment organizations and youth movements is expected to be part of the drill, especially in helping local authorities reach people and communities in distress or needing special assistance.

EDITOR: Game Playing

As usual, Israelis like speaking to itself, negotiating with itself, even playing games with itself. In this war game, almost all sides are played by Israelis with responsibility for mass-murder and destruction. What fun it must be playing with yourself!!

Israelis debate how to deal with a nuclear Iran: BBC

Middle East experts debated what to do if Iran developed a nuclear weapon
By Tim Franks
BBC News, Jerusalem

Middle East experts debated what to do if Iran developed a nuclear weapon

There is no more pressing question for foreign diplomats and spies working inside Israel. How likely is it that Israel may take pre-emptive military action against Iran, to try to thwart its nuclear ambitions?
Iran vigorously denies that it is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Israel, and much of the world, does not believe that.
Mr Netanyahu has said a nuclear Iran meant an iminent “second Holocast”
But what if, despite international opposition and its own protestations, Iran were to produce an atomic bomb?
On Sunday, a high-level panel from the Israeli political and military establishment considered just that question, at the Inter-Disciplinary Centre in Herziliya.
And some of the panel’s conclusions were surprising.
No senior military officer or politician in Israel thinks that Iran and its nuclear programme is anything other than a hugely serious threat to Israel and to the region.
But there is a telling difference in rhetoric.
‘Domino effect’
Speaking to the BBC after the end of the panel’s discussions, Tzipi Livni – the leader of the main opposition party, and Israel’s previous long-serving foreign minister – insisted that a nuclear Iran did not pose an existential threat to Israel.
Ms Livni directed particular criticism at the current Israeli Prime Minister’s Benjamin Netanyahu repeated warnings about a second Holocaust.
Tzipi Livni criticised the way the Israeli government is handling Iran
“The role of leadership is to give an answer to this kind of threat,” she said, rather than to stoke worry.
“Israel in 2010 is not the Jews in Europe in 1939.”
What is more, she said, Israel – and the world – should not fixate on the damage that could be caused by Iran, if and when it became nuclear-armed.
The very possibility was changing the region now.
There was, she said, a “domino effect” among states “too weak to confront (Iran) or to have their own nuclear weapon”.
As long as the world fails to “stop the bully”, these states are “going to join him, and this is going to change completely the allies and alliances in the region, and this is something that the free world cannot afford.”
Ms Livni said that you could already see some countries “come off the fence” and tilt towards Iran. She cited Qatar and Turkey.
All of which still raises the question of what course of action Israel may take, whether it is likely to try to hit Iran militarily.
No-one who is really in the know about Israel’s specific intentions and plans will talk about them.
But Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Israel, is a veteran – not just of diplomacy, but of this type of war-game simulations.
He said that, time and again, a marked difference of emphasis would emerge from the role-playing, with the Israelis favouring military action as a “first course of response”, and the US tending to look at alternatives.
Peace deal
In that context, there was a particularly striking contribution from Dan Halutz, the previous chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, and another participant in the day of war-gaming.
He argued strongly not just for talk of military pre-emption, but diplomatic pre-emption.
He said that the Iranians should be isolated from the rest of the Muslim world, which, he claimed, was “by and large more concerned than Israel is about a nuclear Iran.”
The way to do that, he said, was clear: a comprehensive regional peace settlement. “The price is known, all the files are ready.”
It was not, said the former chief of staff, an easy or simple decision. But it was a decision that had to be taken.
“A decision to say no [to a peace settlement] is not short-term. It is a strategic choice: we need to know that from here to eternity, we’re prepared to do whatever is necessary to fight for the decision to say no. But if we think differently, we have to say yes.”
Brigadier-General Halutz went further, disparaging talk about Israel’s “red lines” in negotiations.
The phrase should, he said, be removed from the diplomatic lexicon, because whenever it came to the crunch, those absolute boundaries disappeared.
All this needs to be set against the briefings on Iran from from the very top of Israel’s current security establishment: that there should be no doubt that Israel is intent on doing all that it thinks needs to be done to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
But there are also others, voices of powerful experience, who say that Israel needs to think as widely and as imaginatively as possible to prevent Iran shaping the region in its own image.

Continue reading May 23, 2010

May 22, 2010

boycott-israel-anim2

1090 Days to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza:

Somebody tell O’Bummer!

Help to stop the next war! Support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of the Israeli regime

Support Palestinian universities – spread the BDS campaign – it is what people under the Israeli jackboot ask you to do

An army fighting against children has already lost the war!

Israeli War Criminals – to the International Criminal Court, NOW!

Make Zionism History!

One year since the Gaza Carnage by Israel’s murderers! We shall

not forget!

Demand the destruction of Israeli WMDs NOW!

Gaza Border Opened after 72 days: The Only Democracy?

May 21st, 2010, by Jesse Bacon
Amid rumors of tension between the Hamas government and Egypt, on Saturday, May 15, 2010, the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt was opened to the passage of people wishing to enter and exit the Gaza Strip. The border had been closed for 72 days prior to this latest opening.

Rafah crossing

The border crossing, which is due to be open for just a few days, has been closed on a regular basis since June 2007, except for occasional and limited openings that meet only 6% of the travel needs of the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Thus, during the present opening (only the third since the beginning of 2010), 8,000 people managed to submit applications for travel permits to the Interior Ministry in Gaza (a prerequisite for exit). With no knowledge of when the border would reopen, and based on the assessment that no more than 8,000 people would get through the border this time, the Interior Ministry has closed the registration process to further applications.
Initial figures show that on the first two days of opening (Saturday and Sunday) fewer than 2,000 people managed to cross over to the Egyptian side, while about 250 who entered the crossing were returned to the Gaza Strip by Egyptian forces for unknown reasons. About 300 people managed to enter Gaza from Egypt.
In comparison, before the closure, 40,000 people passed into and out of Gaza through the Rafah border crossing every month in order to realize their right to freedom of movement and access medical treatment, work, educational opportunities, and family.

Hariri: International community must take responsibility for Middle East peace: Haaretz

Ahead of Washington trip, Lebanese PM urges world powers to make ‘serious effort’ to push forward Israel-Palestinian talks – but Obama administration is more likely to focus on flow of arms to Hezbollah.
Ahead of a trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Said Hariri called on the international community to step up pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to strike a peace deal.
Hariri met with Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak Saturday in Cairo to discuss the mid-east peace process and regional developments.
The two leaders talked about ways to revive the indirect peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel as well as developments inside Lebanon.

After the meeting, Hariri said that it was time for the “international community to take responsibility” and exert “serious efforts” to push the peace process forward, Lebanese TV channel al-Mustaqbal reported.
“The only end for this process is peace,” Hairi said, adding that he would convey this message to US President Barack Obama, al-Mustaqbal added.

Hariri arrived earlier for his short visit which is part of an Arab tour ahead of his visit to the United States, which included Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
He is scheduled to meet Obama on Monday amid fears of renewed fighting between Lebanon and Israel.
Later on Saturday, he is due to head for Istanbul to meet Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

U.S. President Barack Obama is likely to raise concerns about Syria arming Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon when he meetsHariri on Monday, a U.S. official said on Friday.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the two leaders would discuss a “broad range of mutual goals in support of Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, regional peace and security”.
Hariri’s first official visit to the United States takes place against a backdrop of tensions in the Middle East, U.S. efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and growing momentum toward new international sanctions on Iran.

Analysts expect Obama to be more encouraging in tone than demanding of results when he meets Hariri, who heads a national unity government that includes Hezbollah – a Shi’ite Islamist guerrilla group which is backed by Syria and Iran and is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
Lebanon and Syria have said they fear a possible attack by Israel after President Shimon Peres accused Syria in April of supplying Hezbollah with long-range Scud missiles capable of hitting Israel. Damascus has denied the charge and accused Israel of fomenting war.

Some U.S. officials have expressed doubt that any Scuds were actually handed over in full to Hezbollah, although they believe Syria might have transferred weapons parts.
“We obviously have grave concerns about the transfer of any missile capability to Hezbollah through Lebanon from Syria,” a senior Obama administration official told Reuters, saying the issue would likely be raised in Monday’s talks.
Another official said Washington would ask Hariri to continue to support efforts “toward comprehensive regional peace.”

Hariri has also denied Israel’s accusations, while his government has said it backs the right of the guerrilla group to keep its weapons to deter Israeli attacks. Israel, which fought a 34-day war with Hezbollah in 2006, has not signaled any imminent plans to strike.
The war of words heightened tensions in the region, but the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Michael Williams, noted on Friday “that recent tension is now diminishing.”
Williams, who held talks with Hariri in Beirut, was quoted by the prime minister’s office as saying he was pleased “that all sides have scaled back the rhetoric.”
Obama and Hariri are also expected to discuss U.S.-led international efforts to isolate Iran over its disputed nuclear program, officials said. Lebanon holds the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council through May 31.

