28 nov 2012
Brzezinski to US: Stop following Israel on Iran like a stupid mule
Leading US strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, unofficial dean of the realist school of American foreign policy experts, has drawn an unflattering picture of US-Israel relations.
In a speech to the National Iranian American Council, Brzezinski said, “I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy.”
By denying any US "obligation" to "follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do," Brzezinski accurately implied that this is exactly what the US has been doing up until now. And by plaintively opining that "the United States has the right to have its own national security policy," the former National Security Adviser underlined the fact that since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who secretly went to war with Ben Gurion in a doomed effort to abort the Israeli nuclear weapons program, the US has not enjoyed that right.
Brzezinski's assertion that the US is being led by the nose like a stupid mule by the Israelis is perhaps the most candid statement of its kind ever uttered in public by a high-level US strategist. Brzezinski's remarks reflect the mainstreaming of the arguments presented by leading US political scientists Walt and Mearsheimer in their book The Israel Lobby.
Indeed, Brzezinski has gone much further than Walt and Mearsheimer, who couch their critique of the tail-wags-the-dog US-Israel relationship in extremely cautious language. By laying it out so explicitly, Brzezinski is in effect joining the ranks of such scholars as James Petras and Grant Smith, who leave Walt and Mearsheimer in the dust as they boldly and accurately describe the outrageous, destructive, and quite literally criminal Israeli domination of the US (As Smith argues in Foreign Agents, the hundreds of thousands of members of the Zionist Power Configuration described by Petras are acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power; if the law were properly enforced, they would all be in prison.).
The strong words from Brzezinski, and the mainstreaming of similar sentiments, illustrate a growing backlash against Israel's ever-more-shameless, ever-more poorly concealed domination of the USA. The post-9/11 era has witnessed a rash of unbelievably arrogant Israeli actions, including:
* Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction to 9/11 (He triumphantly chortled that 9/11 was "very good," then hastily added that he meant it was very good for Israel.).
* Ariel Sharon's reaction to 9/11, "We Jews control America, and the Americans know it."
* Allegedly retired Mossad chief spook Mike Harari's huge victory party in Bangkok, Thailand celebrating the success of the 9/11 operation.
* The actions of newly-retired Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Barak, Christopher Bollyn's top 9/11 suspect, had come to the US for mysterious reasons after stepping down as PM in March 2001, and immediately after 9/11 all but ordered the US to declare a "war on terror" and invade Afghanistan and other countries - making him the first public figure to describe the "war on terror" response to 9/11.
* The Israel lobby's demolition of the Congressional career of 9/11-truth-seeker Rep. Cynthia McKinney.
* The Israel lobby's persecution of American Muslims including Sami al-Arian, who was imprisoned and tortured for the "terrorist" crime of supporting the Palestinians' right to defend themselves.
* The Israel lobby's persecution of Christian peacemaker Mark Siljander, who was sent to prison on trumped-up charges for the crime of telling other Christians the truth about Islam, and thereby undermining the Israeli's islamophobic "war on terror" narrative.
* The Israel lobby's increasing use of its organized crime assets to dominate American politics through blackmail, fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering, assassination, and other crimes.
* Israel's blatant intervention in US elections, including its use of organized crime in vote-fraud efforts - which may finally have failed in 2012 when Netanyahu imploded at the UN, and his hand-picked puppet Mitt Romney imploded in the final election results.
*Israel's ongoing attempts to drag the US into wars-for-Israel that damage US interests - including wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan and elsewhere, as well as Israel's proposed attack on Iran.
*And finally, of course, Israel's ever-more-arrogant refusal to do what the US and every other country on earth insists it must do: Return to its pre-1967 borders and make peace with its neighbors.
Is the "stupid American mule" described by Brzezinski finally waking up?
Or, to use Anatole Lieven's animal metaphor, Is the dog finally noticing that "this is not a case of the tail wagging the dog, but of the tail wagging the unfortunate dog around the room and banging its head against the ceiling”?
In a speech to the National Iranian American Council, Brzezinski said, “I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we’ll automatically be drawn into it, I think it is the obligation of friendship to say, ‘you’re not going to be making national decision for us.’ I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy.”
By denying any US "obligation" to "follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do," Brzezinski accurately implied that this is exactly what the US has been doing up until now. And by plaintively opining that "the United States has the right to have its own national security policy," the former National Security Adviser underlined the fact that since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who secretly went to war with Ben Gurion in a doomed effort to abort the Israeli nuclear weapons program, the US has not enjoyed that right.
Brzezinski's assertion that the US is being led by the nose like a stupid mule by the Israelis is perhaps the most candid statement of its kind ever uttered in public by a high-level US strategist. Brzezinski's remarks reflect the mainstreaming of the arguments presented by leading US political scientists Walt and Mearsheimer in their book The Israel Lobby.
Indeed, Brzezinski has gone much further than Walt and Mearsheimer, who couch their critique of the tail-wags-the-dog US-Israel relationship in extremely cautious language. By laying it out so explicitly, Brzezinski is in effect joining the ranks of such scholars as James Petras and Grant Smith, who leave Walt and Mearsheimer in the dust as they boldly and accurately describe the outrageous, destructive, and quite literally criminal Israeli domination of the US (As Smith argues in Foreign Agents, the hundreds of thousands of members of the Zionist Power Configuration described by Petras are acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power; if the law were properly enforced, they would all be in prison.).
The strong words from Brzezinski, and the mainstreaming of similar sentiments, illustrate a growing backlash against Israel's ever-more-shameless, ever-more poorly concealed domination of the USA. The post-9/11 era has witnessed a rash of unbelievably arrogant Israeli actions, including:
* Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction to 9/11 (He triumphantly chortled that 9/11 was "very good," then hastily added that he meant it was very good for Israel.).
* Ariel Sharon's reaction to 9/11, "We Jews control America, and the Americans know it."
* Allegedly retired Mossad chief spook Mike Harari's huge victory party in Bangkok, Thailand celebrating the success of the 9/11 operation.
* The actions of newly-retired Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Barak, Christopher Bollyn's top 9/11 suspect, had come to the US for mysterious reasons after stepping down as PM in March 2001, and immediately after 9/11 all but ordered the US to declare a "war on terror" and invade Afghanistan and other countries - making him the first public figure to describe the "war on terror" response to 9/11.
* The Israel lobby's demolition of the Congressional career of 9/11-truth-seeker Rep. Cynthia McKinney.
* The Israel lobby's persecution of American Muslims including Sami al-Arian, who was imprisoned and tortured for the "terrorist" crime of supporting the Palestinians' right to defend themselves.
* The Israel lobby's persecution of Christian peacemaker Mark Siljander, who was sent to prison on trumped-up charges for the crime of telling other Christians the truth about Islam, and thereby undermining the Israeli's islamophobic "war on terror" narrative.
* The Israel lobby's increasing use of its organized crime assets to dominate American politics through blackmail, fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering, assassination, and other crimes.
* Israel's blatant intervention in US elections, including its use of organized crime in vote-fraud efforts - which may finally have failed in 2012 when Netanyahu imploded at the UN, and his hand-picked puppet Mitt Romney imploded in the final election results.
*Israel's ongoing attempts to drag the US into wars-for-Israel that damage US interests - including wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan and elsewhere, as well as Israel's proposed attack on Iran.
*And finally, of course, Israel's ever-more-arrogant refusal to do what the US and every other country on earth insists it must do: Return to its pre-1967 borders and make peace with its neighbors.
Is the "stupid American mule" described by Brzezinski finally waking up?
Or, to use Anatole Lieven's animal metaphor, Is the dog finally noticing that "this is not a case of the tail wagging the dog, but of the tail wagging the unfortunate dog around the room and banging its head against the ceiling”?
27 nov 2012
Israel's Livni announces election bid
Tzipi Livni
By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced her candidacy on Tuesday in a January general election, pledging to "fight for peace" with the Palestinians as a centrist alternative to Israel's right-wing leadership.
Livni, voted out as the head of the main opposition Kadima party in an internal ballot in March, told a news conference she had formed a new party, "Hat'nua" (The Movement).
Opinion polls predict Livni will win seven to nine of parliament's 120-seats, grabbing votes from left-of-center factions and not generating enough support to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing bloc.
Livni, a 54-year-old corporate lawyer, was once touted as Israel's next Golda Meir -- the only woman who ever served as prime minister. As foreign minister from 2006 to 2009, during Ehud Olmert's premiership, she was appointed to the high-profile task of heading peace talks with the PLO.
But the negotiations failed, Olmert was forced to step down in a corruption scandal, and while Kadima won more votes than Likud in the ensuing 2009 parliamentary election, Netanyahu outmaneuvered Livni to form a broad coalition government.
Her return to frontline politics will further fracture Israel's center-left, with a slew of parties courting the same pool of voters and rejecting suggestions that they should merge to form a stronger, more unified front against Netanyahu.
Thronged by supporters and standing in front of a banner bearing the name of her new party, Livni spoke of hope, unity and dialogue. "I came to fight for peace, I came to fight for security," she said.
Stalemate
Livni has long criticized the stalemate in peace efforts that collapsed in 2010 after Netanyahu rebuffed Palestinian demands to extend a 10-month partial freeze in illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.
At the news conference, she said Netanyahu had negotiated indirectly with Hamas to achieve a truce in the Gaza Strip last week while failing to pursue a resumption of talks with Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas.
