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

May 15, 2010 Page 2

Israeli Govt. Criminalizes Its Arab-Citizen Leaders: The Only Democracy?

May 14th, 2010, by Assaf Oron

On Monday I reported here the arrest of two prominent Palestinian citizens of Israel – Dr. Omar Saeed and Ameer Makhoul – at a time when these news still banned from publication in Israel. The ban was partially lifted a few hours later, crumbling under the pressure of both the Israeli-Palestinian public openly protesting the arrests, and the Israeli blogosphere ignoring the gag.
I suggested that the arrests signify a step up in the ongoing government campaign to criminalize politically legitimate activities of Israeli-Palestinians. Shin Bet secret-police chief Yuval Diskin has repeatedly expressed his eagerness to do this, with respect to leaders supporting the one-state concept (such as the above two). Since Monday, Palestinian and Israeli commentators voiced concerns similar to mine; most prominently perhaps Gideon Levy, whose words appear below the fold.
Also: more details about Dr. Omar Saeed from a close Israeli friend and colleague; the judge who granted the gag order, as Exhibit A for challenges to the independence of Israel’s judiciary; and blogosphere speculations about the charges themselves (whose details are still gagged).
Diskin’s Crusade against Palestinian-Israeli Equality
There has been increasing awareness and acknowledgment of just how thoroughly Palestinian citizens of Israel are being discriminated against. The binational NGO Sikkuy even introduced a few years ago an annual “inequality index” to gauge the nation’s progress or deterioration on the issue.
But as Israeli Palestinians begin lobbying more strongly for their rights, and as successive governments pay lip service regarding their intentions to promote equality, an unexpected wrench was thrown into this from Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet secret police. In May 2007 he sent a chilling memo to Israeli-Paletinian NGOs.
The Shin Bet security service believes it is within its charter to carry out surveillance operations, such as phone taps, on individuals deemed as “conducting subversive activity against the Jewish identity of the state,” even if their actions are not in violation of the law.
In a letter sent on Sunday to the Adalah Arab rights group and written at the behest of Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin outlined the security service’s authority to carry out investigations against Israeli citizens.
The letter is a response to an inquiry by the Arab rights group that asked Shin Bet to define its authorities in the wake of the security services recent statement that it would probe political activities aimed at changing the ‘Jewish identity’ of Israel.
While the political system received Diskin’s manifeto with mixed reactions (at that time there was still a centrist majority in Knesset rather than a right-wing one), the Shin Bet doesn’t play in the political game; rather, it determines the rules of the game in which politicians play. And thus, around the same time (spring 2007), the most charismatic Israeli-Palestinian politician, then-Member-of-Knesset (MK) Dr. Azmi Bishara, was hounded out of the country for fear of being jailed as a traitor. After the details were un-gagged, it turned out that the Shin Bet accused Dr. Bishara of passing to Hibzullah information about strategic targets during the 2006 war, in return to money.
Now, the Shin Bet does have the formal authority to bring forth charges. But consider these teeny bits:
MK’s receive excellent salary and benefits, and Bishara was already guaranteed a very generous state pension having served for 15 years. A philosopher by training and a visionary firebrand speaker by talent, he also doesn’t seem like he type who’d place becoming a millionaire above all else.
The Hizbullah has time and again proven to be an over-performing guerilla force in all respects – logistics, intelligence, preparation, and fighting. Does it really seem serious that after 25 years on the ground, they need information from a big-mouth politician and philosopher, of all people, to understand what are the strategic targets in the part of Israel just south of their border?
After Diskin’s vision about what how his modest little “security” outfit should treat Israeli-Palestinian organizations was made public, and knowing Shin Bet tactics especially w.r.t lying with a straight face, does anyone really think they would mind bending a few rules in order to frame him?
Well, 3 years have passed. Bishara is in exile, neutralized from Israeli politics, but his Balad party actually increased from 2 to 3 Knesset seats. Other Israeli-Palestinian leaders such as Sheikh Raed Saleh have been repeatedly harassed by authorities. And now, since 2009, there is a new government whose tone towards Palestinian citizens of Israel has been set by racist thug Avigdor Lieberman. The minister of police (“internal security”) is from his party. So Diskin has even more encouragement to pursue his pet project.
Here’s what Gideon Levy had to say about this recent assault and the broader picture of our self-congratulatory “tolerance” towards our Palestinian minority:
No one knows yet what exactly they are accused of and on what grounds. Perhaps the Shin Bet security mountain will produce a mole hill, perhaps not, but in the context of another ugly and collective wave of mudslinging against the Arabs of Israel, it’s time to reveal an indictment of a different sort: What can we possibly want from our Arab citizens? The truth is, more than anything, we would like them to disappear, although not their hummous restaurants…
We would like their MKs, if we still agree to let them have MKs, to visit the Jewish communities of the United States, prostrate themselves on the grave of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav and take part in the March of the Living at Auschwitz. Just as long as they don’t visit their brethren in Arab countries…
Let them take Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s loyalty test. Let them obey the Citizenship Law and not marry members of their people from the occupied territories. Let them obey the so-called Nakba Law and not dare mention the events of 1948, even in a whisper, ever. Let them not dare buy an apartment in Upper Nazareth or Carmiel, which were built on their lands, and let them not try to rent an apartment in Tel Aviv. Let them not even think of enjoying themselves at our clubs, though there’s no chance the security guards would let them in. Let them adopt an Israeli accent, preferably Ashkenazi, so security guards at Ben-Gurion International Airport won’t stop them…
And of course, let them not dare meet with “foreign agents,” almost all of whom are citizens of neighboring countries.
If indeed the “minorities” or “Arab Israelis” – we also forced these titles on them, why should we call them Palestinians? – meet all these impossible conditions, maybe we will accept them somehow. Then we will continue to gobble up pita and hummus, coffee and baklava on the house, and let them build our homes – on condition that they don’t listen to Arabic radio while working.
More about Dr. Omar Saeed
Details emerge about Dr. Saeed, the lesser-known of the two arrested leaders. Saeed’s longtime friend and colleague Dr. Stephen Fulder, an Israeli Jew who was born and raised in England, came to his defense, releasing a personal statement in Hebrew and English. Following is the complete statement from Dr. Fulder.
Dr. Omar Saeed, my long time friend, co-worker, peace and ecological activist, and fellow academic, was arrested and accused of spying for Hizbullah. The [Israeli] newspapers have given him all kinds of damaging and untrue labels. I want to correct these impressions.
1. Dr. Omar Saeed is an important international intellectual figure, a scientist, pharmacologist and one of the world’s top experts on traditional Arabic medicine, medical history and medicinal plants. He has written many scientific papers, some of which I have written with him. He is the author of a forthcoming academic text which will be the most authoritative text on Arabic medicine in the world. He is the founder and director of the largest botanical garden of medicinal plants in the Middle East. This subject is his passion and his main activity in life. Many years ago he was active politically, and he has been the deputy head of his village of Kfar Kanna in the Galilee. Now his passion is his professional subject, and his social activity is mostly within an NGO in education, ecology and co-existence.
2. Dr. Saeed has never shown, in the 15 years I have worked closely with him both as a co-worker and as a close friend, any hate or tendency to conflict. He is a peace worker who longs for peaceful co-existence. He has taken many actions in his life to bring healing to his community and to the relationships between Jews and Arabs. He works with and is close to both Jews and Arabs in daily life, in work and in the intellectual community. The herbal projects he is involved with are examples of peace projects in which both Jews and Arabs participate. For example he has invited and given classes to many thousands of Arab and Jewish children at the botanical garden, bringing them together to study something of interest to all communities. All those who have worked with him on a daily basis and know him, including many Jewish colleagues, know him to be a friend, a warm partner, a lover of peace and a great man with a big heart.
3. Dr. Saeed is constantly travelling throughout the world, in particular Jordan, where he buys herbs, carries out research, and meets experts from Arab countries. It is shameful that this activity is the reason for the suspicion of the Israeli security apparatus. I am completely convinced that a great mistake and a serious injustice is happening right now. Omar is still in prison on remand.
Dr. Stephen Fulder (Author, Researcher).
Meanwhile, about the same man Dr. Fulder described here, Foreign Minister Lieberman said today: “There is far more than general suspicions, and I suggest we really understand that there are quite a few people even here among us with the same values and world view as Iran, Hezbollah, and North Korea. They are much closer to the values of these countries that the values of a free democratic state like Israel. These people should be isolated from society.”