Diplomats said Beirut had quietly asked the permanent members of the Security Council – Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States – not to push for a vote on a new Iran sanctions resolution while it held the presidency.
Lebanon is expected to abstain in any vote because Iranian-backed Hezbollah is in its government, diplomats said.
Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Lebanon no longer enjoyed the status it had under the Bush administration, when it was the “fulcrum” of efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East.

The Obama administration’s Middle East policy is more focused on the nuclear stand-off with Iran, war in Afghanistan, and reviving the Middle East peace process, he said.
Nevertheless, the United States has expanded military assistance to Lebanon to strengthen its armed forces as a counterweight to Hezbollah, allocating $500 million to training and equipping Lebanese security forces since 2005.

Second Mid-East talks end with no sign of progress: BBC

No date has been set for a further rounds of proximity talks
Middle East envoy George Mitchell wound up a second round of indirect peace talks between Palestinians and Israeli without any outward sign of progress.

A statement from the office of the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the “possibility” of goodwill gestures towards the Palestinians. No details were given.
The US envoy and Mr Netanyahu met for three and a half hours on Thursday. Mr Mitchell met Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas earlier in the week.
The indirect, proximity talks are set to continue for four months, and should get to addressing some of the core issues – borders, Jerusalem, and refugees.
All parties say they hope these will lead to direct negotiations.

Shuttle diplomacy
In the current talks Mr Mitchell shuttles between Mr Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem and Mr Abbas’ office in Ramallah, a journey of about 10 miles (15km).
Thursday’s statement from Mr Netanyahu’s office said part of the meeting with Mr Mitchell concentrated on water issues.
The US envoy met Mr Abbas on Wednesday. He was given letters protesting against the killing of a Palestinian teenager in the West Bank, allegedly by an Israeli settler, and the killing of an elderly farmer in Gaza by the Israeli military.
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said his side also brought up the “the numerous Israeli provocative statements of the last few days”.
Palestinian officials have been angered by repeated statements by Israeli officials, including the prime minister, that settlement construction would continue in occupied East Jerusalem.

‘Giving cover’
The Palestinian Islamist group, Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, has criticised the talks, warning that they “give cover to the Israeli occupation to commit more crimes against our people”.
The proximity talks were meant to start in March, but Palestinians pulled out of talks after Israeli municipal authorities approved plans for 1,600 new homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo.

The announcement was made during a visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden and caused great strain in Israeli-US relations.
The Palestinian Authority’s formal position is that it will not enter direct talks unless Israel completely halts building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In November, Israel announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank, under intense US pressure.
But it considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory and thus not subject to the restrictions.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967. It insists Jerusalem will remain its undivided capital, although Palestinians want to establish their capital in the east of the city, and the international community does not recognise the Israeli annexation of the east of the city.
Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements in the West Bank, among a Palestinian population of about 2.5 million.
The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Hezbollah shows off weaponry in Lebanon ‘tourist complex’: YNet

Shiite group inaugurates museum to mark 10th anniversary of Israeli pullout from south Lebanon. Organization’s chief, Hassan Nasrallah says in televised speech, ‘Armies that emerge victorious from wars display their exploits’
The Hezbollah Shiite organization on Friday inaugurated a “tourist complex” displaying its own heavy weapons and those left by Israel, to mark the 10th anniversary of Israel’s pullout from south Lebanon.

“Armies that emerge victorious from wars display their exploits in museums,” Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said in an inaugural speech broadcast live at the complex on a giant television screen. He was not present in person.
This site “is a modest initiative compared… to the sacrifices and historic victories that have been gained,” Nasrallah said of the 2006 war in which Israel failed to crush Hezbollah, or the “party of God” in Arabic.

“One of our principal responsibilities is to preserve the history of resistance… and this museum is built on the ground of resistance,” Nasrallah told hundreds of people gathered in a courtyard at the complex.
The site, located in the sprawling southern locality of Mlita, was a Hezbollah military base during Israel’s 1978-1990 occupation of south Lebanon and the 2006 war.
The museum will open to the public from May 25, the anniversary of the Israeli pullout, which is this year being marked as a national holiday.

Hezbollah has also been organising “jihadist tours,” in which 500 young men and women were taken on a field trip to witness what the Iran-backed group called the “achievements of the resistance” against Israel.
Dozens of anti-tank and Katyusha rockets, Iran-built “Raad 1” missiles, mortars and rocket launchers are on display in the complex that encompasses a mountain cave, wooded grounds and a newly built gallery.
Israeli Merkava tanks are also on display.
Several Hezbollah fighters were killed in Israeli raids while digging the caves to hide weapons, according to guide Mohammad Sayyed.
The museum is the first complex of its kind in the world, Hezbollah said in a statement.

Continue reading May 22, 2010

May 21, 2010

Targeting Iran nuclear program, by Carlos Latuff

Wall Street Journal: Palestinians make surprisingly large land offer to Israel: Haaretz

In framework of proximity talks, Palestinian negotiators have reportedly proposed giving up twice the West Bank territory Abbas offered Olmert.
The Palestinian Authority has offered surprising concessions to Israel regarding borders for a future state, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
In the framework of proximity peace talks now being mediated by the United States’ special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, Palestinian negotiators have reportedly offered to match and even double the amount of West Bank land territory that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas offered to former prime minister Ehud Olmert during their one-on-one 2008 talks.

During those talks, Abbas offered Olmert to exchange 1.9% of West Bank land for an equal amount of Israeli territory. Olmert countered with a much higher demand of his own, which the current reported offer would still not come close to matching.
Palestinian officials told The Wall Street Journal that the unexpected proposal was being made due to their assumption that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not serious about reaching a final status deal within the indirect negotiations.

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said his government was approaching the proximity talks in good faith and “are not going to waste Mitchell’s time.
“We want Mr. Mitchell to succeed because his success is our freedom,” he said.

Mitchell was in the region this week for talks with Abbas and Netanyahu. A statement from Netanyahu’s office said they had discussed during their meetingsthe possibility of gestures toward the Palestinians. No details were given, but the gestures seemed likely connected to easing movement for Palestinians in the West Bank.

Palestinian nonviolence relies on global non-silence: The Guardian CiF

The world cannot expect Palestinians to abandon violence while remaining silent on Israel’s repression of nonviolent activists

When will there be a Palestinian Gandhi? I’m often asked this question by people who sympathise with Palestinian suffering but are uncomfortable associating themselves with resistance movements that they see as violent or terrorist.

The reality of course is that Palestinian nonviolent resisters are not only active today but have a long and storied history in the Palestinian struggle. The real question is: why haven’t we heard about them?

Like many resisting oppression, Palestinian Gandhis are likely to be found in prisons after being repressed by Israeli soldiers or police or in the hospital after being brutally beaten or worse.

In recent years, the Israeli repression of Palestinian nonviolent dissent has increased significantly and Israel is showing signs of transforming into a fully-fledged police state. Even Israeli citizens, both Palestinian such as Ameer Makhoul and Jewish, have faced intimidation in one form or another for being critical of Israel’s policies. Surely, Israel has realised that its ongoing occupation, continued colonisation of Palestinian land, and its bombardment of civilian-packed Gaza have significantly and negatively impacted on its image abroad. The images of nonviolent Palestinian protests against the Israeli occupation aren’t helping Israel’s reputation either.

Perhaps that is why recently many nonviolent activists and initiatives have been shut down and repressed. Jamal Juma, Muhammad Othman and Abdallah Abu Rahman may not be household names like Gandhi or Mandela but they have been just as consistent in resisting Israel’s illegal segregation wall in the West Bank by organising nonviolent demonstrations for years. And, like Gandhi and Mandela they have paid a price by being arrested on multiple occasions.

The Israeli repression efforts extend far beyond the arrests of nonviolent demonstrators against the wall. Last month, Palestinian and international activists sat in front of Israeli bulldozers about to confiscate more Palestinian land for the expansion of a settlement. Soldiers quickly dispersed the crowd and thoroughly pummelled and pepper-sprayed an organiser at point-blank range.

Most recently, several leaders of human rights organisations advocating Palestinian rights have been arrested and thrown into jail for allegedly posing security risks to the state. One of them, Izzet Shahin, is a Turkish national whose crime was organising boat shipments of humanitarian aid to the besieged people of Gaza. During past attempts to bring supplies to the blockaded strip, the boats were commandeered by the Israeli navy and the nonviolent activists were arrested before being deported even though they had never entered Israeli waters.

The list goes on, and despite the increase in Israeli repression, Palestinian nonviolent resistance is nothing new. While some have adopted an Israeli narrative that identifies nonviolent Palestinian dissent as something new, the reality is that Palestinians have consistently chosen nonviolent resistance before arms – from the general strikes of 1936, to the consistent appeals to international legal bodies, to the weekly demonstrations against the wall. It has been the continued dispossession at the hands of Israel, and the silence of the international community despite these nonviolent efforts, that has led some Palestinians to view violence as the only option.