Netanyahu and the United States, the dominant sponsor of the Middle East peace process, have called repeatedly for Abbas to return to negotiations without preconditions.
Abbas has opted instead to seek an upgrade in the Palestinians' UN status to "observer state". The 193-member world body is expected to back the move in a vote on Thursday, implicitly recognizing Palestinian statehood.
In what could be a boost for Livni, as she seeks middle-of-the-road backing, Netanyahu's party veered sharply to the right on Monday, selecting hardliners to top its candidates' list in the Jan. 22 ballot.
"Israeli citizens deserve more," Livni said, taking a swipe at Likud, which tossed aside four moderate members of Netanyahu's cabinet supportive of diplomacy with the Palestinians.
"Netanyahu lost yesterday in the Likud and he can lose in the election," Livni said.
Since quitting Kadima and giving up her parliamentary seat eight months ago, Livni joined a leading Tel Aviv think tank. She said supporters had urged her to return to politics and that her decision "wasn't an easy one to make".
By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced her candidacy on Tuesday in a January general election, pledging to "fight for peace" with the Palestinians as a centrist alternative to Israel's right-wing leadership.
Livni, voted out as the head of the main opposition Kadima party in an internal ballot in March, told a news conference she had formed a new party, "Hat'nua" (The Movement).
Opinion polls predict Livni will win seven to nine of parliament's 120-seats, grabbing votes from left-of-center factions and not generating enough support to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing bloc.
Livni, a 54-year-old corporate lawyer, was once touted as Israel's next Golda Meir -- the only woman who ever served as prime minister. As foreign minister from 2006 to 2009, during Ehud Olmert's premiership, she was appointed to the high-profile task of heading peace talks with the PLO.
But the negotiations failed, Olmert was forced to step down in a corruption scandal, and while Kadima won more votes than Likud in the ensuing 2009 parliamentary election, Netanyahu outmaneuvered Livni to form a broad coalition government.
Her return to frontline politics will further fracture Israel's center-left, with a slew of parties courting the same pool of voters and rejecting suggestions that they should merge to form a stronger, more unified front against Netanyahu.
Thronged by supporters and standing in front of a banner bearing the name of her new party, Livni spoke of hope, unity and dialogue. "I came to fight for peace, I came to fight for security," she said.
Stalemate
Livni has long criticized the stalemate in peace efforts that collapsed in 2010 after Netanyahu rebuffed Palestinian demands to extend a 10-month partial freeze in illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank.
At the news conference, she said Netanyahu had negotiated indirectly with Hamas to achieve a truce in the Gaza Strip last week while failing to pursue a resumption of talks with Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas.
Netanyahu and the United States, the dominant sponsor of the Middle East peace process, have called repeatedly for Abbas to return to negotiations without preconditions.
Abbas has opted instead to seek an upgrade in the Palestinians' UN status to "observer state". The 193-member world body is expected to back the move in a vote on Thursday, implicitly recognizing Palestinian statehood.
In what could be a boost for Livni, as she seeks middle-of-the-road backing, Netanyahu's party veered sharply to the right on Monday, selecting hardliners to top its candidates' list in the Jan. 22 ballot.
"Israeli citizens deserve more," Livni said, taking a swipe at Likud, which tossed aside four moderate members of Netanyahu's cabinet supportive of diplomacy with the Palestinians.
"Netanyahu lost yesterday in the Likud and he can lose in the election," Livni said.
Since quitting Kadima and giving up her parliamentary seat eight months ago, Livni joined a leading Tel Aviv think tank. She said supporters had urged her to return to politics and that her decision "wasn't an easy one to make".
Pro-settler Israeli hardliners sweep Netanyahu party vote
Benjamin Netanyahu
By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Pro-settler hardliners swept a vote on Monday held by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, effectively tossing four of his closest allies and backers of Middle East diplomacy off a list of candidates running with him in a Jan. 22 election.
Party members ranked candidates on a list for the national poll to determine which of dozens already nominated could actually be elected to parliament.
The top 15 chosen, or those most likely to become or be re-elected as lawmakers, overwhelmingly included ultra-right champions of Jewish settlement on the occupied Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu is predicted to win re-election in the national election in two months' time. But being surrounded by more hardline lawmakers than previously could toughen his policies on such issues as Iran's nuclear program which Israel has vowed to stop, and diplomacy with the Palestinians, already frozen since 2010.
The main losers in Monday's vote or those who garnered too few votes from some 100,000 party faithful to guarantee re-election, were Dan Meridor, Benjamin Begin, son of late Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and Avraham Dichter, in addition to Michael Eitan, a rare civil libertarian in Likud.
Among the winners were ex-general Moshe Yaalon, currently a minister for strategic affairs, seen as a possible successor to the more moderate Ehud Barak as defense minister.
"With such extremists Netanyahu could have problems," Roni Milo, a former Likud cabinet minister, quipped in a video interview with Ynet's news Web site.
Netanyahu, though, had no immediate comment.
Likud's balloting had been fraught with tension, also for technical reasons when computer malfunctions forced the vote to stretch into a second day.
Left-wing and centrist parties in Israel assailed Likud's candidate rankings. The centrist Kadima party headed by former general Shaul Mofaz charged in a statement the right-wing party he also once belonged to "has now lost its way and been swayed to the extreme margins of the political map".
By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Pro-settler hardliners swept a vote on Monday held by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, effectively tossing four of his closest allies and backers of Middle East diplomacy off a list of candidates running with him in a Jan. 22 election.
Party members ranked candidates on a list for the national poll to determine which of dozens already nominated could actually be elected to parliament.
The top 15 chosen, or those most likely to become or be re-elected as lawmakers, overwhelmingly included ultra-right champions of Jewish settlement on the occupied Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu is predicted to win re-election in the national election in two months' time. But being surrounded by more hardline lawmakers than previously could toughen his policies on such issues as Iran's nuclear program which Israel has vowed to stop, and diplomacy with the Palestinians, already frozen since 2010.
The main losers in Monday's vote or those who garnered too few votes from some 100,000 party faithful to guarantee re-election, were Dan Meridor, Benjamin Begin, son of late Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and Avraham Dichter, in addition to Michael Eitan, a rare civil libertarian in Likud.
Among the winners were ex-general Moshe Yaalon, currently a minister for strategic affairs, seen as a possible successor to the more moderate Ehud Barak as defense minister.
"With such extremists Netanyahu could have problems," Roni Milo, a former Likud cabinet minister, quipped in a video interview with Ynet's news Web site.
Netanyahu, though, had no immediate comment.
Likud's balloting had been fraught with tension, also for technical reasons when computer malfunctions forced the vote to stretch into a second day.
Left-wing and centrist parties in Israel assailed Likud's candidate rankings. The centrist Kadima party headed by former general Shaul Mofaz charged in a statement the right-wing party he also once belonged to "has now lost its way and been swayed to the extreme margins of the political map".
Israeli opponents of Iran strike sidelined in vote
Ehud Barak
By Dan Williams
At least two key advisers helping hold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back from a threatened war with Iran have been sidelined in a party primary to pick candidates for a Jan. 22 election, political sources said on Tuesday.
Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, two of eight cabinet ministers who form Netanyahu's inner council, were trounced in an internal election by more hawkish members of the ruling Likud party on Monday, raising doubts over their return to the next government.
Both men have opposed attacking Iran's nuclear facilities unilaterally during secret deliberations by the inner council, according to an Israeli official, and their likely ouster could point to a strategic shift closer to confrontation.
"They have been the most vocal against the military option, along with (Moshe) Yaalon and (Eli) Yishai," the official told Reuters, referring to two other ministers from the forum, which lacks statutory authority but has often paved the way for formal policy making by Netanyahu's coalition government.
Israel says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has threatened to take military action to guard against what it sees as a mortal threat. Tehran dismisses the accusation.
The United States and other Western powers share Israeli fears about Iran's intentions but have urged Netanyahu to show restraint to prevent the eruption of a new Middle East war. Israel is presumed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal.
The loss of Meridor and Begin would be partly off-set by the planned retirement of fellow forum member Defense Minister Ehud Barak, announced separately on Monday. The centrist Barak has, with Netanyahu, most publicly advocated striking Iran should international sanctions fail to curb its uranium enrichment.
A fourth forum member sidelined in the primary by right-wing Likud was Civil Defense Minister Avi Dichter.
Dichter only joined the Netanyahu cabinet in August and has not publicly shared his views on tackling Iran, yet he is widely seen as war-wary.
Under the previous, centrist government, he was the only minister not to support Israel's 2007 bombing of a suspected Syrian atomic reactor, according to a cabinet official at the time. Dichter has declined to comment on that episode.
Veering right?
Netanyahu is seen winning January's election, and his government is likely to move further to the right even if he puts together a new coalition with the left-leaning opposition.
Not only has his Likud already joined forces with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's powerful ultra-nationalist party, but Monday's primary promoted Likud pro-settler hardliners at the expense of perceived moderates.
Diplomatic analyst Chico Menashe told the morning news program on Israel Radio the looming reshuffle of the "Forum of Nine" inner council could help push the premier into a collision course with Western allies, who are already concerned by his sabre-rattling on Iran and Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank.
"To a large degree Begin, Meridor, Dichter and Barak were a very significant anchor for the prime minister, which he needed in order to maneuver properly on the challenges and in the face of the international community," Menashe said.
