{"id":9086,"date":"2012-02-02T11:26:51","date_gmt":"2012-02-02T11:26:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gaza.haimbresheeth.com\/?p=9086"},"modified":"2012-02-04T15:39:44","modified_gmt":"2012-02-04T15:39:44","slug":"february-2-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/2012\/02\/02\/february-2-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"February 2, 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

EDITOR<\/strong>: Too many missiles targeting Israelis?<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Some 200,000 missiles aimed consistently at Israel, top IDF officer says<\/a>: Haaretz<\/h3>\n

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

Want up-to-date news on Israel and the Middle East? Join Haaretz.com’s official Facebook page<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Head of military intelligence Aviv Kochavi speaking at the Herzliya Conference, Feb. 2, 2012. Photo by: Tal Nissim<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The military intelligence chief added that the sanctions on Iran “are taking their toll. There’s 16% unemployment, 24% annual inflation, and practically no growth,” he said adding that “at this point the pressure isn\u2019t leading Iran to a strategic shift.”<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Israel defence minister warns it may soon be too late for Iran military strike:<\/a> Guardian<\/h3>\n
\"\"<\/a>
Ehud Barak says Tehran's nuclear programme is slowly reaching 'immunity stage' when no armed intervention could stop it<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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

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

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

At that point it would be impractical to attack, he said.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran had come under “great pressure” in the recent weeks, he added, and sanctions were beginning to show results. “The stronger the [pressure], the greater the potential for the regime \u2013 which is worried first and foremost about its survival \u2013 to reconsider,” he said.<\/p>\n

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

Sanctions were having an impact. “The value of the Iranian rial has depreciated by 50% in a very short time, food prices are rocketing sky high, there’s a run on the banks\u201a all this is part of the daily turn of events, the daily life in recent weeks,” he said.<\/p>\n

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

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

The Iranians had been forced to come back to the table, he said. “The game is up and they know it \u2026 This is a new situation, and this should be pressed to advantage.”<\/p>\n

\u00a0Israel military chief: Iran bomb plans must be disrupted<\/a>: Guardian<\/h3>\n
\"\"<\/a>
Benny Gantz says Israel should exploit 'full range of capabilities' to contend with challenges<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The successful candidate could be expected to execute an order to launch an air strike on nuclear targets in Iran.<\/p>\n

Bashir Abu-Manneh: A \u2018Palestinian Spring\u2019? Not Yet<\/a>: IOA<\/h3>\n

By Bashir Abu-Manneh, New Politics \u2013 17 Oct 2011<\/p>\n

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

Bashir Abu-Manneh<\/p>\n

The \u2018Palestinian Spring\u2019 is the only one of the \u2018Arab Springs\u2019 to be announced from the General Assembly platform of the UN. \u2018At a time when\u2019, Mahmoud Abbas declared in his speech for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood, \u2018the Arab peoples affirm their quest for democracy\u2014the Arab Spring\u2014the time is now for the Palestinian Spring, the time for independence\u2019. This link between the bid and the democratic revolts taking place in the Arab world was repeated the next day in Ramallah. Abbas told cheering supporters who came out to greet him: \u2018We told the world that there is an Arab Spring, but the Palestinian Spring exists here: a mass, popular, peacefully resisting spring that seeks to achieve our objectives\u2026. raise your heads for you are Palestinians\u2019 (Al-Hayat, 26 September 2011).<\/p>\n

It is important to note that Abbas\u2019 UN speech did emphasize Palestinian rights of self-determination and of return for the refugees. And it was a powerful indictment of Israeli rejectionism and colonialism. This doesn\u2019t change the fact, though, that there is something deeply troubling about Abbas\u2019 Palestinian Spring announcement. Here we have a Palestinian leader whose only distinction in the last 20 years is mostly secret negotiations with Israeli leaders. A leader:<\/p>\n

whose presidency of the Palestinian Authority has expired;
\nwhose Fatah faction has lost the last elections in 2006 to Hamas;
\nwho has spent most of his time as President clamping down on popular movements like Hamas (as well as Islamic Jihad) in the West Bank, closing down hundreds of Islamic charities, firing imams sympathetic to Hamas, and controlling the content of Friday sermons.
\nA leader who, finally, continues to coordinate security on a daily basis with the Israel occupation forces (his CIA-trained battalions are there to protect Israel from the Palestinians rather than the reverse).
\nHow can Abbas now welcome Arab democracy when only yesterday he was regretting the fall of Mubarak, and when even today he prides himself on the fact that if the US pulls its $200 million in security support for the Palestinian Authority, the Saudis will provide the amount instead, for which read \u2018the most undemocratic and authoritarian regime in the region\u2019?<\/p>\n