Alas, it is often the major explosions that make headlines and not the nonviolent demonstrations or their violent repression by Israel’s secret police or its military occupation. That’s why some still wait for a Palestinian Gandhi despite the fact that they have taken many a beating and seen the inside of many a jail cell.

When an Iranian protester – Neda – was shot and killed last year, the world knew her name – so did President Obama. But most would be hard-pressed to name one of the many nonviolent protestors in Palestine who have been arrested, beaten, shot or even bulldozed to death.

The international community has an obligation to Palestinian nonviolent activists. Leaders cannot simply call on Palestinians to abandon violence in the face of Israeli occupation and remain silent when the nonviolent activists are politically repressed. This only reinforces the idea that the use of force reigns supreme and that Palestinians have no choice but to accept hardships at the hands of their Israeli lords.

Sadly, the same leaders who call on Palestinians to abandon violence have been silent in the face of Israeli repression. By condemning violent Palestinian resistance while remaining silent in the face of Israeli crackdowns and political arrests, they are simply endorsing violence against civilians by one side instead of the other.

The United States should take the lead in condemning Israeli repression of nonviolent dissent, just as they would in Iran, Burma or apartheid South Africa, because nonviolent dissent is not only a critical part of the Palestinian struggle but it is an American value as well.

EDITOR: Only Israeli Children Are Hurt

In the wake of the murderous attack by Israel in Lebanon in Summer 2006, over 35 people have died as the result of the more than a million ‘bomblets’ left behind by the only-democracy-in-the-Middle East; many of them were children. Not a single of those was important enough for any form of coverage in the Israeli media: they were not Jewish, after all. This double-standard is staggeringly striking, when huge amounts of media coverage are concentrated on an Israeli child who was hurt by an Israeli mine on occupied territory.  The message seems clear: “No Israeli children should be hurt by mines, while other children are not our business, even when the bombs and mines are ours”

A child’s wish: ‘I want no one else in Israel ever to be hurt by a landmine’: The Independent

The Knesset has been moved to begin clearing some of its 260,000 mines by a remarkable 11-year-old. Donald Macintyre meets him
Friday, 21 May 2010
When the friendly boy with the shock of black curly hair, the alert blue-green eyes and the Argentinean football shorts answers the door, the last thing you would think is that he had undergone a dozen operations since losing a limb in a horrific accident three months ago. His stride is so firm that it’s a moment before you even notice that he is fitted with a prosthesis where his right leg was, before it was blown off by a landmine planted in the Golan Heights more than four decades earlier.

Though accurate, “self-possession” and “determination” seem strangely banal attributes when applied to Daniel Yuval, 11. It’s not just that he managed to walk his first steps within a month of his injury, or that he unflinchingly allowed his dressings to be changed without any form of analgesic, or that he has already made up for all the time he lost from school – getting 90 per cent in a recent science exam. It’s also that he has persuaded a majority in the Israeli parliament finally to support a long overdue start to clearing some 260,000 landmines that currently hold hostage an area about the size of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv together – 1 per cent of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

It was back in February that Guy and Tali Yuval, Daniel, their other son and three daughters, decided to make a detour to the Golan Heights, where snow had freshly fallen, on their way to visit the children’s grandparents in Haifa. Many other Israelis had had the same idea, and with not too many places to park, Guy left the two younger girls with their mother in the car, while he, Daniel, 12-year-old Amit, and 8-year-old Yoav walked into the Mount Avital nature reserve. There were other families relaxing there already.

“We threw snowballs and played around for about five minutes,” said Daniel. “Then I remember taking a step forward and I heard the explosion. For a few minutes I don’t remember much. My father picked me up.”

His father Guy Yuval recalls how everyone else in the vicinity immediately scattered, some thinking the explosion had been caused by a rocket. Recognising that his son’s leg had been severed by a landmine – which had also poured shrapnel on to his sister Amit – Mr Yuval applied a tourniquet to Daniel’s right leg while gripping the left one, also bleeding from shrapnel. “I was suddenly alone now,” he remembered. “And we were in the middle of a minefield.”

Not knowing where other mines might be, Mr Yuval followed the footprints left by his family and others to make a grim, ginger, 10-minute journey back to safety. “Daniel told me to make the tourniquet tight, and he asked me at one point if we could stop for a second and attach his leg back on.” In fact he seemed as concerned about his sister as himself. “He didn’t cry at all.”

It was later that, as Daniel wrote in a letter to all 120 Knesset members, he realised the full extent of what had happened, and what it meant. “When I awoke from the surgery at the hospital and saw my amputated right leg,” he wrote, “I told my Mum that I wanted no one else to ever be hurt by a landmine, and that I mean to do something about that.”

This turned out to be an understatement. Since then he has launched a high-profile campaign, in which he has managed to speak to a range of senior government figures – from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu down – culminating in a visit to the Knesset this month. On that visit, he met the opposition leader Tzipi Livni and spoke to a meeting of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, whose chairman Tzachi Hanegbi is now promoting a bill to set up a mines clearance authority. The cost of the task is estimated at about $60m (£42m). Like the US, China, India and much of the Middle East, Israel is not among the 158 signatories of the 1997 UN convention against the use of landmines.

Daniel’s unlikely lobbying was greatly helped by Survivor Corps, the anti-landmine organisation founded by a veteran American campaigner Jerry White. White, who himself lost a leg to a mine while hiking in the Golan as an exchange student in 1984, helped to draft the 1997 convention. He saw that Daniel – an Israeli boy from a middle class family – had rare potential to galvanise Israel’s political establishment into the action he had long urged. Mr White told The Jerusalem Post this month: “In the international landmine campaign, we had a tipping point with Princess Diana… Daniel Yuval is the tipping point where Israelis woke up. Every year there are Palestinians, Thai labourers and even cattle who are injured by mines, but this time it really hit home. This was the next generation, playing in the snow.”

Daniel is anything but star-struck by his visit to the Knesset. “I wasn’t very interested in all the politicians,” he told The Independent this week. “I was only interested in talking about the mines.” But he had made a big change already? “I hope I will make a big change, but I haven’t seen that change yet. The bill has to go through the Knesset three times before it becomes law. Only when it will pass will I make a big change.”

Nor is he impressed by security arguments in favour of preserving the mines. “People are always inventing a new story not to remove the landmines.” Accepting that a minority of the mines may have to remain at some of Israel’s borders, he says: “There should not be mines where people travel.”

This was not a case of pushy parents urging their son on. Guy Yuval is still traumatised by finding himself alone with his three children, two badly injured, in a snow-covered minefield last February. “I still haven’t recovered from that,” he says. He says he is “apolitical” and would never normally have had the “energy” for a visit to the Knesset had it not been for the determination of a son who, even before his accident, was strong-willed and “a little difficult to control”.

Einat Wilf, a Labour member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs committee who is backing the new bill, says that Daniel’s campaign has provided a “moment of grace” in which the long-ignored issue of mine clearance is engaging the Israeli public and political establishment. “It was clear that this could have been anyone. It was a normal Israeli family that had gone to see the snow and everyone can identify with that.”

Nevertheless she envisages that, even if the bill is passed, progress could be gradual. The first target would be the Israeli border areas with Jordan, with whom Israel has a peace treaty, and where rural communities have watched with increasing anger as Jordanian troops on the other side of the river have removed some 58,000 mines while those in Israel remain. This could be followed by “non-operational minefields” – which comprise the vast majority throughout the country – in the interior of the Golan Heights. Removal of those in the occupied West Bank could be part of any peace deal with the Palestinians, she thinks. But Daniel, who this week opens a new campaign website, danielyuval.org, will be keeping up the pressure.

Meanwhile Daniel’s mother Tali acknowledges that, on one level, the campaign has helped Daniel’s therapy. He says the only time he gets angry at what happened is when he gets up in the morning and has difficulty putting his leg on. But both parents are struck by his overwhelmingly “positive” attitude despite periods of acute pain. Passionate about football, he hopes, artificial limb technology permitting, to play again one day.

He recalls that he told his father two things after he woke up in hospital and realised he had lost his leg. “One was that we would try to make sure it didn’t happen to other people, and the other was that I’ll do my best in physiotherapy provided you stop supporting Barcelona and Chelsea and choose Manchester United instead; and in Israel support Hapoel Tel Aviv instead of Maccabi Tel Aviv.” The second, at least, was a good call. Hapoel Tel Aviv, one of whose players visited Daniel in hospital, has just won the Israeli double. Many people will be hoping that the 11-year-old’s judgement will prove as prescient on Israeli landmines.

Continue reading May 21, 2010

May 20, 2010

EDITOR: Warmonger Continues to Stir Trouble

After more than six decades of warmongering – he was the man behind the 1956 tri-partite invasion of Egypt, the Israeli H Bomb, numerous big and small wars – the famous ‘peacenik’ Shimon Peres is trying to start a new war with Syria, whose territory his government occupied, settled, and refuses to return. What is frightening is that it seems he might even succeed this time in starting a new war.