"Something amazing has happened. Four out of the nine members of the forum that forms the apex of Israel's national security and statesmanship are on their way out."
Netanyahu could, in theory, keep on any or all of the four outgoing ministers as professional appointees. But he would be hard-pressed to expend such political capital on men who do not bring any parliamentary backing.
The frontrunner to succeed Barak as defense minister is Yaalon, another ex-general in the "Forum of Nine". Yaalon has talked tough on Iran, but is more circumspect within the forum, according to the Israeli official briefed on the deliberations.
While Barak is embraced abroad for his peacemaking efforts while premier in the late 1990s, Yaalon is relatively untested and lacks mileage in liaising with the United States.
That, in turn, would potentially limit his ability to stay Netanyahu's hand, suggested Dennis Ross, former Middle East adviser to US President Barack Obama.
"Whoever would replace (Barak) in the next government will be hard-pressed to have the same stature or influence both with the prime minister and with us," Ross told Reuters.
By Dan Williams
At least two key advisers helping hold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back from a threatened war with Iran have been sidelined in a party primary to pick candidates for a Jan. 22 election, political sources said on Tuesday.
Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, two of eight cabinet ministers who form Netanyahu's inner council, were trounced in an internal election by more hawkish members of the ruling Likud party on Monday, raising doubts over their return to the next government.
Both men have opposed attacking Iran's nuclear facilities unilaterally during secret deliberations by the inner council, according to an Israeli official, and their likely ouster could point to a strategic shift closer to confrontation.
"They have been the most vocal against the military option, along with (Moshe) Yaalon and (Eli) Yishai," the official told Reuters, referring to two other ministers from the forum, which lacks statutory authority but has often paved the way for formal policy making by Netanyahu's coalition government.
Israel says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has threatened to take military action to guard against what it sees as a mortal threat. Tehran dismisses the accusation.
The United States and other Western powers share Israeli fears about Iran's intentions but have urged Netanyahu to show restraint to prevent the eruption of a new Middle East war. Israel is presumed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal.
The loss of Meridor and Begin would be partly off-set by the planned retirement of fellow forum member Defense Minister Ehud Barak, announced separately on Monday. The centrist Barak has, with Netanyahu, most publicly advocated striking Iran should international sanctions fail to curb its uranium enrichment.
A fourth forum member sidelined in the primary by right-wing Likud was Civil Defense Minister Avi Dichter.
Dichter only joined the Netanyahu cabinet in August and has not publicly shared his views on tackling Iran, yet he is widely seen as war-wary.
Under the previous, centrist government, he was the only minister not to support Israel's 2007 bombing of a suspected Syrian atomic reactor, according to a cabinet official at the time. Dichter has declined to comment on that episode.
Veering right?
Netanyahu is seen winning January's election, and his government is likely to move further to the right even if he puts together a new coalition with the left-leaning opposition.
Not only has his Likud already joined forces with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's powerful ultra-nationalist party, but Monday's primary promoted Likud pro-settler hardliners at the expense of perceived moderates.
Diplomatic analyst Chico Menashe told the morning news program on Israel Radio the looming reshuffle of the "Forum of Nine" inner council could help push the premier into a collision course with Western allies, who are already concerned by his sabre-rattling on Iran and Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank.
"To a large degree Begin, Meridor, Dichter and Barak were a very significant anchor for the prime minister, which he needed in order to maneuver properly on the challenges and in the face of the international community," Menashe said.
"Something amazing has happened. Four out of the nine members of the forum that forms the apex of Israel's national security and statesmanship are on their way out."
Netanyahu could, in theory, keep on any or all of the four outgoing ministers as professional appointees. But he would be hard-pressed to expend such political capital on men who do not bring any parliamentary backing.
The frontrunner to succeed Barak as defense minister is Yaalon, another ex-general in the "Forum of Nine". Yaalon has talked tough on Iran, but is more circumspect within the forum, according to the Israeli official briefed on the deliberations.
While Barak is embraced abroad for his peacemaking efforts while premier in the late 1990s, Yaalon is relatively untested and lacks mileage in liaising with the United States.
That, in turn, would potentially limit his ability to stay Netanyahu's hand, suggested Dennis Ross, former Middle East adviser to US President Barack Obama.
"Whoever would replace (Barak) in the next government will be hard-pressed to have the same stature or influence both with the prime minister and with us," Ross told Reuters.
26 nov 2012
Report: "Shale stones" caused extensive damage to the Israeli tourism
An Israeli financial magazine, published in the "Tel Aviv", reported that Israel's tourism has been significantly affected by the recent military aggression on the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli "The Marker" magazine stated, in its recent editions, that the recent aggression waged by the Israeli army against the Gaza Strip and which lasted for eight consecutive days has affected all the cities in the Palestinian 1948- occupied territories, including Tel Aviv and occupied Jerusalem.
The magazine reported that the aggression has seriously damaged and caused heavy losses in the tourism sector in the occupied Palestine, noting that 20 % of the reservations for tourist trips, which had been scheduled to take place in the occupied territories, have been canceled during the military operation.
Meanwhile, the Israeli Ministry of Tourism pointed out that it has launched works of restoration and repair of the damage which affected tourist sites, especially those located in the southern regions of the 1948- occpied territories.
Official data issued by the Israeli Hotel Association pointed out to the extent of the financial damage affecting the hotels, during the aggression on the Gaza Strip, and which exceeds half a billion U.S. dollar (about 518 million U.S. dollars).
For his part; the head Hotel Association Ami Federman called for launching an urgent marketing campaign in order to encourage the tourists to visit Israel.
The Israeli "The Marker" magazine stated, in its recent editions, that the recent aggression waged by the Israeli army against the Gaza Strip and which lasted for eight consecutive days has affected all the cities in the Palestinian 1948- occupied territories, including Tel Aviv and occupied Jerusalem.
The magazine reported that the aggression has seriously damaged and caused heavy losses in the tourism sector in the occupied Palestine, noting that 20 % of the reservations for tourist trips, which had been scheduled to take place in the occupied territories, have been canceled during the military operation.
Meanwhile, the Israeli Ministry of Tourism pointed out that it has launched works of restoration and repair of the damage which affected tourist sites, especially those located in the southern regions of the 1948- occpied territories.
Official data issued by the Israeli Hotel Association pointed out to the extent of the financial damage affecting the hotels, during the aggression on the Gaza Strip, and which exceeds half a billion U.S. dollar (about 518 million U.S. dollars).
For his part; the head Hotel Association Ami Federman called for launching an urgent marketing campaign in order to encourage the tourists to visit Israel.
Hamas hails resignation of Israel’s Ehud Barak
Ehud Barak
The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has hailed the resignation of Israeli Minister for Military Affairs Ehud Barak as another victory for the resistance.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Barak’s decision to resign shows that he failed in overseeing the political and military aspects of the recent Israeli onslaught on the Palestinian territory.
Barhoum added that the resignation “underscores” the Israeli regime’s “failure in achieving its goals during the operation.”
Barhoum stressed that the move is “another victory for the resistance in the military operation and reflects the panic and crisis the Israeli leaders are suffering from in light of the operation’s results.”
Meanwhile, Abu Ahmad, a spokesman for the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, said that by resigning Barak is “recognizing the resounding defeat at the hands of the resistance and [the resistance’s] quality strikes that jolted Tel Aviv.”
The 70-year-old Barak, who served as Israel’s 14th chief of staff and has a 36-year military career, announced that he is retiring from politics and will not contend in the parliamentary elections on January 22.
The announcement came only a few days after the end of the deadly Israeli war on Gaza.
Over 160 Palestinians, including many women and children, were killed and about 1,200 others were injured in the Israeli attacks between November 14 and 21.
In retaliation, the Palestinian resistance fighters fired rockets and missiles into Israeli cities, killing at least five Israelis.
The eight-day war ended after the Israeli regime and Hamas agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire on November 21.
The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has hailed the resignation of Israeli Minister for Military Affairs Ehud Barak as another victory for the resistance.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Barak’s decision to resign shows that he failed in overseeing the political and military aspects of the recent Israeli onslaught on the Palestinian territory.
Barhoum added that the resignation “underscores” the Israeli regime’s “failure in achieving its goals during the operation.”
Barhoum stressed that the move is “another victory for the resistance in the military operation and reflects the panic and crisis the Israeli leaders are suffering from in light of the operation’s results.”
Meanwhile, Abu Ahmad, a spokesman for the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, said that by resigning Barak is “recognizing the resounding defeat at the hands of the resistance and [the resistance’s] quality strikes that jolted Tel Aviv.”
The 70-year-old Barak, who served as Israel’s 14th chief of staff and has a 36-year military career, announced that he is retiring from politics and will not contend in the parliamentary elections on January 22.
The announcement came only a few days after the end of the deadly Israeli war on Gaza.
Over 160 Palestinians, including many women and children, were killed and about 1,200 others were injured in the Israeli attacks between November 14 and 21.
In retaliation, the Palestinian resistance fighters fired rockets and missiles into Israeli cities, killing at least five Israelis.
The eight-day war ended after the Israeli regime and Hamas agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire on November 21.
25 nov 2012
|
|
I’m quitting politics: Israel’s Barak
Israeli Minister for Military Affairs Ehud Barak has announced his plans to end his political career.