Again: there\u2019s something very strange about a US-backed, Western dependent leader going against his main sponsor in the name of Arab democracy. How can we explain Abbas\u2019 diplomatic maneuver?<\/p>\n

First: it\u2019s an act of political self-preservation on the part of the Fatah elite. After 20 years of negotiations, the occupation has deepened, settlements and settlers have more than doubled (numbering more than half a million settlers now), and the areas Israel controls have increased. Settlers\u2019 attack on Palestinians and their property are on the rise: mosques are burnt on a weekly basis. East Jerusalem is all but lost to the Palestinians, with no way for other West Bankers to get there and no freedom of worship. There\u2019s also no freedom of movement within the West Bank. Hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks continue to exist.<\/p>\n

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

The ploy seems to have been successful since most Palestinians seem to support the bid; because most Palestinians understand statehood to mean an end of occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Even Hamas\u2019 objections to the bid were not on matters of principle: they were about the means of achieving statehood rather than its desirability. Hamas also criticized Abbas for not completing the reconciliation and unity talks before heading to the UN, and only came out against the bid when Turkish and Egyptian mediation efforts between the factions failed just before the bid.<\/p>\n

By going to the UN, then, Fatah tried to change the Palestinian popular perception of complete subservience to Israel and America: of being a negotiator under any conditions. And this was successful since the US worked very hard to stop the bid and failed. In an interview with Katty Kay in BBC America on 16 September 2011, for example, the US representative to the UN, Susan Rice, called the bid \u2018unproductive\u2019 and even threatened that \u2018there won\u2019t be sovereignty and there won\u2019t be food on the table\u2019 as a result of it. No food on the table sounds familiar in the Palestinian context. What Rice was basically saying is that Ramallah risks being starved like Gaza if the PA persists in the bid. Quite an amazing threat to make so openly and without challenge. In any case, frustrated with Israeli intransigence, Fatah utilized the UN platform to expose the brutalities and crimes of the Israeli occupation. It also raised the bar for a return to negotiations: not only a freeze of settlements in all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, but also an acknowledgment by Israel that 1967 is the basis for negotiations.<\/p>\n

The second and crucial reason for Fatah\u2019s diplomatic confrontation with Israel is regional developments. The Arab revolts have weakened the US in the region. Coupled with the military and political defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan (empowering its main foe Iran in the region), the US seems to be losing its tight grip over the Arab world. The Arab tyrants, whom the US uses to protect its access and control of oil, are weaker today. Some have been banished even as their regimes persist. Democratic movements are forming and slowly becoming more powerful. The US clearly understands that Arab democracy is contra its interests. Giving people more say in and control over their politics and resources in an area which has seen several American and Israeli wars can only mean a weaker US in the region (the latest catastrophe, for example, in Iraq resulted in 1 million deaths and 5 million internally and externally displaced Iraqis).<\/p>\n

Democracy in Bahrain means the end of the US naval presence there: the largest in the region. Democracy in Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic for the US. Oil in Arabs hands used for self-development and possible projection of regional power: a real strategic threat. Democracy in Jordan means an end to the monarchy and in its place a state governed by the Palestinian majority. Democracy in Egypt, finally, means the end of the peace treaty with Israel, and Egypt back in the Arab-Israeli conflict (reversing one of the US\u2019s main diplomatic achievements in the region and ending Egypt\u2019s subservience to the US and Israel). The US then is trying to do everything it can to stifle democracy in the Arab world, and to ensure that the so-called \u2018democratic transitions\u2019 are as long and destructive for Arabs as the Oslo peace process has been for the Palestinians. The analogy is actually quite precise: the Oslo process came on the heels of the precursor to the Arab Spring: the mass mobilization of the first Palestinian intifada.<\/p>\n