Peres: Syria says it wants peace but keeps aiming missiles at Israel: Haaretz

Speaking at Israel Military Industries factory, president says Israel is interested only in peace, poses not threat to Lebanon or Syria.
President Shimon Peres on Thursday declared that Israel seeks peace and that it poses no threat to Lebanon or Syria, but lamented the fact that Syria keeps arming itself while making claims it is interested in peace with Israel.

Peres, visiting Israel Military Industries factories, was asked about recent remarks made by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who said that Israel wasn’t really interested in peace. In response, Peres replied that “Syria is taking simultaneous opposing actions. They talk peace while simultaneously manufacturing a huge store of 70,000 missiles on [Israel’s] northern border, aimed at Israel.”

The president added that “Israel is not threatening Lebanon, and is not threatening Syria. Our goal is only peace and I regret the fact that since the reign of [former Syrian President Hafez] Assad senior, who declined [Former Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat’s invitation to join him at Camp David, Syria has adopted a hesitant policy and is not taking any real steps toward peace with Israel.”

On Tuesday, Bashar Assad said that Peres had relayed a message announcing that Israel would relinquish the Golan Heights if Syria were to sever its ties to Iran and to known terror organizations.

According to a report in the Lebanese daily Al Safir, Peres relayed the message via Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who was visiting Damascus last week.

Peres’ office denied the report and stressed that the content of the message was taken out of context. The president’s office explained that the intent of the message was to make clear that Israel did not intend to attack Syria or make any moves that could lead to escalation of tension along Israel’s shared border with Syria.

Who’s Who of Banned Israeli Visitors: TheOnlyDemocracy?

May 19th, 2010
At this point, you could have quite the dinner party with the folks Israel leaves out! How do I get on that guest list?
UPDATE: Eitan Bronner has an article on the dustup inside Israel over whether it was such a great idea to ban Noam Chomsky, after doing likewise to Jewish American journalist Jared Maslin,  Falk, and Goldstone as well as my personal favorite, Spain’s most famous clown Ivan Prado. Maybe if Israel didn’t need to hide what it was doing to Palestinians, Elvis Costello wouldn’t need to stay away as well!


The decision Sunday to bar [Chomsky]from entering the West Bank to speak at Birzeit, a Palestinian university, ‘is a foolish act in a frequent series of recent follies,’ remarked Boaz Okun, the legal commentator of the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, in his Monday column. ‘Put together, they may mark the end of Israel as a law-abiding and freedom-loving state, or at least place a large question mark over this notion.’”

Democracy according to Reichman: Haaretz

As Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are becoming more and more like North Korea.
By Gideon Levy
In the end, we will only be left with Prof. Uriel Reichman. After we sent Prof. Noam Chomsky away, and there was no sharp rebuke by Israeli academics (who in their silence support a boycott of Bir Zeit University ), we will be left with a narrow and frightening intellectual world. It will be the kind of intellectual world shaped by the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya – an institution of army officers and the rich, headed by its president, Reichman.

A law professor, certainly enlightened in his own eyes, a former candidate to become education minister, Reichman says he doesn’t support the human rights group B’Tselem. That’s his right, of course; our right is to state that at the head of an important Israeli college stands a man who doesn’t understand a thing about democracy.
After all, what does B’Tselem do? It gathers reliable testimonies on the sins of the Israel Defense Forces, very few of which, if any, have been proved wrong. Reichman doesn’t support this? In the world according to Reichman, we are left only with statements by the IDF Spokesman’s Office. We will believe that no white phosphorus was used in Gaza, that the “neighbor procedure” is something that tenants’ committees do, and that if they call a family and give them five minutes to leave before their home is bombed, that’s an action by the most ethical army in the world.

Students at the Interdisciplinary Center say they heard their president declare that B’Tselem is “a fifth column” and that it’s “shameful” this group received a place at the school’s Democracy Day. Reichman denies this, and we respect his word. In any case, the spokeswoman for the college said: “B’Tselem’s modus operandi is not acceptable to Reichman.” What, then, is acceptable to Reichman? A society without self-criticism. This then, is Israel’s intellectual elite; these are our intellectuals – without B’Tselem.

A college president and law professor who preaches changing the electoral system and favors an Israeli constitution – one who doesn’t explain to his students the importance of human rights groups – is no more enlightened than the yeshiva heads who don’t teach the core subjects. He is even more dangerous.

But the man of intellect from Herzliya did rally against the yeshiva heads. “All the statistics show we’re on the brink of a catastrophe and on our way to becoming a third-world country if there’s no change in the Haredi community,” Reichman said in backing a petition on teaching core subjects. But the heart of the matter must be the lessons of democracy, well before mathematics and English.

And these things, it turns out, they do not teach at Reichman’s yeshiva, where even Democracy Day is a day of silencing others. If math is not taught at yeshivas, we will lose little. Without genuine civics lessons at the Interdisciplinary Center, which purports to raise the next generation of our leaders, we will receive a generation ignorant of democracy – in the spirit of Reichman. This is the real catastrophe on our doorstep.

Universities around the world serve as a power source for democracy, and lecturers, not only renowned ones like Chomsky, are often prime examples of liberalism for their students. It’s not by chance that at “Reichman’s College,” as it is called, the voice of political involvement has never been heard. Now it’s possible to know why. The school may claim to be interdisciplinary, but one field is missing there. If Reichman takes a look at his history books, he can read about people and movements that fought for human rights. B’Tselem’s founders will certainly be on that list. Maybe someday this will also be taught at the Interdisciplinary Center, after Reichman’s time.

When Otniel Schneller proposes that an intellectual giant like Chomsky “try one of the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt,” we can only chuckle. No one expects Schneller to know who or what this is about. But the prime minister, as opposed to Schneller, knows very well who the admired lecturer from MIT is – where he studied. He knows that the crux of Chomsky’s criticism is directed at the United States, not Israel.

When the prime minister doesn’t immediately apologize and invite Chomsky back to the country, we can be sad. When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn’t fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views like those of Reichman, the situation is apparently far beyond desperate.

What’s So Funny ‘Bout Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions: Elvis Costello’s Beautiful Message: The Only Democracy?

May 18th, 2010, by Jesse Bacon
I was a little young to get Elvis Costello, as opposed to the Pixies. He was well on his way to the iconic status, vaguely sterotypical rabbi look, dorky glasses and angst that made him a kind of hipster patriarch and unfortuantely led to a cameo in the hideous would-be 80’s epic 200 Cigarettes. But I was always amazed at how much yearning he worked into pop songs, made them carry an emotional weight more akin to the classical music he also recorded.
Well, now he has perfectly demonstrated how one can use eloquence to illuminate, instead of to obscure. In a refreshingly straightforward piece, he has described why he answered the call not to play in Israel. While other musicians such as Gil Scott-Heron, Roger Waters, and Carlos Santana have also honored the boycott I don’t believe anyone has said why so directly or effectively. Here it is.
It is after considerable contemplation that I have lately arrived at the decision that I must withdraw from the two performances scheduled in Israel on the 30th of June and the 1st of July.
One lives in hope that music is more than mere noise, filling up idle time, whether intending to elate or lament.
Then there are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act that resonates more than anything that might be sung and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent.
I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security.
I am also keenly aware of the sensitivity of these themes in the wake of so many despicable acts of violence perpetrated in the name of liberation.
Some will regard all of this an unknowable without personal experience but if these subjects are actually too grave and complex to be addressed in a concert, then it is also quite impossible to simply look the other way.
I offer my sincere apologies for any disappointment to the advance ticket holders as well as to the organizers.
My thanks also go to the members of the Israeli media with whom I had most rewarding and illuminating conversations. They may regard these exchanges as a waste of their time but they were of great value and help to me in gaining an appreciation of the cultural scene.
I hope it is possible to understand that I am not taking this decision lightly or so I may stand beneath any banner, nor is it one in which I imagine myself to possess any unique or eternal truth.
It is a matter of instinct and conscience.
It has been necessary to dial out the falsehoods of propaganda, the double game and hysterical language of politics, the vanity and self-righteousness of public communiqués from cranks in order to eventually sift through my own conflicted thoughts.
I have come to the following conclusions.
One must at least consider any rational argument that comes before the appeal of more desperate means.
Sometimes a silence in music is better than adding to the static and so an end to it.
I cannot imagine receiving another invitation to perform in Israel, which is a matter of regret but I can imagine a better time when I would not be writing this.