Barak announced on Monday that he is retiring from politics and will not contend in the parliamentary elections on January 22, AFP reported. "I have decided to resign from political life and not participate in the upcoming Knesset elections," he said at a press conference in Tel Aviv. |
"I will finish my duties with the formation of the next government in three months," Barak added.
The Israeli official said, “I have exhausted politics and I want to dedicate more time to my family."
Barak noted that he had been considering quitting for some time, but the recent Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip delayed his decision.
Barak, 70, served as Israel's 14th chief of staff and has a 36-year military career.
Six months after leaving the army in 1995, he entered politics and assumed the role of interior minister under Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He was later named foreign minister.
Barak was elected chairman of the Israeli Labor party in 1997. He defeated Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1999 prime ministerial election.
In May 2000, he led the Israeli army’s retreat from south Lebanon.
He was defeated by Likud leader Ariel Sharon in the 2001 election, and subsequently resigned as Labor leader and from the Knesset.
Barak announced his return to Israeli politics in 2005, and ran for the leadership of the Labor Party in November of that year.
After winning back the leadership of the Labor party in 2007, Barak was sworn in as Minister for Military Affairs as part of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's cabinet.
The Israeli official said, “I have exhausted politics and I want to dedicate more time to my family."
Barak noted that he had been considering quitting for some time, but the recent Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip delayed his decision.
Barak, 70, served as Israel's 14th chief of staff and has a 36-year military career.
Six months after leaving the army in 1995, he entered politics and assumed the role of interior minister under Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He was later named foreign minister.
Barak was elected chairman of the Israeli Labor party in 1997. He defeated Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1999 prime ministerial election.
In May 2000, he led the Israeli army’s retreat from south Lebanon.
He was defeated by Likud leader Ariel Sharon in the 2001 election, and subsequently resigned as Labor leader and from the Knesset.
Barak announced his return to Israeli politics in 2005, and ran for the leadership of the Labor Party in November of that year.
After winning back the leadership of the Labor party in 2007, Barak was sworn in as Minister for Military Affairs as part of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's cabinet.
24 nov 2012
Netanyahu's high-stakes game in Gaza
By Ramzy Baroud
Many key phrases have been presented to explain Israel's latest military onslaught against Gaza, which left scores dead and wounded.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is flexing his muscles in preparation for the Israeli general elections in January, suggested some. It is Israel’s way of testing the administration of Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi, commented others. It was a stern message to Iran, instructed few. Or that Israel is simply assessing its 'deterrence' capabilities. And so on.
But there is more than those ready-to-serve analyses. It has been four years since Israel mixed up the cards through an unhindered show of force. Last time it did so was in 2008-09, in a 22-day war it termed 'Operation Cast Lead'. Then, it killed over 1,400 Palestinians and wounded over 5,000 others. Excluding Israel’s diehard supporters, the general consensus was, including that of many UN and international rights organizations: Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity deserving of international tribunals and due retribution.
Of course, none took place. The US government and media stood as an impenetrable shield between Israel's accused war criminals and those daring to level accusations. Four years later little has changed. Then as it is now, Israel was embarking on national elections, and since 'security' is Israel’s enduring strategy whether in national or international politics, it was suddenly realized that Gaza posed a 'security threat', thus had to be suppressed or at least taught a lesson.
Never mind that a truce was in effect and was mostly holding up, that it was Israel that provoked Palestinian factions to retaliate - before the retaliation was itself considered the original act of aggression as willfully validated by mainstream western media.
In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president, and the outgoing George W. Bush administration remained largely 'uninvolved', save for the reiteration of Israel’s right to defend itself against hordes of Palestinian terrorists and such. Some then, suggested that Cast Lead was an Israeli trial balloon to test Obama, whom Israel viewed with much suspicion despite all the groveling he has done at Israeli lobby meetings to assure Israel that a president with a middle name such as 'Hussein' will not dare demand accountability from Israel.
Obama eventually lived up to Israel's expectations, and despite few hiccups in their relations, the new administration was hardly different from its predecessors. Under Obama, Israel remained a top priority for American diplomacy, politics, military and financial aid and more.
However, Israel was still dissatisfied.
Political analysts cite few incidents that made Netanyahu look unfavorably at Obama from the onset. The latter ushered in his foreign policy with the appointment of a Middle East peace envoy, and expected Israel to work towards the resumption of the so-called peace process.
More dangerously however, Obama spoke bluntly for the need to freeze settlement construction, as a necessary first step before the return to the 'negotiations table'. Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who understands well the importance of Israeli support for any ambition US politician, was clear regarding the settlements: President Obama, she said, "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."
Gradually that position weakened, if not entirely reversed. Over the following months and years, the Obama administration retreated to the US' foreign policy comfort zone regarding Israel: give generously (even in times of economic recession), expect nothing in return, and in the meantime ask no questions. But it takes more to placate an ever-demanding government as that of Netanyahu.
The Israeli Prime Minister is himself troubled by fears that his palpable support of the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, and his trademark arrogance and lecturing of Obama regarding Iran, could prove costly during Obama's new term. Not that Obama is likely to be any less enthusiastic about supporting Israel, but the Israeli government is concerned that the US administration might not adopt Israeli foreign policy priorities as if it's an American doctrine, which has been the case for years.
Hours after the election results declared Obama a winner, the Israeli media began censuring the injudiciousness of their prime minister.
Articles with such titles as "So Sorry, President Obama, Please Forgive Netanyahu," (Haaretz) and "Bibi Gambled, We’ll Pay," (Yedioth Ahronoth) became commonplace. Romney’s defeat was particularly sobering for Israel since it’s the first time that the power of the Zionist lobby and the endless millions of their patrons, such as multi-billionaire gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson were rarely as useful in determining election results of this scale.
Truth to be told, Obama is not only unpopular among Israeli political elites, but with the Israeli public as well. "In global polls, Israel is the only country in the world that would have elected Romney over Obama," said ABC, and with a huge margin too.
It was early morning time on Wednesday Nov. 7 in Israel and the occupied territories when the US election results were declared. The Israeli cabinet swung into action, and the Israel army was quickly deployed to seek provocations at the Gaza border.
An earlier incident on Nov. 5, where an apparently mentally unfit man, Ahmad al-Nabaheen was shot dead by Israeli troops, heightened tension, although a truce remained in effect. On Nov. 8, however, Israel sought its casus belli as it moved into Gaza with tanks and attack helicopters.
An early victim was a 12-year-old boy gunned down while playing soccer. Palestinians retaliated, although projectiles inside Israel caused no damage. One Israeli soldier was injured near the border with Gaza and more firing was reported by Palestinian fighters aimed at an Israeli military jeep, injuring four. Two more children were killed in an open soccer field on Nov. 10, prompting more, although still guarded Palestinian retaliation.
And another civilian in Gaza was killed the following day when Israel bombed the funeral tent set up to mourn the victims of past days.
On Nov. 12, Egypt was concluding yet another truce between Israel and resistance factions. But that turned out to be a diplomatic embarrassment for Egypt, as the man who agreed to the text of the truce on the Palestinian side, the leader of the Hamas armed resistance in Gaza Ahmed al-Jaabari, was himself assassinated by an Israeli missile on Nov. 14.
No other meaning can be extracted from al-Jaabari's murder but the fact that Israel had decided to pull the Palestinians into an all-out war.
Scores of Palestinians, many of whom civilians, were killed in the subsequent days. Palestinians extended the range of their projectiles into areas near Tel Aviv and as far as Jerusalem. Three Israelis were reportedly killed.
Israel's obsession with security often, if not always, leads it to create the very conditions that compromise on its own security, so that its leaders may demonstrate the authenticity of their original claim. It is a strange logic that is as old as the state of Israel itself. But the timing of the latest war on Gaza as in the previous one partly meant to push the subject of Israel’s security on the top of the new administration’s agenda, rife with crises and challenges.
No US administration risks initiating its term in office with an open confrontation with Israel. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that in times of war, Israel is right even if it's wrong, as it often is. Not even Barack Hussein Obama is strong enough to change that reasoning.
"We strongly condemn the barrage of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel," said Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. "There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel."
Now that Israel is once more pushing its agenda as an American priority, the time is ripe for further escalation and for more saber-rattling against Iran, Hezbollah and whomever else Israel perceives as an enemy. Israeli causalities will be used to demonstrate Israel's supposed vulnerability, and Palestinian deaths will buttress Netanyahu’s right-wing government as Israel’s unbending guardian against those who continue to pose 'an existential threat' to the Jewish state.
The truth, of course, remains the least relevant.
Ramzy Baroud is the editor of Palestine Chronicle.
Many key phrases have been presented to explain Israel's latest military onslaught against Gaza, which left scores dead and wounded.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is flexing his muscles in preparation for the Israeli general elections in January, suggested some. It is Israel’s way of testing the administration of Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi, commented others. It was a stern message to Iran, instructed few. Or that Israel is simply assessing its 'deterrence' capabilities. And so on.
But there is more than those ready-to-serve analyses. It has been four years since Israel mixed up the cards through an unhindered show of force. Last time it did so was in 2008-09, in a 22-day war it termed 'Operation Cast Lead'. Then, it killed over 1,400 Palestinians and wounded over 5,000 others. Excluding Israel’s diehard supporters, the general consensus was, including that of many UN and international rights organizations: Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity deserving of international tribunals and due retribution.
