26 sept 2013
US President Barack Obama has opened the door for diplomacy with Iran in large measure to “save Israel” as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line policies have increasingly isolated the Zionist regime, a US writer says.
In his address to the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Obama said Washington prefers a diplomatic solution to its disputes with Iran over its nuclear program.
As much as it appears that it works against Israel’s interest, Obama’s focus on diplomacy is in part an effort to save Israel from Netanyahu who prefers military action, Mark Glenn told Press TV on Wednesday.
Glenn is a journalist and co-founder of Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement, an open forum that seeks to unite both Muslims and Christians and resist the forces of Zionism.
“In the bigger picture it’s actually being done to save Israel, and particularly to save Israel form Benjamin Netanyahu, because he is so irrational and because he refuses to go the route of diplomacy he is isolating Israel diplomatically, isolating Israel politically,” Glenn noted.
Glenn said "smarter elements" within Israel understand that if something is not done to “rehabilitate Israel’s image”, Israel will be “paralyzed.”
“Countries around the world would no longer do business with her [Israel]. Countries around the world would begin honoring extradition requests for Israelis who’ve been accused of war crimes.”
However, Glenn acknowledged that realistically, US foreign policy is not going to change towards Iran.
“Iran’s nuclear program is not what is at issue; what is at issue is that Iran is an independent nation, it refuses to be subservient to American, Israeli and Western interests.”
Hours after Obama’s speech at the UN, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, urged his American counterpart to reject "the short-sighted interest of warmongering pressure groups” if he wants "to manage differences" with Tehran.
"Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," Rouhani declared.
The Israeli premier, who has repeatedly called on the US to attack Iran, has been angered at the prospect of a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s nuclear issue.
“We will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smoke screen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told reporters in Tel Aviv hours before Rouhani addressed the General Assembly. “And the world should not be fooled either.”(Video on the link)
In his address to the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Obama said Washington prefers a diplomatic solution to its disputes with Iran over its nuclear program.
As much as it appears that it works against Israel’s interest, Obama’s focus on diplomacy is in part an effort to save Israel from Netanyahu who prefers military action, Mark Glenn told Press TV on Wednesday.
Glenn is a journalist and co-founder of Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement, an open forum that seeks to unite both Muslims and Christians and resist the forces of Zionism.
“In the bigger picture it’s actually being done to save Israel, and particularly to save Israel form Benjamin Netanyahu, because he is so irrational and because he refuses to go the route of diplomacy he is isolating Israel diplomatically, isolating Israel politically,” Glenn noted.
Glenn said "smarter elements" within Israel understand that if something is not done to “rehabilitate Israel’s image”, Israel will be “paralyzed.”
“Countries around the world would no longer do business with her [Israel]. Countries around the world would begin honoring extradition requests for Israelis who’ve been accused of war crimes.”
However, Glenn acknowledged that realistically, US foreign policy is not going to change towards Iran.
“Iran’s nuclear program is not what is at issue; what is at issue is that Iran is an independent nation, it refuses to be subservient to American, Israeli and Western interests.”
Hours after Obama’s speech at the UN, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, urged his American counterpart to reject "the short-sighted interest of warmongering pressure groups” if he wants "to manage differences" with Tehran.
"Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," Rouhani declared.
The Israeli premier, who has repeatedly called on the US to attack Iran, has been angered at the prospect of a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s nuclear issue.
“We will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smoke screen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told reporters in Tel Aviv hours before Rouhani addressed the General Assembly. “And the world should not be fooled either.”(Video on the link)
22 sept 2013
The Israeli Maariv newspaper, commenting on the killing of Israeli soldier Tomer Khazan and keeping his body to exchange it with for brother jailed by Israel since 2003, said Sunday an operation to kidnap Israeli soldiers is only a matter of time. The newspaper reported that “Israel paid a big price for the release of its kidnapped soldiers and officers Gilad Shalit in Gaza, and Olkhanan Tennenbaum and Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser in Lebanon Hezbollah,”
It said that kidnapping Israeli soldiers is viewed by Palestinians as the fastest way for the release of their detainees held by Israel through swap deals.
“The capture and killing of the soldier Khazan was a ‘nightmare’ that brings to mind what happened with Shalit in Gaza in 2006 summer, it added.
On Friday, an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and killed by a Palestinian hoping to exchange the body for his brother jailed by (Israel) since 2003, AFP reported quoting Israeli officials.
"The soldier’s body was found near Qalqiliya yesterday (Friday), an army spokesman claimed on Saturday morning. The army identified the soldier as Tomer Hazan, 20.
Shin Bet said it arrested the Palestinian suspect, 42-year-old Nidal Amer, at his family home in Beit Amin south of Qalqiliya, and that he had confessed to killing the soldier.
The suspect said he had abducted and killed him in the hope that he could "trade the body in exchange for the release" of one of his brothers who has been jailed by Israel since 2003 in connection with several attacks, Shin Bet said in a statement.
"An investigation is under way and is expected to lead to the arrest of other individuals who took part in the incident," Shin Bet said, adding that another of Amer's brothers was also arrested on Saturday.
It said that kidnapping Israeli soldiers is viewed by Palestinians as the fastest way for the release of their detainees held by Israel through swap deals.
“The capture and killing of the soldier Khazan was a ‘nightmare’ that brings to mind what happened with Shalit in Gaza in 2006 summer, it added.