With the hope for peace and understanding. Elvis Costello

Continue reading May 20, 2010

May 19, 2010

EDITOR: Listen to the message of Israelis on the Nakba

For those good souls, who forever hope for a solution brought about by the non-existing left in Israel, an important object lesson is listening to common Israelis in the street. The combination of racism, arrogance, total lack of knowledge as well as of a lack of shame, has to be seen to be believed. Apart from denying any responsibility for the Nakba, they normally combine this sentiment with a wish to repeat it, and get every Palestinian out of their native land. Those colonials are not for turning, and those who put their hope in their transformation, may as well wait for the messiah, as he is likely to come earlier than such an impossible transformation.

Speaking to Israelis on the Nakba: The Real News

Every year on May 15, Palestinians the world over mourn what is known as Nakba Day. The Nakba is Arabic of catastrophe and represents the 1948 ethnic cleansing when nearly 800,000 Palestinians became refugees. In this segment, Lia Tarachansky of The Real News and Yossef(a) Mekyton of Zochrot speak to Israelis about what they know of this history and the war of 1948, the result of which was the establishment of the state of Israel.

Mubarak: Terror to spread if Israel continues stalling peace talks: Haaretz

Saeb Erekat says Abbas-Mitchell meeting that the PA hopes to achieve a two-state solution within 4 months.

Terrorism will spread if Israel fails to address “fundamental” issues with the Palestinians, Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak warned on Wednesday during talks with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
Mubarak criticised Israel’s refusal to address the definitive borders of a future Palestinian state during indirect peace talks with the Palestinians that have been approved by Arab nations.
According to the Egyptian president, Israel’s insistence on discussing only “secondary issues,” such as the environment and the rights to airspace, threatened to stall any peaceful resolution of the conflict.

“Then we will see terrorism increase and spread throughout the world,” Mubarak said.
Berlusconi said Italy, together with its international allies, is “putting pressure” on both the Israelis and Palestinians to resume negotiations.
Earlier Wednesday, top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that U.S. President Barack Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas discussed possible outlines of a future Palestinian state during their Ramallah meeting.

“We are focusing on final-status issues like borders and security,” Saeb Erekat told reporters after the meeting between Abbas and Mitchell, who is mediating indirect peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
“We hope that in the next four months we can achieve the two-state solution on the 1967 borders,” said Erekat, reiterating a Palestinian demand that Israel withdraws from Palestinian territory it captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Mitchell will shuttle between Israel and the West Bank for the second substantive sessions since the Palestinians agreed to the indirect “proximity” talks, which have been given a maximum of four months to produce results.

Israeli leaders have said the Palestinians can raise core issues like the status of Jerusalem, final borders and the issue of Palestinian refugees in the indirect talks, but only direct negotiations can resolve them.
Palestinians say they could hold direct talks if Israel halts all settlement activities on occupied land.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week his government “is prepared to do things that are not simple, that are difficult”.

Government sources said Netanyahu is favorably examining a proposal to expropriate land from Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank to build a road between Ramallah and a new Palestinian town under construction.
Abbas broke with tradition on Monday by failing to give a speech on the day that Palestinians mourn the creation of Israel, which they call the “nakba”, or catastrophe. Analysts said he wanted to avoid an occasion in which he would be expected to condemn Israel in strong language.

The White House has said it will hold either side accountable for any action that could undermine negotiations.
The pledge appeared in part aimed at satisfying Abbas’ fears that Israel’s right-leaning government might announce further expansion of Jewish housing in and around Jerusalem.

Obama also urged Abbas to do all he can to prevent acts of incitement or delegitimization of Israel.
Israel captured East Jerusalem along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, and considers all of Jerusalem its capital, a claim that is not recognized internationally.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of the state they intend to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Direct peace talks were suspended in late 2008.

EDITOR: The Pressures Start in Earnest

We all knew that the Jewish Lobby, both in AIPAC and beyond it, will start putting pressure on Obama in good time for the elections in November. Obama cannot afford to avoid them, and they will be as insistent as anything, trying hard to defend the indefensible positions of Israel. That is their job, or at least, that is how they see it. Obama is in for a grueling time, to put it mildly.

U.S. Jewish lawmakers urge Obama to visit Israel: Haaretz

Three dozen Jewish Democratic lawmakers met with Obama for an hour on Tuesday night.
Jewish members of Congress urged President Barack Obama in a meeting Tuesday night to discuss his commitment to Israel publicly and travel to the country to demonstrate his support, participants said.
Obama convened the 1-hour meeting with three dozen Jewish Democratic lawmakers, the first such gathering of his presidency, after some members of Congress raised concerns about his administration’s attitudes and positions on Israel, said Rep. Shelley Berkley, one lawmaker present.
The meeting came at a delicate time, with U.S.-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians getting under way. It also follows a diplomatic spat between the United States and Israel in March that occurred when construction plans in contested east Jerusalem were announced in the middle of a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden.

The Obama administration strongly rebuked Israel over the incident, but some, particularly conservatives, criticized the U.S. reaction as too strong and unfair to Israel.
“It was agreed that both the Israelis and the U.S. government probably could have handled that situation a little better,” Rep. Steve Rothman, said after Tuesday night’s meeting, while asserting that from a military and intelligence-sharing perspective, the Obama administration is the best U.S. administration ever for Israel.

He said administration critics were trying to distort that, and Obama and his Jewish supporters in Congress needed to set the record straight.
Berkley, however, said that while she believed the president thought he was doing what was right for Israel and the United States, misgivings remained for those steeped in the issue and highly sensitive to nuances.
“I do want to see the president step up and vocalize his support for Israel far more than he has. He just needs to do that,” Berkley said.

Obama supports a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. Berkley said most lawmakers in the meeting did too, but not at the expense of Israel’s security, and it could not be a U.S.-imposed peace.
Berkley said Obama assured the group he had no intention of imposing an American plan on the two parties.
Obama last visited Israel during his presidential campaign.

Continue reading May 19, 2010

May 17, 2010

EDITOR: Dr. Frankenstein seems worried about his Creature…

The settlers, a creature of the Israeli government, is supposedly beyond and above the law. Of course, this is exactly what they wee made to be – a extra-judicial force of illegal settlers, in illegal settlements, who torture, oppress and kill Palestinians, steal their lands, and never brought to justice. It is really difficult to now turn round (as if anyone was even trying to do this…) and try to speak of the law, and of controlling the settlers, is really bizarre – the IOF kills Palestinians every week for no reason other than their identity, and now they tell us they cannot control the settlers; this is just another turning of the screw on Palestine: “We would have liked to stop those settlers, but unfortunaely they are above the law”.

IDF fears settler violence could spark Palestinian uprising: Haaretz

GOC Central Command tells Kfir Brigade soldiers the IDF does not know of any Palestinian plans for response, but to prepare for possibility.
Extremist settler activity could set the West Bank ablaze, GOC Central Command Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi warned on Monday at a brigade-wide training exercise at the Tze’elim military base in the Negev.
The Kfir Brigade exercise focused on urban warfare – including the capture of a simulated Arab city – and pitted Israeli troops against Palestinian security forces.

Senior officers present at the exercise, the most extensive session the infantry brigade has undergone since it was founded just over four years ago, said Monday there were no indications that Israel would have to fight the security forces.

However, the army said it needs to be prepared for all eventualities.

Mizrahi said he doesn’t expect tensions to rise in the West Bank in the near future.

“I don’t think something will happen anytime soon, unless there’s a very serious incident on the Temple Mount or in the Cave of the Patriarchs,” he said. However, he said he was “very anxious” about an escalation being set off by settler violence.

“Most of the settlement movement is fine, very normal, but a mosque set on fire and another mosque set on fire adds up,” Mizrahi said.

Defense officials are concerned over a series of mosque burnings in the past six months, including a fire that destroyed books and prayer rugs in a mosque near Nablus that firefighters said earlier this month was caused by arson.

Mizrahi said that while the council that officially represents settlers is willing to listen to defense officials, the army is worried about what some of the more radical settlers might do.

“The Yesha Council is sane. Even if they might have become more militant, they understand what’s going on and we can talk to them,” Mizrahi said. “But in Yitzhar, in Maon and in Havat Gilad, they don’t believe in us at all as a state. They want something else, and when someone doesn’t know the limits anymore you don’t know where it will end up.”

Mizrahi said the army and the Palestinian security forces, trained in Jordan by Keith Dayton, an American general, have been cooperating, but that Israeli soldiers still need to know how to fight them if the need should arise.

“This is a trained, equipped, American-educated force,” Mizrahi said. “This means that at the beginning of a battle, we’ll pay a higher price. A force like that can shut down an urban area with four snipers. It’s not the Jenin militants anymore ¬ it’s a proper infantry force facing us and we need to take that into account. They have attack capabilities and we don’t expect them to give up so easily.”

In the training exercise, three battalions went from house to house, where they faced Israel Defense Forces soldiers posing as members of the regular Palestinian security forces, Palestinian civilians or reporters.

Until now, soldiers serving in the brigade have been serving only in the West Bank, but Armored Corps commander Brig. Gen. Agai Yehezkel said the exercises would enable the brigade to fight on the Gaza and Lebanon fronts as well as in the West Bank, if necessary. He said Kfir battalions would be deployed for operational duty within the Green Line as early as next year.