Of course, none took place. The US government and media stood as an impenetrable shield between Israel's accused war criminals and those daring to level accusations. Four years later little has changed. Then as it is now, Israel was embarking on national elections, and since 'security' is Israel’s enduring strategy whether in national or international politics, it was suddenly realized that Gaza posed a 'security threat', thus had to be suppressed or at least taught a lesson.
Never mind that a truce was in effect and was mostly holding up, that it was Israel that provoked Palestinian factions to retaliate - before the retaliation was itself considered the original act of aggression as willfully validated by mainstream western media.
In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president, and the outgoing George W. Bush administration remained largely 'uninvolved', save for the reiteration of Israel’s right to defend itself against hordes of Palestinian terrorists and such. Some then, suggested that Cast Lead was an Israeli trial balloon to test Obama, whom Israel viewed with much suspicion despite all the groveling he has done at Israeli lobby meetings to assure Israel that a president with a middle name such as 'Hussein' will not dare demand accountability from Israel.
Obama eventually lived up to Israel's expectations, and despite few hiccups in their relations, the new administration was hardly different from its predecessors. Under Obama, Israel remained a top priority for American diplomacy, politics, military and financial aid and more.
However, Israel was still dissatisfied.
Political analysts cite few incidents that made Netanyahu look unfavorably at Obama from the onset. The latter ushered in his foreign policy with the appointment of a Middle East peace envoy, and expected Israel to work towards the resumption of the so-called peace process.
More dangerously however, Obama spoke bluntly for the need to freeze settlement construction, as a necessary first step before the return to the 'negotiations table'. Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who understands well the importance of Israeli support for any ambition US politician, was clear regarding the settlements: President Obama, she said, "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."
Gradually that position weakened, if not entirely reversed. Over the following months and years, the Obama administration retreated to the US' foreign policy comfort zone regarding Israel: give generously (even in times of economic recession), expect nothing in return, and in the meantime ask no questions. But it takes more to placate an ever-demanding government as that of Netanyahu.
The Israeli Prime Minister is himself troubled by fears that his palpable support of the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, and his trademark arrogance and lecturing of Obama regarding Iran, could prove costly during Obama's new term. Not that Obama is likely to be any less enthusiastic about supporting Israel, but the Israeli government is concerned that the US administration might not adopt Israeli foreign policy priorities as if it's an American doctrine, which has been the case for years.
Hours after the election results declared Obama a winner, the Israeli media began censuring the injudiciousness of their prime minister.
Articles with such titles as "So Sorry, President Obama, Please Forgive Netanyahu," (Haaretz) and "Bibi Gambled, We’ll Pay," (Yedioth Ahronoth) became commonplace. Romney’s defeat was particularly sobering for Israel since it’s the first time that the power of the Zionist lobby and the endless millions of their patrons, such as multi-billionaire gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson were rarely as useful in determining election results of this scale.
Truth to be told, Obama is not only unpopular among Israeli political elites, but with the Israeli public as well. "In global polls, Israel is the only country in the world that would have elected Romney over Obama," said ABC, and with a huge margin too.
It was early morning time on Wednesday Nov. 7 in Israel and the occupied territories when the US election results were declared. The Israeli cabinet swung into action, and the Israel army was quickly deployed to seek provocations at the Gaza border.
An earlier incident on Nov. 5, where an apparently mentally unfit man, Ahmad al-Nabaheen was shot dead by Israeli troops, heightened tension, although a truce remained in effect. On Nov. 8, however, Israel sought its casus belli as it moved into Gaza with tanks and attack helicopters.
An early victim was a 12-year-old boy gunned down while playing soccer. Palestinians retaliated, although projectiles inside Israel caused no damage. One Israeli soldier was injured near the border with Gaza and more firing was reported by Palestinian fighters aimed at an Israeli military jeep, injuring four. Two more children were killed in an open soccer field on Nov. 10, prompting more, although still guarded Palestinian retaliation.
And another civilian in Gaza was killed the following day when Israel bombed the funeral tent set up to mourn the victims of past days.
On Nov. 12, Egypt was concluding yet another truce between Israel and resistance factions. But that turned out to be a diplomatic embarrassment for Egypt, as the man who agreed to the text of the truce on the Palestinian side, the leader of the Hamas armed resistance in Gaza Ahmed al-Jaabari, was himself assassinated by an Israeli missile on Nov. 14.
No other meaning can be extracted from al-Jaabari's murder but the fact that Israel had decided to pull the Palestinians into an all-out war.
Scores of Palestinians, many of whom civilians, were killed in the subsequent days. Palestinians extended the range of their projectiles into areas near Tel Aviv and as far as Jerusalem. Three Israelis were reportedly killed.
Israel's obsession with security often, if not always, leads it to create the very conditions that compromise on its own security, so that its leaders may demonstrate the authenticity of their original claim. It is a strange logic that is as old as the state of Israel itself. But the timing of the latest war on Gaza as in the previous one partly meant to push the subject of Israel’s security on the top of the new administration’s agenda, rife with crises and challenges.
No US administration risks initiating its term in office with an open confrontation with Israel. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that in times of war, Israel is right even if it's wrong, as it often is. Not even Barack Hussein Obama is strong enough to change that reasoning.
"We strongly condemn the barrage of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel," said Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. "There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel."
Now that Israel is once more pushing its agenda as an American priority, the time is ripe for further escalation and for more saber-rattling against Iran, Hezbollah and whomever else Israel perceives as an enemy. Israeli causalities will be used to demonstrate Israel's supposed vulnerability, and Palestinian deaths will buttress Netanyahu’s right-wing government as Israel’s unbending guardian against those who continue to pose 'an existential threat' to the Jewish state.
The truth, of course, remains the least relevant.
Ramzy Baroud is the editor of Palestine Chronicle.
22 nov 2012
Police: Gunmen fire on Israeli bus near Bethlehem
An Israeli bus was shot at in the southern West Bank on Wednesday evening, Israeli police said.
Police spokeswoman Luba al-Sumri said unknown gunmen opened fire on the bus traveling near Gush Etzion, south of Bethlehem.
The gunmen escaped and police are looking for the culprits.
Police spokeswoman Luba al-Sumri said unknown gunmen opened fire on the bus traveling near Gush Etzion, south of Bethlehem.
The gunmen escaped and police are looking for the culprits.
14 nov 2012
Israel Ranked World’s Most Militarised Nation
Israeli soldiers and police blocking Palestinians from one of the entrances to the old city in Jerusalem
Israel tops the list of the world’s most militarised nations, according to the latest Global Militarisation Index released Tuesday by the Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC).
At number 34, Israel’s main regional rival, Iran, is far behind. Indeed, every other Near Eastern country, with the exceptions of Yemen (37) and Qatar (43), is more heavily militarised than the Islamic Republic, according to the Index, whose research is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Singapore ranks second, followed by Syria, Russia, Jordan, and Cyprus, according to the Index, which is based on a number of weighted variables, such as the comparison of a country’s military budget with its gross domestic product (GDP), and the percentage of the GDP it spends on health care.
Six of the top 10 states, including Israel (1), Syria (4), Jordan (5), Kuwait (7), Bahrain (9), and Saudi Arabia (10) are located in the Middle East, while yet another of Iran’s neighbours, Azerbaijan, made its first entry into the militarised elite at number 8.
The former Soviet Caucasian state has used its vast oil wealth, which has placed it among the fastest growing economies in the world, to buy expensive weapons systems in recent years, apparently as leverage to press Armenia (23) into returning the disputed Nagorno-Kharabovsk enclave which Baku lost in a brief but bloody war after the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Bahrain’s placement in the top 10 was also a first for the Sunni-dominated kingdom which has been backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an increasingly violent effort to suppress demands by the Shi’ite majority for democratic reform.
While the Middle East is far more militarised than any other region – all of its countries rank within the top 40 – Southeast Asia, led by Singapore, appears ascendant, according to Jan Grebe, the Index’s head researcher who directs BICC’s work in the field of arms export control.
In addition to Singapore, China (82) and India (71) are increasing their defence budgets at a relatively rapid rate, while the recent flaring of territorial conflicts between Beijing and its neighbours across the South and East China Seas will likely amplify voices within those countries for defence build-ups.
“It remains to be seen how this development will affect the degree of militarisation of individual states and the entire region,” Grebe said.
In contrast, both sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are relatively low on the Index, which covers statistics for 2011 and ranked 135 countries altogether.
At number 30, Angola was a notable African exception, while Chile (31), Ecuador (36), and Colombia (38) topped the Latin American list. By contrast, Brazil, which has by far the largest defence budget in the region, ranked 76.
Among those excluded from the Index was North Korea, whose defence budget has proved impervious to independent analysts and which is widely thought to be one of the world’s most militarised states, if not the most. Eritrea, another state that has made it into the top 10 in the past, also was not included this year.
Created in 1996, the GMI, which has been updated each year, tries to assess the balance between militarisation and human development, particularly related to health.
In addition to BICC’s own research, data published by the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the Institute for Strategic Studies are used to compile the Index, whose rankings go back to 1990 at the end of the Cold War.
In addition to the comparison of military budgets, GDP, and health expenditures, the Index uses several other variables, including the total personnel in the paramilitary and military forces – albeit not the police – and total number of physicians vis-à-vis the overall population, and the ratio of the number of heavy weapons to the total population.
Each variable is given a certain score which is then “weighted” according to a set formula to determine a total quantitative score. The more militarised a country, the higher the score. South Korea which, for many years, ranked in the top 10, fell to 18 this year.