On Friday, an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and killed by a Palestinian hoping to exchange the body for his brother jailed by (Israel) since 2003, AFP reported quoting Israeli officials.
"The soldier’s body was found near Qalqiliya yesterday (Friday), an army spokesman claimed on Saturday morning. The army identified the soldier as Tomer Hazan, 20.
Shin Bet said it arrested the Palestinian suspect, 42-year-old Nidal Amer, at his family home in Beit Amin south of Qalqiliya, and that he had confessed to killing the soldier.
The suspect said he had abducted and killed him in the hope that he could "trade the body in exchange for the release" of one of his brothers who has been jailed by Israel since 2003 in connection with several attacks, Shin Bet said in a statement.
"An investigation is under way and is expected to lead to the arrest of other individuals who took part in the incident," Shin Bet said, adding that another of Amer's brothers was also arrested on Saturday.
18 sept 2013
Panelists at the World Summit on Counter Terrorism in Herzelia, September 2013
The World Summit on Counter Terrorism in Herzliya, through the eyes of the only person in the room who has sat down with the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.
By Paula Schmitt
One type of person you can be sure to find at a conference on counter-terrorism is terrorists. I just attended a four-day long counter-terrorism masturbathon in Israel and the place was full of them. They don’t call themselves that, of course, they like to be called counter-terrorists. Tomato, tomah-to. I couldn’t care less for semantics, but if that’s your thing you may want to attend the next ICT’s World Summit in Herzliya.
In this year’s edition, one panel was called “Defining Terrorism – A Fundamental Counter-Terrorist Measure,” and among the panelists was a member of a so-called “Jewish Diplomatic Corps’ Task Force on the Definition of Terrorism.” The official count is at 109 definitions of the word – I kid you not. Yet among all those versions of terrorism, my favorite one was not even close to making an appearance at the conference. It’s alleged to have been penned by Peter Ustinov, and it’s a masterpiece on the taxonomy of power:
Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.
You’d think those counter-terrrrrorrrrists should have more relevant things to do, but do not belittle the exercise – determining what terrorism is (and what it isn’t) is extremely important. By properly defining it, The Definer makes sure his own extrajudicial assassinations, occupation, torture and killing of civilians are not included in the category. It’s a tricky thing: on one hand the definition cannot be so broad to include The Definer, but on the other it should be broad enough to include as many perpetrators as possible – the more you seem to be attacked, the better. There are great returns on terrorism for those claiming to be fighting it. For one, it allows the government an incredibly large margin of (il)legal maneuvers, repression and surveillance, while it also increases foreign aid and allows for a lot of unsupervised budget earmarking. But the biggest reward yet is that terrorism helps garner that most precious and elusive of assets – the sympathy of public opinion. When it comes to being a victim of terror, a few lives will go a long way. Even the ex-director of Mossad I interviewed agreed that PR is crucial for their survival. More on that later).
The list of this year’s speakers seemed to gather the crème de la crème of counter-terrorism – or the crap de la crap of morality, depending how you see it. In journalistic terms, it was a dream. I was particularly interested on all the intelligence and security agents, including two former heads of the Mossad and one from the Shin Bet. But I was just not sure the organizers were going to allow me to participate.
I lived in the Middle East for a long time, and covered the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon, a period when my TV network got several complaints from idiots accusing me of being an anti-Semite. I am also the only Latin American journalist to have interviewed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary general. Throughout the Middle East, that interview has served me as my little badge certifying to the average paranoid that I could not possibly be a Mossad agent (though the very paranoid ones would think I was simply the best agent ever. You just never win with those people.) It is, indeed, quite a feat not to become a paranoiac here. This corner of the world is where Burroughs’ designation really applies: “A paranoid is someone who knows what’s going on.” So, I feared that in Israel that same badge would perhaps have the opposite effect – it would probably indicate I had dangerous connections.
Thus, it was with great surprise, and then some suspicion, that I received ICT’s email accepting my request to attend the conference. Okay, I thought, so they didn’t think that having interviewed Nasrallah made me a sympathizer or a Hezbollah agent. But what about my novel? I’ve written a book, Eudemonia, about a female journalist who defends the morality of assassination and dreams of killing the CEO of Bechtel with her stockings and the chairman of Goldman Sachs with a paperknife. She then starts to seriously entertain the idea of murdering one of her interviewees, and eventually focuses on giving a taste of war to the would-never-be-veteran and war-monger Duck Chainy, the vice-president of the Pale House. She also believes the State of Israel is a bonafide motivation for acts of terror. How could they accept my registration with that background?
But alas, I should have known better: my novel is widely unread. And as it turned out, having interviewed Israel’s Number One Enemy didn’t make me unwanted – it actually gave me quite a clout. Those Mossad guys have a real hard-on for Hassan. Instead of my having to run after them, it was the Mossad, and the Israel Police who kept coming after me — to offer me interviews, they said.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to have an interview with a high-level Mossad official, and indeed I had one, with former director Shabtai Shavit. But I was pretty sure the questions I wanted to ask would never be answered. Not without some sodium pentothal. I’ve had a list of questions for the agency for many years: Was it the Mossad who killed Elie Hobeika in a car bomb in Beirut before he could testify against Ariel Sharon in Belgium? Was it the Mossad who shot dead Michael Nassar less than two months later in Brazil, killing him and his wife before Nassar could take part in the same Belgium trial? Did the Mossad kill Jorg Heider? I also wanted to know if Ben Zygier knew something about the Bali Bombings (Zygier is the Mossad agent who allegedly committed suicide in a high-security jail in Israel, and whose family has just been paid $1 million to drop any ideas of a lawsuit.) I also would like to ask about some of the false-flag operations we know of, from the Lavon Affair to the USS Liberty.