The Kfir Brigade, which was created in December 2005, consists of six battalions whose soldiers man 30 percent of the roadblocks in the West Bank and are responsible for 60 percent of arrests. They have succeeded in decreasing the number of terrorist attacks in the West Bank.

Much of the brigade’s responsibilities have diminished recently, due to the increased activities of the Palestinian security forces.

It should be noted that the main perpetrators of crimes against Palestinians belong to the Kfir Brigade, according to statistics on Military Police investigations, which the Israel Defense Forces provided to the human rights organization Yesh Din.

In 2007 the Military Police opened 351 probes for crimes in the territories, compared to 152 cases in 2006. The Military Police managed to tie the complaints to specific IDF units in only 55 percent of the cases, compared to 78 percent in the previous year.

Sixty-six of the investigations opened in 2007 were against Kfir soldiers, compared to 35 in 2006; 52 were against the paratroopers brigade (19 in 2006); 14 against Nahal (only one in 2006); 10 against Givati (one in 2006); six against the tank corps (none in 2006); and five each against Golani and the West Bank division.

The Kfir brigade is posted in the West Bank permanently, which means it spends several more months a year there than any other brigade. It also has more regiments than other infantry brigades.

The Military Police is investigating a variety of crimes in the territories, from the killing of Palestinians and the illegal use of firearms to abuse and plunder.

The perils of prattle: Haaretz

By Akiva Eldar
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declares that Israel will not be able to restrain itself from responding to Syria’s transfer of long-range missiles to Hezbollah, the Israeli embassy in Madrid goes on the alert. The diplomats there know that by the next day there will be a hysterical directive from Jerusalem to ask Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos to relay a reassuring message to Damascus.

And when Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatens to wipe out the Assad clan, ministry officials assume there must have been a development in the criminal investigation against Lieberman. The problem is that the Arabs just don’t get the Israelis: They take our ministers’ twaddle more seriously than we do.

It seems that Netanyahu and Lieberman want to scare us and put the peace genie back in the bottle. But how to convince the Arabs that their scaremongering is aimed at diverting our attention from the destruction the government is wreaking on Israel’s foreign relations? Barak Ravid reported in Haaretz last week that Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said, on his return from Beirut, that there was total panic in Lebanon over the possibility of an Israeli offensive there. It turns out that when Israeli officials try to scare us about the menace of the Scud missiles that Syria has given Hezbollah, it is the Arabs who get frightened.

According to articles appearing recently in the Arab press, the Syrians think that in the absence of permission from the United States to launch an offensive against Iran’s nuclear installations, Israel will strike in Iran’s front yard by attacking Hezbollah’s missiles and dragging Syria into a confrontation. In an atmosphere of panic, a local incident would be enough to start a major flare-up. Hassan Nasrallah said after the last war that he had not correctly assessed the action Israel would take. The Hezbollah leader implied that he had not been interested in a conflict of such high intensity.

In 2006, it ended with missiles landing on the outskirts of Hadera and 1 million refugees who fled from the north. According to the head of the Military Intelligence research division, Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz, if the Syrians err in their assessment of Israel’s intentions in 2010, the missiles will land in Tel Aviv and even further south. He recently told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Hezbollah’s military capabilities had developed greatly since the Second Lebanon War and that it now has thousands of rockets of all kinds and ranges, as well as long-range solid-fuel missiles that are highly accurate.

No less important, the “national appraiser” pointed out that Hezbollah is regarded by the Syrians as “part of their own defense entity” – and this comes at a time when the U.S. defense establishment does not see an Israel ruled by a right-wing government as part of the American defense entity. The checks and balances through which the peace process with Syria has contributed to a state of calm have worn thin. Baidatz said the Syrians are still interested in a peace deal with Israel for the return of the Golan Heights and American involvement. Military Intelligence believes that in exchange for this, “Syria will alter its role in the radical axis.” For Syrian President Bashar Assad, however, progress in the diplomatic process with the current Israeli government is of no import.

As long as Israel is not ready to pay the territorial price for peace with Syria, deterrence is a legitimate, and even vital, means of avoiding a military confrontation. Deterrence, according to the accepted definition in the Israel Defense Forces, consists of “an action or process of threatening that prevents the enemy from taking action because of a fear of its repercussions.”

Deterrence creates an atmosphere of the existence of a credible threat that decision makers believe could lead to an outcome that they cannot or do not wish to countenance. What would happen if the decision makers in Damascus decide that Israel is determined this summer to carry out its threat to attack, no matter what? When its life is threatened, even a pet cat unsheathes its claws.

We can only hope that our neighbors begin taking the blathering of Israeli leaders as seriously as most Israelis do. Otherwise, it could end in disaster.

Mordechai Vanunu’s cruel treatment: Guardian Letters

On 11 May the nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu was sentenced to a further three months in prison, to start on 23 May. This latest sentence follows his objection to doing community service in West Jerusalem, where he reasonably feared for his safety. He was quite prepared to work in East Jerusalem, but this compromise was denied him by the supreme court. This most recent court hearing arose because Vanunu had been charged with breaking the draconian restrictions imposed on him ever since his release, in 2004, from his 18-year prison sentence – 11½ of which were spent in solitary confinement. These cruel and arbitrary restrictions forbade Vanunu freedom of movement, expression and association, in complete contravention of international law and his human rights. The continuing and outrageous harassment of Vanunu, for telling the world the truth of Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, all of 24 years ago, comes right at the start of the 2010 negotiations, at the United Nations in New York, to strengthen not only the international ban on nuclear weapons but also the 1968 non-proliferation treaty. This cynical treatment of Vanunu is a clear indication, once again, that Israel cares nothing for human rights legislation, nor any attempts to limit the possession, development and general spread of nuclear weapons.

Tony Benn, Ben Birnberg, Jeremy Dear, Bruce Kent, Jenny Morgan, Susannah York and Ernest Rodker

Chomsky refused entry into West Bank: Haaretz

By Donald Macintyre
Monday, 17 May 2010
Noam Chomsky, the internationally renowned philosopher and leading dissident US intellectual, was yesterday stopped by Israeli immigration officials from entering the West Bank to deliver a lecture.
The 81-year-old Jewish professor, an often mordant critic of the Israeli government who had been due to lecture at Birzeit University and the Institute for Palestine Studies, was refused entry at the Allenby Bridge across the river Jordan.
The bar was described by Professor Chomsky’s host, the Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti, as a “fascist action, amounting to suppression of freedom of expression”.

Professor Noam Chomsky

Professor Chomsky told Reuters from Amman, where he had returned from the crossing, that officials had refused him permission to enter the West Bank, adding: “They apparently didn’t like the fact that I was due to lecture at a Palestinian university and not in Israel.”
But the Israeli Ministry of Interior said last night that the bar had been a “mistake” by a member of the staff on the spot and that the Ministry had no objection to Professor Chomsky making the crossing if he was travelling directly to Ramallah, as distinct from visiting or passing through Israel.
Asked how a staff member at the crossing could have erred, an official said that the person may have wrongly responded to information held on a computer database.
Professor Chomsky, widely recognised as a giant of 20th-century linguistic philosophy as well as a prominent critic of US and Western foreign policy over decades, said that he was on a speaking tour of the region and that his schedule was too tight to attempt another entry into the West Bank.

Israel denies US academic Chomsky West Bank entry: BBC

Israel says the denial may be a misunderstanding
Renowned US scholar Noam Chomsky has been denied entry to the West Bank by Israeli immigration officials.
Prof Chomsky, renowned for his work on linguistics and philosophy, was planning to deliver a lecture at Birzeit University.
Prof Chomsky, 82, had been trying to enter from Jordan.
An Israeli interior ministry spokeswoman said it was to trying to clear the matter up and allow Prof Chomsky to enter.
Prof Chomsky said the officials were very polite but he was denied entry because “the government did not like the kinds of things I say and they did not like that I was only talking at Birzeit and not at an Israeli university too.”
He added: “I asked them if they could find any government in the world that likes the things I say.”
Prof Chomsky’s Palestinian host for the visit, Mustafa al-Barghouti, told Reuters: “This decision is a fascist action, amounting to suppression of freedom of expression.”
The interior ministry spokeswoman, Sabine Hadad, said: “We are trying to contact the military to clear things up and if they have no objection we see no reason why he should not be allowed in.”
Prof Chomsky has frequently spoken out against Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

After denied entry to West Bank, Chomsky likens Israel to ‘Stalinist regime’: Haaretz

Linguist Noam Chomsky was scheduled to lecture at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah, meet PA Prime Minister Fayyad.
By Amira Hass
Tags: Israel news West Bank Noam Chomsky
The Interior Ministry refused to let linguist Noam Chomsky into Israel and the West Bank on Sunday. Chomsky, who aligns himself with the radical left, had been scheduled to lecture at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah, and visit Bil’in and Hebron, as well as meet with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and various Palestinian activists.
In a telephone conversation last night from Amman, Chomsky told Haaretz that he concluded from the questions of the Israeli official that the fact that he came to lecture at a Palestinian and not an Israeli university led to the decision to deny him entry.
“I find it hard to think of a similar case, in which entry to a person is denied because he is not lecturing in Tel Aviv. Perhaps only in Stalinist regimes,” Chomsky told Haaretz.
Sabine Haddad, a spokesperson for the Interior Ministry, confirmed to Haaretz that the officials at the border were from the ministry.
“Because he entered the Palestinian Authority territory only, his entry is the responsibility of the Office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories at the Defense Ministry. There was a misunderstanding on our side, and the matter was not brought to the attention of the COGAT.”