Eritrea, which fought a bitter war with Ethiopia and repeatedly cracked down hard against internal dissent, gained a “perfect” 1,000 score in 2004, the first of a three-year reign atop the list.
But Israel, which has carried out a 45-year occupation of Palestinian lands and Syrian territory, has topped the list for almost all of the last 20 years. On the latest Index, its score came to 877, 70 points ahead of Singapore, which has been number two for every year this century, except for the three in which Eritrea was number one.
Significantly, Greece ranked 14 on the list, the highest of any NATO country, far ahead of its regional rival, Turkey, which took the 24th slot, and Bulgaria (25).
The two countries with the world’s largest defence budgets, the United States and China, ranked 29 (591) and 82 (414), respectively.
In addition to the six Middle Eastern states in the top, Oman (11), the UAE (13), Lebanon (17), Iraq (26), and Egypt (28) were all found to be more militarised than Iran, which is currently subject to unprecedented economic sanctions imposed primarily by the West which accuses it of pursuing a nuclear programme that may have military applications.
The concentration of so many Middle Eastern states at the top underscores the degree to which the region has become a powder keg.
If the Middle East dominates the top ranks, sub-Saharan African states, with just a few exceptions, lie at the low end of scale. The region’s biggest economy, South Africa, ranks 98, while its most populous nation, Nigeria, stands at 117.
Too little militarisation carries its own risks, according to Grebe, because states may not be able to guarantee order or even territorial integrity.
“This situation points to the seemingly paradoxical phenomenon that some state security apparatuses are incapable of preventing violence and conflict simply because the country concerned shows a degree of militarisation which is too low,” he said.
*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.
Israel tops the list of the world’s most militarised nations, according to the latest Global Militarisation Index released Tuesday by the Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC).
At number 34, Israel’s main regional rival, Iran, is far behind. Indeed, every other Near Eastern country, with the exceptions of Yemen (37) and Qatar (43), is more heavily militarised than the Islamic Republic, according to the Index, whose research is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Singapore ranks second, followed by Syria, Russia, Jordan, and Cyprus, according to the Index, which is based on a number of weighted variables, such as the comparison of a country’s military budget with its gross domestic product (GDP), and the percentage of the GDP it spends on health care.
Six of the top 10 states, including Israel (1), Syria (4), Jordan (5), Kuwait (7), Bahrain (9), and Saudi Arabia (10) are located in the Middle East, while yet another of Iran’s neighbours, Azerbaijan, made its first entry into the militarised elite at number 8.
The former Soviet Caucasian state has used its vast oil wealth, which has placed it among the fastest growing economies in the world, to buy expensive weapons systems in recent years, apparently as leverage to press Armenia (23) into returning the disputed Nagorno-Kharabovsk enclave which Baku lost in a brief but bloody war after the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Bahrain’s placement in the top 10 was also a first for the Sunni-dominated kingdom which has been backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an increasingly violent effort to suppress demands by the Shi’ite majority for democratic reform.
While the Middle East is far more militarised than any other region – all of its countries rank within the top 40 – Southeast Asia, led by Singapore, appears ascendant, according to Jan Grebe, the Index’s head researcher who directs BICC’s work in the field of arms export control.
In addition to Singapore, China (82) and India (71) are increasing their defence budgets at a relatively rapid rate, while the recent flaring of territorial conflicts between Beijing and its neighbours across the South and East China Seas will likely amplify voices within those countries for defence build-ups.
“It remains to be seen how this development will affect the degree of militarisation of individual states and the entire region,” Grebe said.
In contrast, both sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are relatively low on the Index, which covers statistics for 2011 and ranked 135 countries altogether.
At number 30, Angola was a notable African exception, while Chile (31), Ecuador (36), and Colombia (38) topped the Latin American list. By contrast, Brazil, which has by far the largest defence budget in the region, ranked 76.
Among those excluded from the Index was North Korea, whose defence budget has proved impervious to independent analysts and which is widely thought to be one of the world’s most militarised states, if not the most. Eritrea, another state that has made it into the top 10 in the past, also was not included this year.
Created in 1996, the GMI, which has been updated each year, tries to assess the balance between militarisation and human development, particularly related to health.
In addition to BICC’s own research, data published by the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the Institute for Strategic Studies are used to compile the Index, whose rankings go back to 1990 at the end of the Cold War.
In addition to the comparison of military budgets, GDP, and health expenditures, the Index uses several other variables, including the total personnel in the paramilitary and military forces – albeit not the police – and total number of physicians vis-à-vis the overall population, and the ratio of the number of heavy weapons to the total population.
Each variable is given a certain score which is then “weighted” according to a set formula to determine a total quantitative score. The more militarised a country, the higher the score. South Korea which, for many years, ranked in the top 10, fell to 18 this year.
Eritrea, which fought a bitter war with Ethiopia and repeatedly cracked down hard against internal dissent, gained a “perfect” 1,000 score in 2004, the first of a three-year reign atop the list.
But Israel, which has carried out a 45-year occupation of Palestinian lands and Syrian territory, has topped the list for almost all of the last 20 years. On the latest Index, its score came to 877, 70 points ahead of Singapore, which has been number two for every year this century, except for the three in which Eritrea was number one.
Significantly, Greece ranked 14 on the list, the highest of any NATO country, far ahead of its regional rival, Turkey, which took the 24th slot, and Bulgaria (25).
The two countries with the world’s largest defence budgets, the United States and China, ranked 29 (591) and 82 (414), respectively.
In addition to the six Middle Eastern states in the top, Oman (11), the UAE (13), Lebanon (17), Iraq (26), and Egypt (28) were all found to be more militarised than Iran, which is currently subject to unprecedented economic sanctions imposed primarily by the West which accuses it of pursuing a nuclear programme that may have military applications.
The concentration of so many Middle Eastern states at the top underscores the degree to which the region has become a powder keg.
If the Middle East dominates the top ranks, sub-Saharan African states, with just a few exceptions, lie at the low end of scale. The region’s biggest economy, South Africa, ranks 98, while its most populous nation, Nigeria, stands at 117.
Too little militarisation carries its own risks, according to Grebe, because states may not be able to guarantee order or even territorial integrity.
“This situation points to the seemingly paradoxical phenomenon that some state security apparatuses are incapable of preventing violence and conflict simply because the country concerned shows a degree of militarisation which is too low,” he said.
*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.
11 nov 2012
Apartheid, by any other name
A demonstration against the separation barrier in the West Bank city of Na'alin
by Gideon Levy
No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but the occupation in the territories is apartheid.
Are we really as terrible as all that? Anyone who tries to draw a comparison between the occupation regime in the territories to the South African apartheid regime - and their number is rising constantly - is instantly labeled anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. But the facts justify the comparison. No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but the occupation in the territories is apartheid.
The comparison is legitimate. It's a good thing that it upsets a lot of Israelis - perhaps their anger will prod them into looking at the occupation for once. But that isn't to say there are no differences between the two regimes, between the tyranny of the Israeli occupation and segregation regime of preliberation South Africa. The biggest difference, unfortunately, is that apartheid is gone while the occupation is only becoming further entrenched.
Brian Brown, a South African cleric who was forced into exile as a result of his antiapartheid activities and is currently Moderator of the Synod of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, gave a fascinating and learned lecture on the comparison at a conference in Scotland a few months ago. Rudolf Hinz, a professor of intellectual theology at the University of Kiel, Germany, gave me the highlights of the lecture. Brown's conclusion was that the similarities justify the comparison.
Brown says that one must speak about apartheid in terms of dispossession, from land, rights, dignity, nationality and power - of blacks in apartheid South Africa and Palestinians in the territories. In both cases, the ruling communities, the white community in South Africa and the Jewish community in Israel, themselves were victims of oppression. The Boers had felt the sting of the British Empire's lash, while the Jews had been through the infinitely more terrible horrors of the Holocaust.
Some of the Boers in South Africa and the Zionists in Israel based their right to the respective lands on divine decree. Both societies conquered territory in violation of international law. After the 1910 formation of the Union of South Africa, the state conquered its neighbor to the east, present-day Namibia, and governed it under a League of Nations mandate; Israel conquered the Palestinian territories around 50 years after that.
The fact that both of the occupying societies saw themselves as victims helped cement ties between Israel and the apartheid regime, despite the latter's support for Nazi Germany in the past. Both societies saw themselves as defenders of civilization, and viewed the struggle against, respectively, blacks and Palestinians, as a struggle between Western values and barbarians in one case and jihadists on the other. South Africa saw itself as a fortress against the Soviet Union during the Cold War; Israel viewed itself as "the only democracy in the Middle East." Most importantly, in both cases, the original, institutionalized, violence was that of the regime. The violence of the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization, respectively, was reactive.
Both societies were characterized by institutional discrimination. In South Africa the nation was white; in Israel the state is Jewish. Non-whites in South Africa and non-Jews in Israel had to find a different national identity for themselves. In South Africa, national identity for blacks was assigned to the Bantustans, the so-called National Homelands that were not recognized by any other state, just as there is no state that recognizes the Israeli occupation.
Immigration policy was also similar: In both regimes it was based on ethnic or racial identity. Only whites were permitted to immigrate to South Africa; only Jews are allowed to immigrate to Israel. In South Africa white immigrants had to undergo naturalization; in Israel any Jew can become a citizen immediately. In both regimes there was no relationship between the size of the population and its control of territory.