Damn right I had questions. But I wouldn’t waste them on answers I knew would never go beyond utter silence or a categorical “no.” I had to posit ideological, philosophical problems that could perhaps allow for the possibility that things may not, after all, be so clearly cut. And I think I was getting there, until, to use an appropriate metaphor, my car swerved in the curve.
The World Summit on Counter Terrorism in Herzliya, through the eyes of the only person in the room who has sat down with the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.
By Paula Schmitt
One type of person you can be sure to find at a conference on counter-terrorism is terrorists. I just attended a four-day long counter-terrorism masturbathon in Israel and the place was full of them. They don’t call themselves that, of course, they like to be called counter-terrorists. Tomato, tomah-to. I couldn’t care less for semantics, but if that’s your thing you may want to attend the next ICT’s World Summit in Herzliya.
In this year’s edition, one panel was called “Defining Terrorism – A Fundamental Counter-Terrorist Measure,” and among the panelists was a member of a so-called “Jewish Diplomatic Corps’ Task Force on the Definition of Terrorism.” The official count is at 109 definitions of the word – I kid you not. Yet among all those versions of terrorism, my favorite one was not even close to making an appearance at the conference. It’s alleged to have been penned by Peter Ustinov, and it’s a masterpiece on the taxonomy of power:
Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.
You’d think those counter-terrrrrorrrrists should have more relevant things to do, but do not belittle the exercise – determining what terrorism is (and what it isn’t) is extremely important. By properly defining it, The Definer makes sure his own extrajudicial assassinations, occupation, torture and killing of civilians are not included in the category. It’s a tricky thing: on one hand the definition cannot be so broad to include The Definer, but on the other it should be broad enough to include as many perpetrators as possible – the more you seem to be attacked, the better. There are great returns on terrorism for those claiming to be fighting it. For one, it allows the government an incredibly large margin of (il)legal maneuvers, repression and surveillance, while it also increases foreign aid and allows for a lot of unsupervised budget earmarking. But the biggest reward yet is that terrorism helps garner that most precious and elusive of assets – the sympathy of public opinion. When it comes to being a victim of terror, a few lives will go a long way. Even the ex-director of Mossad I interviewed agreed that PR is crucial for their survival. More on that later).
The list of this year’s speakers seemed to gather the crème de la crème of counter-terrorism – or the crap de la crap of morality, depending how you see it. In journalistic terms, it was a dream. I was particularly interested on all the intelligence and security agents, including two former heads of the Mossad and one from the Shin Bet. But I was just not sure the organizers were going to allow me to participate.
I lived in the Middle East for a long time, and covered the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon, a period when my TV network got several complaints from idiots accusing me of being an anti-Semite. I am also the only Latin American journalist to have interviewed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary general. Throughout the Middle East, that interview has served me as my little badge certifying to the average paranoid that I could not possibly be a Mossad agent (though the very paranoid ones would think I was simply the best agent ever. You just never win with those people.) It is, indeed, quite a feat not to become a paranoiac here. This corner of the world is where Burroughs’ designation really applies: “A paranoid is someone who knows what’s going on.” So, I feared that in Israel that same badge would perhaps have the opposite effect – it would probably indicate I had dangerous connections.
Thus, it was with great surprise, and then some suspicion, that I received ICT’s email accepting my request to attend the conference. Okay, I thought, so they didn’t think that having interviewed Nasrallah made me a sympathizer or a Hezbollah agent. But what about my novel? I’ve written a book, Eudemonia, about a female journalist who defends the morality of assassination and dreams of killing the CEO of Bechtel with her stockings and the chairman of Goldman Sachs with a paperknife. She then starts to seriously entertain the idea of murdering one of her interviewees, and eventually focuses on giving a taste of war to the would-never-be-veteran and war-monger Duck Chainy, the vice-president of the Pale House. She also believes the State of Israel is a bonafide motivation for acts of terror. How could they accept my registration with that background?
But alas, I should have known better: my novel is widely unread. And as it turned out, having interviewed Israel’s Number One Enemy didn’t make me unwanted – it actually gave me quite a clout. Those Mossad guys have a real hard-on for Hassan. Instead of my having to run after them, it was the Mossad, and the Israel Police who kept coming after me — to offer me interviews, they said.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to have an interview with a high-level Mossad official, and indeed I had one, with former director Shabtai Shavit. But I was pretty sure the questions I wanted to ask would never be answered. Not without some sodium pentothal. I’ve had a list of questions for the agency for many years: Was it the Mossad who killed Elie Hobeika in a car bomb in Beirut before he could testify against Ariel Sharon in Belgium? Was it the Mossad who shot dead Michael Nassar less than two months later in Brazil, killing him and his wife before Nassar could take part in the same Belgium trial? Did the Mossad kill Jorg Heider? I also wanted to know if Ben Zygier knew something about the Bali Bombings (Zygier is the Mossad agent who allegedly committed suicide in a high-security jail in Israel, and whose family has just been paid $1 million to drop any ideas of a lawsuit.) I also would like to ask about some of the false-flag operations we know of, from the Lavon Affair to the USS Liberty.