Haddad told Haaretz that “the minute the COGAT says that they do not object, Chomsky’s entry would have been permitted.”
Chomsky, a Jewish professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had spent several months at Kibbutz Hazore’a during the 1950s and had considered a longer stay in Israel. He had been invited by the Department of Philosophy at Bir Zeit.
He planned to spend four days in the West Bank and give two lectures.
On Sunday, at about 1:30 P.M. he came to the Israeli side of the border with Jordan. After three hours of questioning, during which the border officer repeatedly called the Interior Ministry for instructions, Chomsky’s passport was stamped with “Denied Entry.”
With Chomsky, 81, were his daughter Aviva, and a couple of old friends of his and his late wife.
Entry was also denied to his daughter.
Their friends, one of whom is a Palestinian who grew up in Beirut, were allowed in, but they opted to return with Chomsky to Amman.
Chomsky told Haaretz that it was clear that his arrival had been known to the authorities, because the minute he entered the passport control room the official told him that he was honored to see him and that he had read his works.
The professor concluded that the officer was a student, and said he looked embarrassed at the task at hand, especially when he began reading from text the questions that had been dictated to him, and which were also told to him later by telephone.

Chomsky told Haaretz about the questions.

“The official asked me why I was lecturing only at Bir Zeit and not an Israeli university,” Chomsky recalled. “I told him that I have lectured a great deal in Israel. The official read the following statement: ‘Israel does not like what you say.'”
Chomsky replied: “Find one government in the world which does.”
“The young man asked me whether I had ever been denied entry into other countries. I told him that once, to Czechoslovakia, after the Soviet invasion in 1968,” he said, adding that he had gone to visit ousted Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dubcek, whose reforms the Soviets crushed.
In response to the official’s question, Chomsky said that the subjects of his lectures were “America and the world,” and “America at home.”

The official asked him whether he would speak on Israel and Chomsky said that because he would talk of U.S. policy he would also comment on Israel and its policies.
He was then told by the official: “You have spoken with [Hassan] Nasrallah.”
“True,” Chomsky told him. “When I was in Lebanon [prior to the war in 2006] I spoke with people from the entire political spectrum there, as in Israel I also spoke with people on the right.”
“At the time I read reports of my visit in the Israeli press, and the articles in the Israeli press had no connection with reality,” Chomsky told the border official.

The official asked Chomsky why he did not have an Israeli passport.

“I replied I am an American citizen,” Chomsky said.
Chomsky said that he asked the man at border control for an official written explanation for the reason his entry was denied and that “it would help the Interior Ministry because this way my version will not be the only one given to the media.”

The official called the ministry and then told Chomsky that he would be able to find the official statement at the U.S. Embassy.

The last time Chomsky visited Israel and the West Bank was in 1997, when he lectured on both sides of the Green Line. He had also planned a visit to the Gaza strip, but because the Palestinian Authority insisted that he be escorted by Palestinian guards, he canceled that part of the visit.
To Haaretz, Chomsky said Sunday that preventing him entry is tantamount to boycotting Bir Zeit University. Chomsky is known to oppose a general boycott on Israel. “I was against a boycott of apartheid South Africa as well. If we are going to boycott, why not the United States, whose record is even worse? I’m in favor of boycotting American companies which collaborate with the occupation,” he said. “But if we are to boycott Tel Aviv University, why not MIT?”

Chomsky told Haaretz that he supports a two-state solution, but not the solution proposed by Jerusalem, “pieces of land that will be called a state.”
He said that Israel’s behavior today reminds him of that of South Africa in the 1960s, when it realized that it was already considered a pariah, but thought that it would resolve the problem with better public relations.

Continue reading May 17, 2010

May 16, 2010

Boycotting the boycotters: Haaretz

While the international boycott against apartheid South Africa is credited with leading to the regime’s downfall, here it is considered irrelevant and unworthy of comparison.
By Gideon Levy
Most people here are appalled at the notion that anybody beyond Israel’s borders would think to boycott their country, products or universities. Boycotts, after all, are viewed in Israel as illegitimate. Anyone who calls for such a step is perceived as an anti-Semite and Israel-hater who is undermining the state’s very right to exist. In Israel itself, those who call for a boycott are branded as traitors and heretics. The notion that a boycott, limited as it may be, is likely to convince Israel to change its ways – and for its own benefit – is not tolerated here.

Even an obvious, logical step – like the Palestinian Authority’s boycott of products made in the settlements – is viewed by hypocritical Israeli eyes as provocative. Moreover, while the international boycott against apartheid South Africa is credited with leading to the regime’s downfall, here it is considered irrelevant and unworthy of comparison.
It would be possible to identify with these intolerant reactions were it not for the fact that Israel itself is one of the world’s prolific boycotters. Not only does it boycott, it preaches to others, at times even forces others, to follow in tow. Israel has imposed a cultural, academic, political, economic and military boycott on the territories. At the same time, almost no one here utters a dissenting word questioning the legitimacy of these boycotts. Yet the thought of boycotting the boycotter? Now that’s inconceivable.

The most brutal, naked boycott is, of course, the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas. At Israel’s behest, nearly all Western countries signed onto the boycott with inexplicable alacrity. This is not just a siege that has left Gaza in a state of shortage for three years. Nor is it just a complete (and foolish ) boycott of Hamas, save for the discussions over abducted soldier Gilad Shalit. It’s a series of cultural, academic, humanitarian and economic boycotts. Israel threatens nearly every diplomat who seeks to enter Gaza to see firsthand the unbearable sights.

In addition, Israel bars entry to anyone who wishes to lend humanitarian aid. We should note that the boycott isn’t just against Hamas, but against all Gaza, everyone who lives there. The convoy of ships that will soon sail from Europe to try to break the siege will carry thousands of tons of construction material, prefab houses and medicine. Israel has announced that it plans to stop the vessels. A boycott is a boycott.

Doctors, professors, artists, jurists, intellectuals, economists, engineers – none of them are permitted to enter Gaza. This is a complete boycott that bears the tag “Made in Israel.” Those who speak about immoral and ineffective boycotts do so without batting an eye when it comes to Gaza.

Israel is also urging the world to boycott Iran. But it’s not just Gaza and Iran that are at issue here, because entry into Israel and the West Bank is being affected by the recent frenzy of boycotts. Anyone who is suspected of supporting the Palestinians or expressing concern for their lot is boycotted and expelled. This group includes a clown who came to organize a conference; a peace activist who was due to appear at a symposium; and scientists, artists and intellectuals who arouse suspicions that they back the Palestinian cause. This is a cultural and academic boycott on all counts, the type of boycott that we reject when it is used against us.

Yet the anti-boycott country’s list of boycotted parties does not end there. Even a Jewish-American organization like J Street, which defines itself as pro-Israel, has felt the long arm of the Israeli boycott. It is permissible to boycott J Street because it champions peace, but we can’t tolerate a boycott of products made in settlements that were built on usurped land. Denying a visiting professor entry into Gaza for an appearance at a university does not qualify as a boycott, but cutting off ties with Israeli institutions that provide fast-track degree programs for army officers and interrogators in the Shin Bet security service – people who are often viewed around the world as complicit in war crimes – is viewed as verboten.

Yes, an Israeli who lives in Israel will have a hard time preaching to others about the virtues of a boycott when that person does not boycott his or her own country or university. But it is his right to believe that a boycott could compel his government to end the occupation. As long as the Israelis don’t pay any price, there won’t be a change.

This is a legitimate, moral position. It is no less legitimate or moral than those who claim that a boycott is an immoral, ineffective tool while exercising that same option against others. So you oppose a boycott against Israel? Then let’s first do away with all the boycotts we have imposed ourselves.

EDITOR: Denied Entry into Israel?

Chomsky was denied entry into the Occupied Territories by the IOF at the bridge. It is a pity that Haaretz cannot tell the difference between Israel and the OPT, where the meeting Chomsky was invited to took place. It is alsoa pity that Chomsky is still a supporter of Israel and an opponent of the One-State solution. Maybe this experience may change his mind?