Brown notes the distinction between "petty apartheid" and "grand apartheid" within South Africa and between the two regimes. In the case of petty apartheid - racial segregation in places of entertainment and the like - the difference between the regimes is indeed great. But South Africa's blacks, he says, did not launch their battle in order to be able to sit on the same park bench as whites. Their fight was against grand apartheid, the apartheid of institutionalized, violent dispossession. The Palestinians are fighting the same battle. Should we call this comparison ridiculous, baseless, anti-Semitic?
by Gideon Levy
No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but the occupation in the territories is apartheid.
Are we really as terrible as all that? Anyone who tries to draw a comparison between the occupation regime in the territories to the South African apartheid regime - and their number is rising constantly - is instantly labeled anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. But the facts justify the comparison. No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but the occupation in the territories is apartheid.
The comparison is legitimate. It's a good thing that it upsets a lot of Israelis - perhaps their anger will prod them into looking at the occupation for once. But that isn't to say there are no differences between the two regimes, between the tyranny of the Israeli occupation and segregation regime of preliberation South Africa. The biggest difference, unfortunately, is that apartheid is gone while the occupation is only becoming further entrenched.
Brian Brown, a South African cleric who was forced into exile as a result of his antiapartheid activities and is currently Moderator of the Synod of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, gave a fascinating and learned lecture on the comparison at a conference in Scotland a few months ago. Rudolf Hinz, a professor of intellectual theology at the University of Kiel, Germany, gave me the highlights of the lecture. Brown's conclusion was that the similarities justify the comparison.
Brown says that one must speak about apartheid in terms of dispossession, from land, rights, dignity, nationality and power - of blacks in apartheid South Africa and Palestinians in the territories. In both cases, the ruling communities, the white community in South Africa and the Jewish community in Israel, themselves were victims of oppression. The Boers had felt the sting of the British Empire's lash, while the Jews had been through the infinitely more terrible horrors of the Holocaust.
Some of the Boers in South Africa and the Zionists in Israel based their right to the respective lands on divine decree. Both societies conquered territory in violation of international law. After the 1910 formation of the Union of South Africa, the state conquered its neighbor to the east, present-day Namibia, and governed it under a League of Nations mandate; Israel conquered the Palestinian territories around 50 years after that.
The fact that both of the occupying societies saw themselves as victims helped cement ties between Israel and the apartheid regime, despite the latter's support for Nazi Germany in the past. Both societies saw themselves as defenders of civilization, and viewed the struggle against, respectively, blacks and Palestinians, as a struggle between Western values and barbarians in one case and jihadists on the other. South Africa saw itself as a fortress against the Soviet Union during the Cold War; Israel viewed itself as "the only democracy in the Middle East." Most importantly, in both cases, the original, institutionalized, violence was that of the regime. The violence of the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization, respectively, was reactive.
Both societies were characterized by institutional discrimination. In South Africa the nation was white; in Israel the state is Jewish. Non-whites in South Africa and non-Jews in Israel had to find a different national identity for themselves. In South Africa, national identity for blacks was assigned to the Bantustans, the so-called National Homelands that were not recognized by any other state, just as there is no state that recognizes the Israeli occupation.
Immigration policy was also similar: In both regimes it was based on ethnic or racial identity. Only whites were permitted to immigrate to South Africa; only Jews are allowed to immigrate to Israel. In South Africa white immigrants had to undergo naturalization; in Israel any Jew can become a citizen immediately. In both regimes there was no relationship between the size of the population and its control of territory.
Brown notes the distinction between "petty apartheid" and "grand apartheid" within South Africa and between the two regimes. In the case of petty apartheid - racial segregation in places of entertainment and the like - the difference between the regimes is indeed great. But South Africa's blacks, he says, did not launch their battle in order to be able to sit on the same park bench as whites. Their fight was against grand apartheid, the apartheid of institutionalized, violent dispossession. The Palestinians are fighting the same battle. Should we call this comparison ridiculous, baseless, anti-Semitic?
One-third of Israeli women subject to sexual abuse: Report
In this file photo, Israeli women protesting against a gender-segregation campaign by ultra-Orthodox Jews sit at the front of a bus
Israeli Public Security Ministry has found that one third of women in this country are sexually abused.
The Israeli ministry made the announcement based on its recently formulated Violence Against Women Index, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
The paper said divorcees were the main target of sexual abuse.
The number of divorced women, killed in violence, has increased remarkably since 2008. Most of the dead are of the Ethiopian nationality.
Israel said last Thursday that it would close down a psychiatric hospital over widespread allegations of physical and sexual abuse of patients by the staff.
The announcement was made as the Israeli police questioned 75 of the staff members on suspicion of offenses including physically or sexually assaulting vulnerable mental patients.
In January, a study conducted by Israel’s Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry's Research and Economics Administration indicated that 11.4 percent of working women had been sexually harassed at workplace in 2011.
The survey showed that 35 percent of these women had been harassed by their direct superior.
Two renowned researchers, Ronit Harris and Osnat Fichtelberg-Barmatz, warned at the time that the victims of sexual harassment would face health problems.
“In instances where the harassed women need to work for financial reasons, or simply like their work, they hesitate to confront the harasser,” they said. “They are in a state of emotional distress and there's no doubt it has an influence on their productivity and their health.”
Israeli Public Security Ministry has found that one third of women in this country are sexually abused.
The Israeli ministry made the announcement based on its recently formulated Violence Against Women Index, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
The paper said divorcees were the main target of sexual abuse.
The number of divorced women, killed in violence, has increased remarkably since 2008. Most of the dead are of the Ethiopian nationality.
Israel said last Thursday that it would close down a psychiatric hospital over widespread allegations of physical and sexual abuse of patients by the staff.
The announcement was made as the Israeli police questioned 75 of the staff members on suspicion of offenses including physically or sexually assaulting vulnerable mental patients.
In January, a study conducted by Israel’s Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry's Research and Economics Administration indicated that 11.4 percent of working women had been sexually harassed at workplace in 2011.
The survey showed that 35 percent of these women had been harassed by their direct superior.
Two renowned researchers, Ronit Harris and Osnat Fichtelberg-Barmatz, warned at the time that the victims of sexual harassment would face health problems.
“In instances where the harassed women need to work for financial reasons, or simply like their work, they hesitate to confront the harasser,” they said. “They are in a state of emotional distress and there's no doubt it has an influence on their productivity and their health.”
10 nov 2012
Qatar, Israel discuss plans to assassinate Syrian president: Report
Bashar al-Assad
A Lebanese newspaper has disclosed that Qatar and Israel have held a secret meeting to review plans to assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Arabic-language Ad-Diyar newspaper said the meeting which was held in the occupied lands included Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, Qatari intelligence chief Ahmed Nasser bin Jassim al-Thani, head of Israeli spy agency the Mossad Tamir Pardo and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The report added that Mossad chief also offered several proposals for assassination of the Syrian president.
The Qatari premier also said that his country is ready to supply Israel with free natural gas and very low-priced gasoline for two years after the assassination is carried out.
Netanyahu also asked the Qatari officials whether the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council ([P]GCC) is ready to recognize Israel after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad.
Syria accuses Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey as well as some Western countries of fanning the flames of violence that have erupted in the country since mid-March 2011.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar also publicity announced that they are supporting and arming the insurgents in Syria.
A Lebanese newspaper has disclosed that Qatar and Israel have held a secret meeting to review plans to assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Arabic-language Ad-Diyar newspaper said the meeting which was held in the occupied lands included Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, Qatari intelligence chief Ahmed Nasser bin Jassim al-Thani, head of Israeli spy agency the Mossad Tamir Pardo and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The report added that Mossad chief also offered several proposals for assassination of the Syrian president.
The Qatari premier also said that his country is ready to supply Israel with free natural gas and very low-priced gasoline for two years after the assassination is carried out.
Netanyahu also asked the Qatari officials whether the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council ([P]GCC) is ready to recognize Israel after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad.
Syria accuses Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey as well as some Western countries of fanning the flames of violence that have erupted in the country since mid-March 2011.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar also publicity announced that they are supporting and arming the insurgents in Syria.
NAM slams Israel’s human rights violations
Iranian Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Es’haq Al-e-Habib
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has censured the continuation of human rights violations by the Israeli regime, its illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
In a statement, read out by Iranian Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Es’haq Al-e-Habib at a special committee of the General Assembly on Friday, the movement called on the international community to adopt an “immediate and practical” measure to put an end to the Israeli regime’s inhumane acts.
Al-e-Habib voiced the movement’s deep concern about the Israeli regime’s mass arrest and imprisonment of Palestinians without trial and the destruction of their homes.
“The Non-Aligned Movement calls for the implementation of this report’s recommendations, respect for human rights and international humanitarian law by the Israeli regime in the Palestinian occupied territories and an end to the regime’s impunity,” he said.
He pointed to the violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including women and children, and urged the immediate release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
The Iranian official urged the international community, particularly the UN Security Council, to take a “swift and practical” measure to oblige the Israeli regime to completely end its illegal settlement construction.
The NAM calls on Tel Aviv to end the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip “at the earliest and without any precondition” and reopen all border crossing to Gaza in accordance with humanitarian regulations and the US resolutions.
The movement insists that real peace talks with Israel cannot be held due to the continuation of the regime’s illegal measures in Palestine, the breach of human rights in the occupied territories and the intensification of conflicts.