Damn right I had questions. But I wouldn’t waste them on answers I knew would never go beyond utter silence or a categorical “no.” I had to posit ideological, philosophical problems that could perhaps allow for the possibility that things may not, after all, be so clearly cut. And I think I was getting there, until, to use an appropriate metaphor, my car swerved in the curve.
Former Head of Mossad Shabtai Shavit speaks at the ICT’s World Summit on Counter Terrorism, Herzelia 2013
I waited for the plenary session to end. Shabtai Shavit was the first to speak, and he chose to leave the stage right after his turn. But he sat in the audience and courteously waited for everyone else to speak, included retired U.S. general John Abizaid. Like that, he managed to avoid photos and questions, while still being present. He didn’t manage to avoid me, though. Reminding him of his promise the previous day, we walked to the empty restaurant of the Israel Air Force House, where the conference had just taken place.
As I prepared my digital recorder and my phone, Shavit told me the interview could not be recorded. I was shocked. He noticed. I said that was going to be very difficult. He was adamant. I insisted: “If I record, it is safer for you, too. That way you can guarantee I will quote you verbatim”. But that was precisely his problem. He didn’t want his answers registered. “Ok, then” I said. “But if you don’t like it afterwards, it will be your word against mine.”
You’ve said there should be two prerequisites for proper counter-terrorism: certainty of guilt and no collateral damage. So, is counter-terrorism what Israel is actually doing?
I said that in a certain context. Certainly Israel keeps that in mind. We are the most humane country in the world. The constraints we are putting on ourselves… I don’t know of any other country with the same constraints.
Morality. You said yesterday that you would be left as the only moral country on earth. What do you mean by that?
I said that we are fighting an asymmetrical struggle between those who have zero moral considerations and those who don’t stop adding constraint after constraint [to deal with] the bad guys.
Terrorism is said to be the outcome of a very simple formula: motivation plus operational capability. If that is the case, isn’t Israel’s occupation a big cause of terrorism?
The occupation of what, whom? More than half of the Israeli people accept the two-state solution. There’s real willingness to give back the territory based on the ’67 borders.
But what about the illegal settlements? How do you explain them?
I don’t have an explanation for it. I personally accept two states based on ’67 borders and I accept that because I consider myself a moral person ready to accept the other. I am prepared to share with the other, but I expect reciprocity.
What would you say to the theory that the big problem is not, in fact, between Muslims, Christians and Jews, but between extremists and moderates? Wouldn’t you say you perhaps have more in common with a moderate Muslim than you have with a haredi Jew?
I disagree with that statement because I am Jewish and a haredi is a Jewish and Judaism is our common religion. I can argue with his translation of Judaism but he is Jewish. I will never appreciate a Muslim more than a haredi Jew.
Is there such a thing as being an ex-agent? Do you see any difference in how much you can say now and how much you could say before?
I am the sole judge of what I speak. But I was born a very weak speaker. I never regretted something I didn’t say, but the opposite, though… More than once did I regret something I said.
Is not having the interview recorded a way you have of keeping ‘plausible deniability’?
I’ve been burned more than once for recorded interviews.
What do you think is the main difference between someone who kills from the safety of his cockpit and a man who uses his own body to kill other people? We know that both of them – army soldier and suicide-bomber – kill civilians. [He interrupts me before I finish]
Look, I’ve never been in the position of a fighter pilot. Let me rephrase the question for you: what’s the difference between a suicide-bomber and a guy who pushed a drone button? The difference is that a suicide bomber sanctifies death, trying to kill as many civilians without any… he sanctifies death according to his religion. Suicide-bombers kill civilians on purpose.
Peter Ustinov is supposed to have said that “terrorism is war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.” Why do you believe you are entitled to fight a perceived threat with death? By the same token, isn’t their retaliation legitimate? Jewish terrorists bombed the King David Hotel and this has been celebrated… [He interrupts]
I don’t agree with that statement. You cannot distinguish how people are killed? I propose you go learn the history of the Jewish people since the 19th century. We made compromises. We were ready to give, to coexist. Each time when such compromise was proposed to the other side, they refused.
Do you think PR is important? Do you think it matters?
I believe in PR. I am not a PR person, but we don’t have another choice, PR is one of the pillars of our existence.
So, considering this, would you say that every time there is a suicide attack on Israeli civilians, does that make Israel look better on the international stage? I mean, could this — [He interrupts me, holds my hand and says, slowly and without inflection:]
I think you’re going down a slippery slope now. Let’s stop this. How long are you staying here?
“Two more weeks,” I say. “Why? Are you going to assassinate me?”
He stares at me, livid.
“I’m kidding,” I say. “Or am I? Am I kidding?”
“I have never assassinated a beautiful lady,” he answers, a smile showing on his face for the first and last time.
____________
Paula Schmitt (@schmittpaula) is a Brazilian journalist, Middle East correspondent, author of the non-fiction, Advertised to Death – Lebanese Poster-Boys, and the novel Eudemonia.