May 15, 2010

Ameer Makhoul’s Political Detention Extended: The Alternative Information Center

A video report produced by The Alternative Information Center – 14 May 2010

On the 12th of May 2010, an Israeli Magistrates Court extended the political detentions of Palestinian civil society activists Dr. Omar Said and Ameer Makhoul by 4 and 5 days, respectively. The extensions were issued in closed door hearings in which Said and Makhoul were not permitted to meet their legal representatives.

Rupert Cornwell: A war that nobody wants: The Independent

Thursday, 13 May 2010
You don’t have to be a fan of Dr Strangelove to recognise that wars can start by accident – that if the tinder is properly laid, a small spark can set off an uncontrollable blaze. First comes the miscalculation, a relatively small aggression that provokes a far larger retaliation. Then the concern not to lose face takes over, the refusal by either side to be seen to be backing down. Before you know it, a skirmish has spiralled into full-scale conflict.

The tinder, and not for the first time, is perfectly in place along Israel’s northern border. The actors are familiar. The protagonists are an Israel determined to defend its territory from attack, and the militant Islamic group Hizbollah, based in Lebanon and also a potent force in that country’s politics. Aligned behind Hizbollah are its two patrons, Syria and Iran, each concerned to advance its own interests in the most combustible region on earth. Israel and Hizbollah went to war four summers ago, and a lot of people now worry that the old script is poised for a repeat. And what makes it even more worrying is that none of the parties involved seems to want a war.

Israel of course would like nothing better than to eliminate the military threat from Hizbollah once and for all. But it well remembers what happened in 2006. In response to Hizbollah rocket attacks, and then the kidnap of two of its soldiers, it invaded southern Lebanon and bombed Beirut. The war lasted a month, a thousand people died and swathes of Lebanon were laid waste. But not only was the Israeli response judged grossly disproportionate, costing it dear in the court of world opinion, the mere fact that, despite the onslaught, Hizbollah lived to fight another day meant that Israel was deemed the loser. Why run the risk of a similar outcome now? To avoid sending the wrong signals, Israel has scaled back recent military exercises in the north and publicly assured Syria that war is the last thing on its mind.

Nor are its adversaries spoiling for a re-match. Certainly not Lebanon, which stands only to be devastated once again. Probably not Hizbollah either, whatever the boost to its prestige in the Arab world for actually daring to take on overwhelmingly powerful Israel. Syria too would seem to have little interest in letting itself be dragged into a hot war with Israel that it is bound to lose – and at a moment when it is trying to mend fences with the US, Israel’s key ally, and re-insert itself into Middle East peace negotiations now flickering back into life with “proximity talks” between Israelis and Palestinians.

And even Iran, for all its belligerent rhetoric, does not look to be spoiling for a real fight. After all, it is doing quite nicely as it is, pushing ahead with its nuclear programme while the West fails to agree on sanctions, and daring Israel and/or the US to attack its nuclear installations, and risk unleashing a regional war in which even the Lebanese front would probably be a sideshow.

But to call the stand-off uneasy is an understatement. Let us hope that the old Roman adage of, “if you want peace, prepare for war” still holds good in the Middle East. Thanks to reported deliveries of Scud missiles as well as nimbler and less detectable M-600 rockets from Syria, Hizbollah is now better armed than in 2006.

Both Israel and the Americans have told Syria to stop, and the US has delayed sending a new ambassador to Damascus to underline its displeasure. But apparently to no avail. The arms flow continues, even though Lebanon says the deliveries are no more real than Saddam Hussein’s imaginary WMDs. So the question becomes, how long will Israel put up with it?