Noam Chomsky denied entry into Israel: Haaretz

Left-wing American linguist, who was scheduled to speak at Bir Zeit University, given no reason by Israeli inspectors at Allenby Bridge.

American linguist Noam Chomsky was denied entry into Israel on May 16, 2010 Photo by: Bloomberg

Left-wing American linguist Professor Noam Chomsky was denied entry into Israel on Sunday, for reasons that were not immediately clear.
Chomsky, who was scheduled to deliver a lecture at Bir Zeit University near Jerusalem, told the Right to Enter activist group by telephone that inspectors had stamped the words “denied entry” onto his passport when he tried to cross from Jordan over Allenby Bridge.

When he asked an Israeli inspector why he had not received permission, he was told that an explanation would be sent in writing to the American embassy.
Chomsky arrived at the Allenby Bridge at around 1:30 in the afternoon and was taken for questioning, before being released back to Amman at 4:30 P.M.
Chomsky is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is considered among the foremost academics in the world. He identifies with the radical left and is often critical of both Israeli and American policies.

Court rejects Anat Kamm’s plea to ‘get some air’: Haaretz

Former soldier facing spying charges for leaking army documents sought to ease terms of her house arrest.

Anat Kam in court for a failed appeal over terms of her arrest, May 16, 2010 Photo by: Moti Kimche

A Tel Aviv court on Sunday rejected a plea by Anat Kamm, a former soldier arrested for leaking secret military documents to the press, to ease the terms of her house arrest.
Kamm had sought permission to leave the house for up to two hours each day to “get some fresh air”.
But a judge ruled that the order for house arrest was not subject to appeal, as Kamm’s circumstances had not altered since her detention.

In mid-April a court ruled to toughen the terms of Kamm’s arrest, ordering her to remain under supervision of one of four nominated family members at all times.
In late April police raided Kamm’s rented apartment in Tel Aviv after unauthorized family members visited her there.
Kamm faces trial on espionage charges after giving Uri Blau, a Haaretz correspondent, classifeid miltary papers detailing an allegedly illegal assassinations policy operated by the IDF against Palestinian militants.

Robert Fisk: Dubai police hunt Briton over murder of Hamas official: The Independent

Exclusive: IoS shown evidence that suspect in Mabhouh killing had genuine British passport
Within 48 hours of becoming Foreign Secretary, William Hague faces a political crisis over the Middle East. The emirate of Dubai has named a British citizen as a 19th suspect of the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, the Hamas official murdered in the emirate four months ago, apparently by a group that included holders of forged British passports. According to a source in the United Arab Emirates, the suspect arrived in Dubai under his own name and carrying a genuine British passport.

The document, the details of which are known by The Independent on Sunday but which we have decided not to publish, shows that he holds a real British passport dated 24 October 2007, valid for 11 years, and was born in 1948. It is believed that his father was a Jewish Palestinian who migrated to the UK just after the Second World War. Dubai police have informed Interpol of the name and passport number of the suspect. The man is believed to be hiding in Western Europe.

According to Dubai sources, the British man was identified parking a rental car close to the hotel where Mr Mabhouh was murdered and can be seen parking his car on a videotape that is in the possession of UEA authorities; a copy of the tape has been given to the British police. According to the UEA, the suspect has recently visited both Canada and France.
Mr Mabhouh was smothered to death in his hotel room and the Emirates have named 33 suspects. Investigations revealed that up to 12 of them had used forged British passports. Other suspects used similar counterfeit or stolen Irish, Australian, French and German passports.

Those involved are widely believed to be members of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. British, Irish and French governments have asked Israeli ambassadors to explain the use of their national passports in the killing.

The involvement of a genuine British suspect will not improve diplomatic relations between London and Tel Aviv. The former foreign secretary David Miliband condemned the counterfeiting of British passports as “intolerable” and demanded reassurances from Israel that it would not be repeated. Britain also ordered an Israeli diplomat to leave the UK in March after an investigation by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency showed that there were “compelling reasons” why Israel was believed to be behind the misuse of the passports. The inquiry determined that the documents were cloned when British citizens passed through airports on their way into Israel, with officials taking them away for “checks” that lasted around 20 minutes. Britain’s decision was attacked by angry Israeli MPs who described it as the action of “anti-semitic dogs”.

The diplomat asked to leave the UK was understood to be an intelligence officer who was known to the UK authorities and worked as official liaison with Britain’s MI6. There was no suggestion the officer was personally involved in the passports affair.

Israel has never admitted any role in February’s Dubai assassination of Mr Mabhouh, who was described as a key figure in smuggling Iranian weapons into the Gaza Strip on behalf of Hamas. It has abstained from signing any material that might be construed as a confession.

EDITOR: How many Mossad Agents Does It Take To Murder One Palestinian?

Answer: At least 33, but the number is rising… Say, this is not very efficient, is it?

Son of Jewish Briton named as latest suspect in Dubai murder: Haaretz

Dubai police have now identified 33 people suspected of killing Hamas operative, most of them named through forged passports.
The latest suspect in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is a British citizen with a valid passport, according to the Independent, unlike many of the others who were found to have entered the United Arab Emirates using forged identies.

According to the Independent, the 62-year-old suspect is the son a Jew who lived in Palestine until the outbreak of World War II, when he moved to Britain.

The Dubai police have transferred the suspect’s name and passport information to the Interpol agency, said the Independent. The suspect, who is believed to be hiding now in western Africa, was identified by surveillance as having parked a car outside the hotel where Mabhouh was killed.

Dubai police have so far identified another 32 suspects in the murder. Five were identified just a little more than a week ago, as having traveled to the U.A.E with Australian, British and French passports

The Dubai authorities have described al-Mabhouh’s assassination as a mix of clockwork precision and spy novel flare. They have accused Israel’s Mossad spy agency of being behind the killing of al-Mabhouh.

The Dubai police previously released names of 27 suspects who traveled to Dubai on fake identities and forged European and Australian passports. The police also compiled a detailed flow chart-style diagram on the suspects’ alleged roles in the slaying.

At least 15 of the suspected killers share names with Israeli citizens, further fueling suspicions the Mossad was behind the hit. Israel has maintained a policy of ambiguity on the killing, neither confirming nor denying involvement.

EDITOR: The real face of Israeli academia

Uriel Reichman has long pretended to be a liberal, while supporting right wing policies and issues. It is good to se him exposed here, calling the main human rights orgaisation in Israel a ‘fifth column’. Spoken like a Nazi. Those are the people who fight against the BDS, and against Palestine as well as against human rights.

Students: IDC head called B’Tselem a ‘fifth column’: Haaretz

B’Tselem: We welcome the statement made by Professor Reichman, which indicates that although he doesn’t support the organization, he supports the organization’s right to make its positions known.

By Asaf Shtull-Trauring
The president of the Interdisciplinary Center, Uriel Reichman, described the human rights watchdog B’Tselem as a “fifth column” and said that inviting its representatives to speak at the college was “disgraceful,” students who spoke to the president told Haaretz. Reichman denies ever making the statements.

On April 15, the private college based in Herzliya held a “Democracy Day,” during which they invited 40 organizations to set up stalls near the campus cafeteria. However, only the groups B’Tselem, the Movement for Quality Government, Im Tirtzu and the National Left responded.
During the event, one student apparently approached Reichman to protest the presence of B’Tselem on campus. Another student, who witnessed the conversation, said Reichman responded by saying he hadn’t been consulted about inviting B’Tselem, that he found it disgraceful and that the organization was a fifth column.

“Some of the students were angry and protested the presence of B’Tselem at the IDC,” Omri Akunis, one of the event organizers, told Haaretz. He added that he did not think the college would allow the organization to participate in the event next year.

Reichman told Haaretz that he never made the comments. “It’s nonsense,” he said. “B’Tselem was invited to the campus. A student approached me to say he thought that they shouldn’t be there, that they’re a hostile element, a fifth column and so on. I told him that you can’t drive out someone who was invited.

“The same student then sent a letter, which the deputy president for student affairs replied to,” Reichman continued. “She explained to him that the group had been invited by students, but that we do not identify with the organization. In other words, she wrote that the fact the organization was invited by students does not mean we endorse it. I’m not a supporter or admirer of B’Tselem, but I certainly told that young man that we’re not going to kick out any organization we have invited. We’re not going to gag anyone.”

The college spokesman told Haaretz that “Reichman is working under the assumption that his students are truthful, and he doesn’t recall ever making such a statement. He does not agree with B’Tselem’s methods, but he nevertheless maintains and will continue to maintain full pluralism and freedom of speech.”

B’Tselem issued the followed comment on the matter: “We welcome the statement made by Professor Reichman, which indicates that although he doesn’t support the organization, he supports the organization’s right to make its positions known. Defending the right to express an opinion even when one doesn’t agree with it is the very essence of freedom of speech. B’Tselem will continue stating its positions and encouraging public discussion in Israel of human rights in the Occupied Territories.”

Continue reading May 16, 2010