I waited for the plenary session to end. Shabtai Shavit was the first to speak, and he chose to leave the stage right after his turn. But he sat in the audience and courteously waited for everyone else to speak, included retired U.S. general John Abizaid. Like that, he managed to avoid photos and questions, while still being present. He didn’t manage to avoid me, though. Reminding him of his promise the previous day, we walked to the empty restaurant of the Israel Air Force House, where the conference had just taken place.
As I prepared my digital recorder and my phone, Shavit told me the interview could not be recorded. I was shocked. He noticed. I said that was going to be very difficult. He was adamant. I insisted: “If I record, it is safer for you, too. That way you can guarantee I will quote you verbatim”. But that was precisely his problem. He didn’t want his answers registered. “Ok, then” I said. “But if you don’t like it afterwards, it will be your word against mine.”
You’ve said there should be two prerequisites for proper counter-terrorism: certainty of guilt and no collateral damage. So, is counter-terrorism what Israel is actually doing?
I said that in a certain context. Certainly Israel keeps that in mind. We are the most humane country in the world. The constraints we are putting on ourselves… I don’t know of any other country with the same constraints.
Morality. You said yesterday that you would be left as the only moral country on earth. What do you mean by that?
I said that we are fighting an asymmetrical struggle between those who have zero moral considerations and those who don’t stop adding constraint after constraint [to deal with] the bad guys.
Terrorism is said to be the outcome of a very simple formula: motivation plus operational capability. If that is the case, isn’t Israel’s occupation a big cause of terrorism?
The occupation of what, whom? More than half of the Israeli people accept the two-state solution. There’s real willingness to give back the territory based on the ’67 borders.
But what about the illegal settlements? How do you explain them?
I don’t have an explanation for it. I personally accept two states based on ’67 borders and I accept that because I consider myself a moral person ready to accept the other. I am prepared to share with the other, but I expect reciprocity.
What would you say to the theory that the big problem is not, in fact, between Muslims, Christians and Jews, but between extremists and moderates? Wouldn’t you say you perhaps have more in common with a moderate Muslim than you have with a haredi Jew?
I disagree with that statement because I am Jewish and a haredi is a Jewish and Judaism is our common religion. I can argue with his translation of Judaism but he is Jewish. I will never appreciate a Muslim more than a haredi Jew.
Is there such a thing as being an ex-agent? Do you see any difference in how much you can say now and how much you could say before?
I am the sole judge of what I speak. But I was born a very weak speaker. I never regretted something I didn’t say, but the opposite, though… More than once did I regret something I said.
Is not having the interview recorded a way you have of keeping ‘plausible deniability’?
I’ve been burned more than once for recorded interviews.
What do you think is the main difference between someone who kills from the safety of his cockpit and a man who uses his own body to kill other people? We know that both of them – army soldier and suicide-bomber – kill civilians. [He interrupts me before I finish]
Look, I’ve never been in the position of a fighter pilot. Let me rephrase the question for you: what’s the difference between a suicide-bomber and a guy who pushed a drone button? The difference is that a suicide bomber sanctifies death, trying to kill as many civilians without any… he sanctifies death according to his religion. Suicide-bombers kill civilians on purpose.
Peter Ustinov is supposed to have said that “terrorism is war of the poor, and war is terrorism of the rich.” Why do you believe you are entitled to fight a perceived threat with death? By the same token, isn’t their retaliation legitimate? Jewish terrorists bombed the King David Hotel and this has been celebrated… [He interrupts]
I don’t agree with that statement. You cannot distinguish how people are killed? I propose you go learn the history of the Jewish people since the 19th century. We made compromises. We were ready to give, to coexist. Each time when such compromise was proposed to the other side, they refused.
Do you think PR is important? Do you think it matters?
I believe in PR. I am not a PR person, but we don’t have another choice, PR is one of the pillars of our existence.
So, considering this, would you say that every time there is a suicide attack on Israeli civilians, does that make Israel look better on the international stage? I mean, could this — [He interrupts me, holds my hand and says, slowly and without inflection:]
I think you’re going down a slippery slope now. Let’s stop this. How long are you staying here?
“Two more weeks,” I say. “Why? Are you going to assassinate me?”
He stares at me, livid.
“I’m kidding,” I say. “Or am I? Am I kidding?”
“I have never assassinated a beautiful lady,” he answers, a smile showing on his face for the first and last time.
____________
Paula Schmitt (@schmittpaula) is a Brazilian journalist, Middle East correspondent, author of the non-fiction, Advertised to Death – Lebanese Poster-Boys, and the novel Eudemonia.
17 sept 2013
Residents say move to deny 20,000 children vaccination is racist.
Tens of thousands of Palestinian children from the occupied East Jerusalem have been denied their right to get the polio vaccination in a nationwide campaign conducted by the Israeli Ministry of Health, a move the residents of the holy city have labelled as racist and fascist. Families from Kofr Aqab of the occupied East Jerusalem were turned back on Wednesday after they approached the Motherhood and Childhood centres for the polio vaccinations and were told that they were not on the Israeli Health Ministry’s list for vaccination.
“Although vaccination is a basic and holy right for the children, the Israeli authorities have denied 20,000 children of the age group one month to nine years old the polio vaccination on no logic ground,” said Sameeh Abu Rumailah, the local Coordinator of the vaccine and community leader in Kofr Aqab, a village within the boundaries of occupied Jerusalem in an interview with Gulf News.