And Hizbollah’s rearmament is just one possible casus belli. Another is a Hizbollah strike against an Israeli target outside Israel, perhaps in revenge for the 2008 killing of its then military commander Imad Mugniyah, which it blames on Israel. Then of course there is the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran. But on one thing Hizbollah and Israel do agree: if war were to come, 2006 would look like a warm-up in comparison. Back then, President Bush (backed by Tony Blair) ignored international calls for a ceasefire for as long as he could, to allow Israel a chance to finish the job, and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, even described the war as the “birth pangs of the new Middle East”. Next time around, “death throes” might be a better choice of phrase.

No one wants a new war – but then no one wanted the First World War in the form it ultimately took. President Obama is now being urged to present his own comprehensive plan for a Middle East settlement. The tension on Israel’s northern border is one very good reason why.

Will anyone be Obama’s soulmate?
Mention of Barack Obama, and the arrival of David Cameron in the job once held by Tony Blair, prompts a separate thought. For all his global popularity, The Washington Post wondered recently, does the US President have any real mates among other foreign leaders? Gordon Brown wasn’t one. Nor, as far as can be judged, are either Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel, or China’s President Hu for that matter. Despite the cloying show of amity in Washington yesterday, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai certainly isn’t one. Nor is Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. The closest thing to an Obama confidant, wrote the Post, might be Dimtri Medvedev – which given Russia was America’s arch foe in the Cold War, would be quite a turnaround.

These are, of course, early days. Obama’s been in office barely 15 months, and he’s had more than enough on his plate at home. But the question is not an idle one. Leadership is a desperately lonely business, which only other leaders can fully understand. Most presidents find a soulmate or two. But not yet, it would seem, Obama. Might this be an opening for our Dave?

EDITOR: Israel prepares for war

And just to prove the point made above, an article from someone quite clearly not on the left, published on the same day, castigating officers who shoot their mouth. “If you are going to shoot, shoot! Don’t talk”, is the motto of Yoel Markus, and it seems, of Israel. This war mongering will not stop at the Middle East; the west, which aided and abetted it, playing a role written  in Jerusalem, will suffer the consequences. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Thus spoke the dairy farmer: Haaretz

By Yoel Marcus
Many years ago, the incumbent chief of staff spoke at a prestigious club that used to host a prominent government figure every Friday. Mostly, reporters were also invited, and if there were no scoops to be had, at least they got a nice free lunch. I was present at that luncheon, and the CoS spoke such a lot of nonsense that I wrote a critical piece about his speech. Astonishingly, the military censor blue-penciled the whole article. The editor of Haaretz at that time, Gershom Schocken, taken aback at the deletion of an article about a public speech, called the censor, who came up with reasoning that sounded like a joke: The writer depicted the CoS as a fool, and that harmed security. Stunned by this reply, Schocken decided to go ahead and publish the piece, and the next day the paper received a substantial fine.

What has reminded me of this now? Well, Moshe “Bogey” Ya’alon, the deputy prime minister and minister of strategic affairs, and a former CoS himself, has threatened, plain and simple, to attack Iran. “There is no doubt that the technological resources that Israel has developed in recent years have improved the range and capabilities of aerial refueling,” he stated in a speech at the Fisher Brothers Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies in Herzliya. “From my point of view, all that remains is the best possible form of defense. And our capabilities are applicable in distant wars in such places as Iran.”
It is hard to believe that a man who served as head of Military Intelligence and ended up as CoS (although he did chatter himself into career suicide by saying that the grass around the IDF HQ is full of snakes ) would speak as if he were a lecturer at the university of Timbuktu. Is it conceivable that a deputy premier and a member of the seven-minister inner cabinet, a man who single-handedly can not only damage Israel’s cherished ambiguity policy but also cause the country to come under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency, should let his tongue run free like this?

Moshe Vered, a former Defense Ministry official, has written a research paper, published by Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center, in which he posits that if we were to attack Iran, it would not take it lying down but would respond with all the weaponry at its disposal. Perhaps. But when Ya’alon declares that Israel is warming up its engines, he reminds me of Eli Wallach’s immortal line in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”: “When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.”