On November 6, the Israeli NGO, Peace Now, reported that the Israeli regime is planning to build over 1,200 new settler units in East Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and the West Bank despite international criticism.
The Israeli settlements are considered illegal by the UN and most countries as the territories where they are located have been occupied by Israel since a war in 1967, and are hence seen as being subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbid construction on occupied lands.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has censured the continuation of human rights violations by the Israeli regime, its illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
In a statement, read out by Iranian Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Es’haq Al-e-Habib at a special committee of the General Assembly on Friday, the movement called on the international community to adopt an “immediate and practical” measure to put an end to the Israeli regime’s inhumane acts.
Al-e-Habib voiced the movement’s deep concern about the Israeli regime’s mass arrest and imprisonment of Palestinians without trial and the destruction of their homes.
“The Non-Aligned Movement calls for the implementation of this report’s recommendations, respect for human rights and international humanitarian law by the Israeli regime in the Palestinian occupied territories and an end to the regime’s impunity,” he said.
He pointed to the violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including women and children, and urged the immediate release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
The Iranian official urged the international community, particularly the UN Security Council, to take a “swift and practical” measure to oblige the Israeli regime to completely end its illegal settlement construction.
The NAM calls on Tel Aviv to end the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip “at the earliest and without any precondition” and reopen all border crossing to Gaza in accordance with humanitarian regulations and the US resolutions.
The movement insists that real peace talks with Israel cannot be held due to the continuation of the regime’s illegal measures in Palestine, the breach of human rights in the occupied territories and the intensification of conflicts.
On November 6, the Israeli NGO, Peace Now, reported that the Israeli regime is planning to build over 1,200 new settler units in East Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and the West Bank despite international criticism.
The Israeli settlements are considered illegal by the UN and most countries as the territories where they are located have been occupied by Israel since a war in 1967, and are hence seen as being subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbid construction on occupied lands.
9 nov 2012
Bibi tried to hijack memorial, transform it into campaign: Hollande
French President Francois Hollande (L ) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attend a ceremony in Toulouse, France
French President Francois Hollande has criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over transforming a memorial ceremony in France into an electoral campaign, saying Netanyahu tried to hijack the event.
The ceremony was held on November 1 to commemorate a Rabbi and three Jewish children who were killed during a shooting in France’s southern city of Toulouse in March.
“Netanyahu came to France to campaign and we knew that,” Hollande said.
“Since I was there, he toned down his speech but it wasn’t good to transform this ceremony into an electoral meeting,” Hollande stated, adding, “It wasn’t appropriate.”
A French weekly recently exposed Hollande’s remarks.
Last year, former French President Nikolas Sarkozy called Netanyahu “a liar” in a private meeting with US President Barack Obama during a G20 summit. He was not aware the microphones in the meeting room had been switched on.
“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy said.
According to a French interpreter, Obama replied, “You’re fed up with him but I have to deal with him even more than you.”
French President Francois Hollande has criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over transforming a memorial ceremony in France into an electoral campaign, saying Netanyahu tried to hijack the event.
The ceremony was held on November 1 to commemorate a Rabbi and three Jewish children who were killed during a shooting in France’s southern city of Toulouse in March.
“Netanyahu came to France to campaign and we knew that,” Hollande said.
“Since I was there, he toned down his speech but it wasn’t good to transform this ceremony into an electoral meeting,” Hollande stated, adding, “It wasn’t appropriate.”
A French weekly recently exposed Hollande’s remarks.
Last year, former French President Nikolas Sarkozy called Netanyahu “a liar” in a private meeting with US President Barack Obama during a G20 summit. He was not aware the microphones in the meeting room had been switched on.
“I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar,” Sarkozy said.
According to a French interpreter, Obama replied, “You’re fed up with him but I have to deal with him even more than you.”
3 nov 2012
Visualizing Occupation: Children under Israel's legal regime
(click to enlarge)
The different legal systems under which Israelis and Palestinians are tried apply to children as well. As +972 has consistently documented, Palestinian children arrested by the army are treated by the military court system as “potential terrorists.”
The visual demonstrates what would happen should two 12-year-old boys, one Israeli and one Palestinian, get arrested for fighting.
One would swiftly be brought before a judge, given access to a lawyer, tried and spared jail time.
The other could face two years in jail without trial. This illustration is the eighth in a series of infographics on Palestinian civilian life under occupation.
By Michal Vexler, with the cooperation of Caabu – The Council for Arab-British Understanding
The different legal systems under which Israelis and Palestinians are tried apply to children as well. As +972 has consistently documented, Palestinian children arrested by the army are treated by the military court system as “potential terrorists.”
The visual demonstrates what would happen should two 12-year-old boys, one Israeli and one Palestinian, get arrested for fighting.
One would swiftly be brought before a judge, given access to a lawyer, tried and spared jail time.
The other could face two years in jail without trial. This illustration is the eighth in a series of infographics on Palestinian civilian life under occupation.
By Michal Vexler, with the cooperation of Caabu – The Council for Arab-British Understanding
Massive protest against Wadi Araba treaty near Israel's embassy in Amman
Hundreds of Jordanians attended the popular sit-in that was staged on Friday in the courtyard of Kaloti Mosque near the Israeli embassy in Amman to protest Wadi Araba peace agreement between their country and the Israeli occupation.
Head of the higher executive committee to protect the homeland and oppose normalization Hamza Mansour called in a speech on the Jordanian leadership to revoke Wadi Araba agreement because it was useless and did not bring back the Jordanian rights.
For his part, senior official of the Jordanian national front for reform Mohamed Bashir said that all national parties reject this agreement and called for pooling the efforts to end it and confront Israel's Judaization schemes in Palestine.
The protestors chanted slogans and carried banners calling for the closure of the Israeli embassy in Jordan and condemning Britain's Balfour declaration and their country's ties with the occupation state.
Head of the higher executive committee to protect the homeland and oppose normalization Hamza Mansour called in a speech on the Jordanian leadership to revoke Wadi Araba agreement because it was useless and did not bring back the Jordanian rights.
For his part, senior official of the Jordanian national front for reform Mohamed Bashir said that all national parties reject this agreement and called for pooling the efforts to end it and confront Israel's Judaization schemes in Palestine.
The protestors chanted slogans and carried banners calling for the closure of the Israeli embassy in Jordan and condemning Britain's Balfour declaration and their country's ties with the occupation state.
2 nov 2012
Israeli official sees 'shocking' dictatorship in Egypt
A senior Israeli official described Egypt's new government on Friday as a "shocking dictatorial force" and predicted there would be no official, high-level contacts between the two countries, which signed a peace treaty in 1979.
The remarks by Amos Gilad, a top aide to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, were some of the harshest yet about the rise to prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Mohamed Mursi, who was elected in June.
Speaking at a security conference, Gilad said the liberal forces behind the uprising which ousted former president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 had evaporated.
"From this democracy what has sprung is a shocking dictatorial force," he said in comments broadcast on Israel Radio. "Where are all the young people who were demonstrating in Tahrir Square? They have vanished."
Mursi has faced some criticism at home from non-Islamists concerned about other voices being marginalized in Egypt.
On the whole, however, Egyptians acknowledge he is a democratically elected leader and any disagreements should be resolved in the political arena or at the ballot box.
Despite the peace treaty, relations between Israel and Egypt have never been warm and Israelis watched with consternation as the once-banned Brotherhood rose to prominence.
Mursi resigned from the Brotherhood -- which describes Israel as a racist and expansionist state -- on taking power and has avoided inflammatory language.
He has said Egypt would continue to abide by international treaties, including the 1979 peace deal.
Gilad, however, said he saw little prospect of talks.
"The President of Egypt, Mursi, cannot utter the words 'the State of Israel'," he said. Mursi has tended to avoid direct references to Israel in his speeches or public comments.
"There is no dialogue between our high-ranking political echelon and this president, and I don't think that there will be," Gilad said.
The remarks by Amos Gilad, a top aide to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, were some of the harshest yet about the rise to prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Mohamed Mursi, who was elected in June.
Speaking at a security conference, Gilad said the liberal forces behind the uprising which ousted former president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 had evaporated.
"From this democracy what has sprung is a shocking dictatorial force," he said in comments broadcast on Israel Radio. "Where are all the young people who were demonstrating in Tahrir Square? They have vanished."
Mursi has faced some criticism at home from non-Islamists concerned about other voices being marginalized in Egypt.
On the whole, however, Egyptians acknowledge he is a democratically elected leader and any disagreements should be resolved in the political arena or at the ballot box.
Despite the peace treaty, relations between Israel and Egypt have never been warm and Israelis watched with consternation as the once-banned Brotherhood rose to prominence.
Mursi resigned from the Brotherhood -- which describes Israel as a racist and expansionist state -- on taking power and has avoided inflammatory language.
He has said Egypt would continue to abide by international treaties, including the 1979 peace deal.
Gilad, however, said he saw little prospect of talks.
"The President of Egypt, Mursi, cannot utter the words 'the State of Israel'," he said. Mursi has tended to avoid direct references to Israel in his speeches or public comments.
"There is no dialogue between our high-ranking political echelon and this president, and I don't think that there will be," Gilad said.
1 nov 2012
|
|
Israels most funny video: Blame Israel!
If it wasn't so sad and sick you would be able to die laughing. |