“The Kofr Aqab families have been told that the medical centres were not authorized to vaccinate their children as the centres never received instructions from the Ministry of Health,” he said. “Racism has reached the vaccination of the little ones; this surpasses logic and is insane.”
Tens of thousands of Palestinian children from the occupied East Jerusalem have been denied their right to get the polio vaccination in a nationwide campaign conducted by the Israeli Ministry of Health, a move the residents of the holy city have labelled as racist and fascist. Families from Kofr Aqab of the occupied East Jerusalem were turned back on Wednesday after they approached the Motherhood and Childhood centres for the polio vaccinations and were told that they were not on the Israeli Health Ministry’s list for vaccination.
“Although vaccination is a basic and holy right for the children, the Israeli authorities have denied 20,000 children of the age group one month to nine years old the polio vaccination on no logic ground,” said Sameeh Abu Rumailah, the local Coordinator of the vaccine and community leader in Kofr Aqab, a village within the boundaries of occupied Jerusalem in an interview with Gulf News.
“The Kofr Aqab families have been told that the medical centres were not authorized to vaccinate their children as the centres never received instructions from the Ministry of Health,” he said. “Racism has reached the vaccination of the little ones; this surpasses logic and is insane.”
16 sept 2013
New York Times published a lengthy article for Ian Lustick, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the world top seven universities titled "illusions of a two-state solution". Lustick explained the US failed to stand up to Israel's violations, and has a long history in providing a ground cover for the Israeli occupation policies; it also failed to discourage Israel from its settlement activity under the pretext that not provoking Israel would push it towards a peace agreement.
He compared the solution of establishing a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco who fell into a coma, and never stopped to be reported in the media as ‘alive’. “The news media began a long death watch, announcing each night that Generalissimo Franco was still not dead. This desperate allegiance to the departed echoes in every speech, policy brief and op-ed about the two-state solution today.”
With regard to the settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank and the doubled number of settlers under the cover of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords, Lustick believed that establishing a Muslim-ruled Palestinian state is has as potential as that of a secular Palestinian state “Strong Islamist trends make a fundamentalist Palestine more likely than a small state under a secular government.”
He indicated that “The disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum, is at least as plausible as the evacuation of enough of the half-million Israelis living across the 1967 border, or Green Line, to allow a real Palestinian state to exist.”
“While the vision of thriving Israeli and Palestinian states has slipped from the plausible to the barely possible, one mixed state emerging from prolonged and violent struggles over democratic rights is no longer inconceivable. Yet the fantasy that there is a two-state solution keeps everyone from taking action toward something that might work,”
He considered that all sides have reasons to cling to two state-solution: “The Palestinian Authority needs its people to believe that progress is being made toward a two-state solution so it can continue to get the economic aid and diplomatic support that subsidize the lifestyles of its leaders, the jobs of tens of thousands of soldiers, spies, police officers and civil servants, and the authority’s prominence in a Palestinian society that views it as corrupt and incompetent.”
While for the consecutive Israeli governments, they “cling to the two-state notion because it seems to reflect the sentiments of the Jewish Israeli majority and it shields the country from international opprobrium, even as it camouflages relentless efforts to expand Israel’s territory into the West Bank,”
Conceived as early as the 1930s, the idea of two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea all but disappeared from public consciousness between 1948 and 1967. Between 1967 and 1973 it re-emerged, advanced by a minority of “moderates” in each community. By the 1990s it was embraced by majorities on both sides as not only possible but, during the height of the Oslo peace process, probable. But failures of leadership in the face of tremendous pressures brought Oslo crashing down. These days no one suggests that a negotiated two-state “solution” is probable. The most optimistic insist that, for some brief period, it may still be conceivable.
He added that many Israelis see the demise of their country as not just possible, but probable. “The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence. The most common phrase in Israeli political discourse is some variation of “If X happens (or doesn’t), the state will not survive!”
“Those who assume that Israel will always exist as a Zionist project should consider how quickly the Soviet, Pahlavi Iranian, apartheid South African, Baathist Iraqi and Yugoslavian states unraveled, and how little warning even sharp-eyed observers had that such transformations were imminent.” He followed.
He compared the solution of establishing a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco who fell into a coma, and never stopped to be reported in the media as ‘alive’. “The news media began a long death watch, announcing each night that Generalissimo Franco was still not dead. This desperate allegiance to the departed echoes in every speech, policy brief and op-ed about the two-state solution today.”
With regard to the settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank and the doubled number of settlers under the cover of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords, Lustick believed that establishing a Muslim-ruled Palestinian state is has as potential as that of a secular Palestinian state “Strong Islamist trends make a fundamentalist Palestine more likely than a small state under a secular government.”
He indicated that “The disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum, is at least as plausible as the evacuation of enough of the half-million Israelis living across the 1967 border, or Green Line, to allow a real Palestinian state to exist.”
“While the vision of thriving Israeli and Palestinian states has slipped from the plausible to the barely possible, one mixed state emerging from prolonged and violent struggles over democratic rights is no longer inconceivable. Yet the fantasy that there is a two-state solution keeps everyone from taking action toward something that might work,”
He considered that all sides have reasons to cling to two state-solution: “The Palestinian Authority needs its people to believe that progress is being made toward a two-state solution so it can continue to get the economic aid and diplomatic support that subsidize the lifestyles of its leaders, the jobs of tens of thousands of soldiers, spies, police officers and civil servants, and the authority’s prominence in a Palestinian society that views it as corrupt and incompetent.”