Like the good political opportunists that they are, the Fatah elite smells this US regional weakening. It\u2019s a good time, they believe, to bank this politically and diplomatically, especially since there are no serious Israeli concessions on offer, only more occupation. The bid cannot be understood without this regional context. Fatah\u2019s ability to resist US pressure is also a reflection, it is worth mentioning, of Saudi Arabia\u2019s wish to deflect its internal domestic pressures for democratic reforms onto the external Palestinian issue. Containing Arab democratic aspirations with support for the single most important Arab cause is a tried and tested Arab regime maneuver. No democracy at home, but Israel is seemingly confronted. Such are the populist measures taken to avoid more structural political changes domestically.<\/p>\n

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

What are the tasks of a solidarity movement in the West under these changing conditions? These can be summarized as follows: principled anti-imperialism and consistent support for the democratic right of Palestinian self-determination. I think the first one is clear: the US out of the Middle East; full withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq; no troops or military camps to remain. Politically it means sympathy and support for Arab democracy and the peoples\u2019 free will to govern themselves: popular sovereignty. So, if anything, the first task is to fight imperial elites here at home: their policies and worldview.<\/p>\n

The second is to support Palestinian self-determination. I\u2019ll say a little more about this, because there\u2019s more confusion here about what solidarity work entails and who should decide its tactics and mechanisms. It is not the job of the solidarity movement to tell Palestinians which political outcomes they should go for: ending occupation or going for one state, negotiating with Israel or not, voting for Hamas or not, etc. What solidarity work is about is defending a democratic principle of self-government for an oppressed people, within the limits of international laws and universal norms. The right of self-determination basically means that ALL Palestinians (wherever they happen to reside) have a right to actively participate in shaping their political future. That\u2019s how one activates and safeguards Palestinian rights\u2014without fetishizing them or assuming that they are carved in stone.<\/p>\n

Self-determination requires Palestinian democracy and can only mean participatory democracy in action. Solidarity work is deciding what the best way is to support this principle. It\u2019s not a mantra. Nor does it mean that solidarity tactics are the same in every context. What is possible in Europe, for example, is not yet possible in the US, where a lot of education and information about the occupation needs to be diffused.<\/p>\n

Who should be making these judgments about effective tactics and modes of support? Each solidarity movement itself. Democratically and openly. The solidarity movement should be sovereign in deciding how to defend Palestinians against injustices and human rights violations. Americans clearly know the US more than the Palestinians who reside in occupied Palestine do. They know what\u2019s possible politically, how to operate in this environment, and how best to gain support for Palestinian justice. Solidarity activists should insist on their freedom to pursue their own modes of organization and objectives.<\/p>\n

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

What, then, to prioritize and where to begin in the struggle? The answer is: with the issues that have the broadest support. Take as an example the International Court of Justice ruling on the annexationist Wall in 2004: it called for dismantling the Wall and illegal settlements, and ending the occupation: \u2018all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory\u2026.[and] to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end\u2019 (clause 159). The Advisory Opinion also recommended that \u2018further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime\u2019 (clause 160). Until that happens, shouldn\u2019t the \u2018further action\u2019 be sanctions against Israel, especially after the Gaza massacre in 2008-2009 and the continuing siege and blockade of 1.5 million people? This ruling is a huge asset for the solidarity movement in the West. Educating people about it is crucial. Sanctions are the best way to alleviate Palestinian suffering. It is crucial to create a strategy around that in the US: to push the US government to end its military support for Israel and to push American companies to divest from the occupation.<\/p>\n

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

Bashir Abu-Manneh teaches English at Barnard College; he is also a member of the IOA Advisory Board.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EDITOR: Too many missiles targeting Israelis? Apparently (read below) there are enough missiles trained on Israel, to target every Israeli wherever they go, seemingly… This might be why more Israelis die in traffic accidents daily than did from missile attacks in the last decade? Yes, this is exactly the reason – drivers are so frightened … Continue reading February 2, 2012<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9086"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9086"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9086\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9092,"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9086\/revisions\/9092"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9086"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9086"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/haimbresheeth.com\/gaza\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9086"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}