With this kind of threat, we fit well into this part of the world, where everyone threatens everyone else. It’s a pity that we’ve sunk this low. David Ben-Gurion never threatened. The chattering proves that this government is disorderly. It is inconceivable that every minister can threaten to attack Iran or build Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. If we face a strategic threat, Ya’alon himself embodies it with his big mouth. Defense Minister Ehud Barak was right when he told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel was facing erosion in its international standing, but he nevertheless did not think there was a concrete threat to its position of nuclear ambiguity, despite the tension with the American government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week made it clear that Israel did not intend to attack its neighbors. But it’s a pity that Bibi doesn’t rebuke his deputy. As the old saw goes, seven wise men won’t be able to extricate a stone that an idiot has dropped into a well. Nowadays, when the head of Military Intelligence’s research division, Brig.-Gen Yossi Baidatz, says that Hezbollah has received accurate rockets with half-ton warheads from Syria and Iran, it is clearly advisable to speak less and act to calm the neighborhood down.

The proximity talks are still looking like a bizarre move. They are like a wedding canopy which both the bride and the groom are reluctant to step under. What did the sides speak and agree about in the protracted talks they have had – to start indirect talks now? To start everything from scratch again? After all, the problems are well known, all the transcripts are filed away on the shelves. President Obama’s determined stance is also well known, and if he doesn’t apply pressure now, it’ll come after the mid-term elections at the end of the year. Whether the president takes a body blow in the House of Representatives or wins a victory, he will focus on a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a strategic move toward neutralizing the Axis of Evil, something that is also in our interest. Netanyahu’s cabinet is the biggest ever, and he enjoys optimal conditions for moving toward a solution: both a big government and a solid parliamentary majority with Kadima, which would support a solution. And there is a U.S. government that is committed to Israel’s security.

As prime minister, Bibi has ideal conditions – the best there have ever been, including public opinion – to set Israel’s permanent borders, as well as the support of most of the public for forcible action against the extremist settlers who would lift the banner of rebellion. The law of the secular government is the law, says the Talmud, and it supersedes any religious objections. Listen to what the majority of the nation wants, and not the declarations of the former dairy farmer from Kibbutz Grofit, Lt. Gen. (Res. ) Ya’alon.

Continue reading May 15, 2010

May 14, 2010

Russia rebuffs Israeli rebuke over relations with Hamas: Haaretz

On Wednesday, Israel slammed Russian President Medvedev for meeting with Hamas leader Meshal in Damascus.
Russia on Thursday rebuffed Israel’s criticism of President Dmitry Medvedev’s meeting with the leader of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas this week.

Calling Hamas “a terror organization in every way”, Israel’s Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday it was “deeply disappointed” that Medvedev met the group’s exiled leader Khaled Meshal during a visit to Syria this week.
Russia, the United States, European Union and the United Nations, make up a quartet of Middle East mediators. The U.S., EU and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist group. Russia insists that Hamas should not be isolated.

“Hamas…is a movement supported by the trust and sympathy of a significant part of Palestinians,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement. “We have regular contacts with this movement.”
“It is known that all other participants of the Middle East quartet are also in some sort of contact with Hamas leadership, although for some unknown reason they are shy to publicly admit it,” Nesterenko said.
During the meeting with Meshal, Medvedev called for the quick release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip for nearly four years. Hamas later dismissed the Russian pressure and said Shalit would not be set free without an “honorable” prisoner exchange deal with Israel.

EDITOR: Zionism’s Lunatic Heart

You to read it to believe it. No, this is not the satire page of some left wing publication. It is the genuine article: Zionist freakish conspiracy-crazed, the-whole-world-is-against-us dyed in the wool lunacy. I raed that Obama is being carefully protected by the CIA from various white supremacist groups. Maybe the danger is coming from a different direction altogether? Maybe it is Jewish Zionist supremacists they should be watching?