While for the consecutive Israeli governments, they “cling to the two-state notion because it seems to reflect the sentiments of the Jewish Israeli majority and it shields the country from international opprobrium, even as it camouflages relentless efforts to expand Israel’s territory into the West Bank,”
Conceived as early as the 1930s, the idea of two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea all but disappeared from public consciousness between 1948 and 1967. Between 1967 and 1973 it re-emerged, advanced by a minority of “moderates” in each community. By the 1990s it was embraced by majorities on both sides as not only possible but, during the height of the Oslo peace process, probable. But failures of leadership in the face of tremendous pressures brought Oslo crashing down. These days no one suggests that a negotiated two-state “solution” is probable. The most optimistic insist that, for some brief period, it may still be conceivable.
He added that many Israelis see the demise of their country as not just possible, but probable. “The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence. The most common phrase in Israeli political discourse is some variation of “If X happens (or doesn’t), the state will not survive!”
“Those who assume that Israel will always exist as a Zionist project should consider how quickly the Soviet, Pahlavi Iranian, apartheid South African, Baathist Iraqi and Yugoslavian states unraveled, and how little warning even sharp-eyed observers had that such transformations were imminent.” He followed.
13 sept 2013
This video is concerning because it shows how war and racism are deeply embedded into the lives of Israelis.
First – you’ve got children going to look at military weapons, familiarizing themselves with them. This makes them less scary and more comfortable.
Secondly – you have children who are clearly raised from a young age to view their neighbors in hostile, aggressive ways. I think you would find this in some of the neighboring countries as well, but remember – Israel is the occupying military force.
Thirdly – these children all come from parents who were in the IDF most likely. Since – the vast majority of Israelis are required to serve in the Israeli military …. many of these children are trained by their parents what they’re trained in the military.
On the Palestinian side – you would find children who were taught by their parents how to deal with the Israeli military; however – there is one major difference. If you’re a Palestinian child – your parents HAVE to teach you about Israeli soldiers and how to conduct yourself. After all – the Palestinians are restricted and Palestinian children are forced to observe these soldiers up close.
If you’re an Israeli child not living in an illegal Israeli settlement – you do not have to experience this first hand. If parents teach this – it’s not because they have to.
First – you’ve got children going to look at military weapons, familiarizing themselves with them. This makes them less scary and more comfortable.
Secondly – you have children who are clearly raised from a young age to view their neighbors in hostile, aggressive ways. I think you would find this in some of the neighboring countries as well, but remember – Israel is the occupying military force.
Thirdly – these children all come from parents who were in the IDF most likely. Since – the vast majority of Israelis are required to serve in the Israeli military …. many of these children are trained by their parents what they’re trained in the military.
On the Palestinian side – you would find children who were taught by their parents how to deal with the Israeli military; however – there is one major difference. If you’re a Palestinian child – your parents HAVE to teach you about Israeli soldiers and how to conduct yourself. After all – the Palestinians are restricted and Palestinian children are forced to observe these soldiers up close.
If you’re an Israeli child not living in an illegal Israeli settlement – you do not have to experience this first hand. If parents teach this – it’s not because they have to.
9 sept 2013
"A powerful Middle Eastern axis of Sunni states has taken form in the region, which does not view Israel as a sworn enemy and has successfully kept extremist jihadi terrorism at bay," Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad said on Sunday. Speaking before the Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s international summit in Herzliya, Gilad, who is director of the Political-Military Affairs Bureau at the Israeli military Ministry, said that Israel won’t ever be accepted as a formal member of the Sunni axis, but that the states that make it up all view the US as the sole superpower and that their regional policies are indirectly beneficial for Israel.
“This has a huge importance... and gives us many opportunities,” Gilad said.
Gilad described Egyptian Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as a new leader who history will remember, noting that he is combating the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Brotherhood has not swerved from its ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction and to toppling all of the region’s regimes," he said.
"When Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh set a meeting with Mohamed Morsi, he was symbolically received immediately,” Gilad said claiming that Hamas is officially part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Their self confidence was huge when Morsi was in power.”
Had the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in its plot for regional domination, a ring of hostility would have been formed around Israel, Gilad noted. From the perspective of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, there are two threats to his country: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This was reflected in the billions of dollars donated to Egypt by Saudi Arabia and the UAE after Sisi took power, Gilad argued.
He claimed that Sisi didn’t act against the Muslim Brotherhood on behalf of the West or Israel, but only for the good of Egypt. He simply saw that Egypt was falling into the abyss, in terms of repression and the economy.
"He wishes to save Egypt,” Gilad claimed
Jordan, for its part, excels at counter- terrorism due its own interest in combating radical Islamist interests, he said.
As a result, there are no terrorist attacks in Jordan or attacks from Jordan on Israel, Gilad said. “Their existence as an independent kingdom is impressive,” he added.
“All of the kingdoms, from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain, are surviving the period of Middle Eastern turmoil.
Not one faces an existential danger,” he said.
“This axis is very heavyweight. I recommend viewing Egypt as the leader of the Arab world, and I disagree with those who don’t see it this way. There is a mass of 87 million Egyptians who are one nation with a 5,000-year history,” Gilad said.