Obama’s Plan to Destroy Israel: Israel National News

by Daniel Greenfield
Obama’s plan is to destroy Israel, and to do it by pushing Israel to the edge of the cliff and then over the cliff, says the writer. If you agree with this persuasive analysis, you can-or must- try to do something about it.
If there’s one thing that the Carter Administration can be given credit for, it’s creating the new wave of Islamist terrorism, both Sunni, operating out of Afghanistan, and Shiite, operating out of Iran. The Carter Administration cracked down on Israel and put its “faith” in Muslim terrorists, who then went on to wage war on America, even while Carter was in office. 28 years after Carter was removed from office, we’re in reruns again with the Obama Administration, which is not only following the Carter line, but whose plans greatly exceed it.

28 years ago, Wahhabi Sunni and Shiite terrorists were generally an afterthought when compared to the standard
Iran is to be our new best friend under this arrangement, Israel is to be our new best enemy.
USSR backed Marxist terrorist groups, such as the PLO.

Today, thanks in part to the Carter Administration, they control several countries and have designs on several more. From Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Gaza to Lebanon, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the threat is very real and bigger than ever particularly as the race by both Sunni and Shiite groups to build and deploy nuclear weapons continues.

Like Carter before him, Obama has chosen to cut backdoor deals with the Mullahs in Iran, offering them power over Iraq and Afghanistan, in exchange for quieting things down enough to let him hang up a Mission Accomplished banner and pull the troops out. “Peace with honor”, preferably before the next election. The rape law for Shiites in Afghanistan, the push for a US funded Hamas/Fatah Unity government in the territories and the rising expansion of the Taliban are all fruits of this arrangement.

If Iran is to be our new best friend under this arrangement, Israel is to be our new best enemy.

Obama stacked the deck by deploying Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in a position that gave her an important title, but absolutely no power to go with it, while stacking the National Security Council and even the Pentagon with oil appointees in the pockets of the Saudis or his own left wing radical friends.

Israel electing a conservative government really put the ball into play, freeing up even more resources for attacking Israel. The strategy runs something like this.

The Obama Administration has broken down the Israel problem into two subsections, Israel itself, and American Jews.

Obama’s people have studied the problem and understand where Carter went wrong. Obama does not want to have the same image problems as Carter in the Jewish community. Should that happen, the Beloved Leader and his lapdog press are fully prepared to unleash a Chavez style hate-on targeting American Jews. But that would be inconvenient and messy. Even with the changing face of America, there are significant differences between the average American and European or Venezuelan, and what kind of ugliness they are willing to tolerate. So Obama’s people have split their attention in handling the two factors as two different problems.

American Jews – Obama has been clever about putting his Jewish appointees front and center. Like many minorities, some American Jews suffer from self-esteem problems that are soothed when they see a seeming acceptance. Of course what they fail to realize is that exploitation is not acceptance. And that Obama’s appointees are creatures of his backers, Nazi collaborators like Soros, who have nothing but contempt for Jews, individually or collectively.While outwardly courting Jews, Obama’s people have also been quietly shoving Jewish organizations and their leaders into a corner. Within the Jewish organizational world there has been a silent but deadly takeover of major Jewish groups by left wing radicals. Former alumni of the far left wing and anti-Israel groups like Breira or Coname in the 70’s have been elevated to key positions in such organizations as the UJA Federation. Behind the scenes any Jewish leaders who expressed even doubts about Obama during the primaries
The Beloved Leader and his lapdog press are fully prepared to unleash a Chavez style hate-on targeting American Jews.
were intimidated and silenced.

Much as with conservatives, a list has been drawn up of those figures who can be won over, and those who cannot. The ones who can be won over are described as “moderates”, the ones who cannot be won over are described as “extremists”.

Meanwhile a bevvy of left wing Jewish In Name Only groups have been organized to play their part. Key among them is the Soros funded J Street, a group created as an anti-Israel lobby meant to eventually replace AIPAC. Meanwhile AIPAC itself has been kept on the ropes with such things as the well timed Harman leak. The message once again is fairly clear, cooperate and keep quiet, or we’ll destroy you.

The multi-layered approach to American Jews can then be summed up as follows;

1.) Co-opt existing Jewish organizations and swing them to the left using old school 70’s leftists.

2.) Create new “progressive” organizations to appeal to a younger generation of ethnically Jewish youth detached from any actual identity. Have these organizations generate attacks on the Israeli government and pro-Israel Jews, while creating phony polls indicating that most American Jews are behind them and Obama.

3.) Silence and intimidate remaining Jewish organizations and leaders behind the scenes.

The overall idea is to keep a happy face pasted on American Jewry while the knives are out in the dark.

Israel – The basic understanding in the Obama Administration is that Israel Must Go. In the worldview of the more moderate Obama appointees, Israel is a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. To the more left wing Obama advisors, Israel is a Western imperialist colonialist state that must be destroyed in the name of revolutionary justice. To the Islamist mindset, Israel is a Kufir state that has no right to exist in the Dar Al Islam.While intractably hostile to Israel, the Obama Administration wants to avoid the kind of public confrontations that marked the Carter and Bush Sr administrations. Instead they would much rather model the way that the Clinton Administration waged a quiet war against Israel, removing one government, and forcing extensive concessions to terrorists, all the while keeping a happy face pasted on the whole affair.

On the one hand that means avoiding harsh public attacks on Israel, but keeping the pressure up for Israel to make extensive far reaching one sided concessions, to accept Saudi and Arab League “peace plans”, to legitimize Hamas as the new government of the Palestinian Authority, and to insure that Israel does not reply to any rocket or terrorist attacks.

There are two forms of quiet leverage that the United States has on Israel, the first is financial and the second is military.

On the financial side, the goal will be to bring down the Netanyahu government coalition by destabilizing Israel economically. This is the surest and most direct path to bringing down Israel’s conservative government and replacing it with a left of center coalition. The Obama Administration has a wide variety of tactics at its disposal for doing so, from the overt, such as targeting Israeli exports and imports, to the covert, that would involve targeting the Shekel. Additionally fundraising in the US could be investigated and groups such as the Jewish National Fund, prevented from raising money in the US. All of these have been in play before at one time or another.

On the military side, Obama’s people will make their non-existent efforts to stop Iran’s nukes conditional on more concessions to terrorists. Since Israel will never be able to make enough concessions and since Obama is working with Iran, rather than working to stop Iran’s nukes, this is a hollow charade.

Furthermore while Israel has already been locked out of the military technology pipeline for anything cutting edge, it still remains dependent on US military equipment for parts and supplies. The decades of US foreign aid have also served to create dependency. Unlike many other countries, including even Sweden, Israel does not have its own jet fighter. Israel’s Air Force is heavily dependent on US weapons, parts and equipment. Cutting Israel off, would leave the Israeli military dangerously vulnerable in the case of a war. This is an effective chokehold that has been used before to prevent Israel from attacking Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, as well as preventing Israel from carrying out a preemptive strike against its enemies before the Yom Kippur War.

The overall Obama policy will be to push Israel to the brink, using financial and military blackmail against the Netanyahu government, while maintaining control over American Jews to prevent any protests or backtalk.
…American Jewish groups will support Obama… some because they were created precisely for that purpose, and others because they have been hijacked, cowed or subverted.
The more Israel will offer, the more the Obama Administration will tighten the screws. No offer will be good enough, and Israel will be blamed for every breakdown in talks and every bit of violence that takes place. The media will portray Israel and particularly Netanyahu as extremist and intransigent. Hamas will be slowly whitewashed in the media, the same way that Arafat’s goons were, (assuming that they prove more willing to cooperate in creating a positive media image of themselves than Ahmadinejad is.)

The plan is to destroy Israel, and to do it by pushing Israel to the edge of the cliff and then over the cliff. Israel’s enemies will be getting top of the line US military equipment. Israel will not. Israel will be squeezed economically until the Netanyahu government collapses, leaving a weak left wing leader like Livni in charge of Israel, and in charge of acceding to the new Pharaoh’s demands.
Meanwhile so-called American Jewish groups will support Obama all the way, some because they were created precisely for that purpose, e.g. J-Street, and others because they have been hijacked, cowed or subverted.

That is the game plan and some of it’s coming. The rest is already here.

Continue reading May 14, 2010