“I’m identifying a serious fight against terrorism in Sinai. It’s an impressive fight against Al-Qaida organizations,” he continued.
Gilad said that despite many threats, Syria has refrained from sponsoring attacks against Israel due to Israeli deterrence.
“The reasons this isn’t happening are clear,” he said.
Hezbollah, too, is deterred by Israel, and there has even been a decrease in its attempts to carry out low-signature attacks abroad, though the threat has not vanished, Gilad added.
Israeli deterrence would be harmed if Iran becomes a nuclear state or obtain the image of a nuclear-armed state, he warned.
“This has a huge importance... and gives us many opportunities,” Gilad said.
Gilad described Egyptian Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as a new leader who history will remember, noting that he is combating the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Brotherhood has not swerved from its ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction and to toppling all of the region’s regimes," he said.
"When Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh set a meeting with Mohamed Morsi, he was symbolically received immediately,” Gilad said claiming that Hamas is officially part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Their self confidence was huge when Morsi was in power.”
Had the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded in its plot for regional domination, a ring of hostility would have been formed around Israel, Gilad noted. From the perspective of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, there are two threats to his country: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This was reflected in the billions of dollars donated to Egypt by Saudi Arabia and the UAE after Sisi took power, Gilad argued.
He claimed that Sisi didn’t act against the Muslim Brotherhood on behalf of the West or Israel, but only for the good of Egypt. He simply saw that Egypt was falling into the abyss, in terms of repression and the economy.
"He wishes to save Egypt,” Gilad claimed
Jordan, for its part, excels at counter- terrorism due its own interest in combating radical Islamist interests, he said.
As a result, there are no terrorist attacks in Jordan or attacks from Jordan on Israel, Gilad said. “Their existence as an independent kingdom is impressive,” he added.
“All of the kingdoms, from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain, are surviving the period of Middle Eastern turmoil.
Not one faces an existential danger,” he said.
“This axis is very heavyweight. I recommend viewing Egypt as the leader of the Arab world, and I disagree with those who don’t see it this way. There is a mass of 87 million Egyptians who are one nation with a 5,000-year history,” Gilad said.
“I’m identifying a serious fight against terrorism in Sinai. It’s an impressive fight against Al-Qaida organizations,” he continued.
Gilad said that despite many threats, Syria has refrained from sponsoring attacks against Israel due to Israeli deterrence.
“The reasons this isn’t happening are clear,” he said.
Hezbollah, too, is deterred by Israel, and there has even been a decrease in its attempts to carry out low-signature attacks abroad, though the threat has not vanished, Gilad added.
Israeli deterrence would be harmed if Iran becomes a nuclear state or obtain the image of a nuclear-armed state, he warned.
8 sept 2013
Israel’s defense minister Moshe Ya’alon gave a speech mostly about Syria; however – during this speech he did his best to link the problems in Syria to the so called “peace negotiations” for Palestinians to finally live without an Israeli occupation. This is just one example in a long list of examples where the Israeli government tries to blame something completely unrelated to the Palestinian people as a justification for why Israel will not recognize Palestine as its own nation state.
To be clear – Palestine is already a country. Palestinians exist and the country may be currently under an Israeli military occupation, but even Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister has had to pretend that he believes in a 2 state solution. He doesn’t. And in this speech – the defense minister is just saying things that PM Netanyahu can not to assuage the wishes of the international community. Mr. Ya’alon tries to insinuate that somehow acts of violence in Syria are connected to the people of Hebron.
He then uses the language “Judea and Samaria” which the international community calls “the West Bank” and I call PALESTINE. He tries to insinuate their is no connection between the Palestinian people in Gaza and the Palestinian people in West Bank, Palestine. If there is a lack of geographical connection – it’s because Israel has created the world’s largest open air prison in Gaza and made it physically impossible for the establishment of geographically contiguous Palestine.
Make no mistake – what he is saying here is that he doesn’t want to recognize a Palestinian state. He is saying implicitly that he does not yet recognize Palestine. It’s just an excuse and it’s pathetic.
The Times of Israel has the main quote HERE:
“One of the most incredible things in a period when the notion of the nation state is collapsing before our eyes is that there are those who are trying to advance, in one way or another, the founding of yet another nation-state — even as it remains unclear how the people of Jenin are connected to the people of Hebron, and uncertain that there is a common denominator between those in Judea and Samaria and those in Gaza.”
To be clear – Palestine is already a country. Palestinians exist and the country may be currently under an Israeli military occupation, but even Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister has had to pretend that he believes in a 2 state solution. He doesn’t. And in this speech – the defense minister is just saying things that PM Netanyahu can not to assuage the wishes of the international community. Mr. Ya’alon tries to insinuate that somehow acts of violence in Syria are connected to the people of Hebron.
He then uses the language “Judea and Samaria” which the international community calls “the West Bank” and I call PALESTINE. He tries to insinuate their is no connection between the Palestinian people in Gaza and the Palestinian people in West Bank, Palestine. If there is a lack of geographical connection – it’s because Israel has created the world’s largest open air prison in Gaza and made it physically impossible for the establishment of geographically contiguous Palestine.
Make no mistake – what he is saying here is that he doesn’t want to recognize a Palestinian state. He is saying implicitly that he does not yet recognize Palestine. It’s just an excuse and it’s pathetic.
The Times of Israel has the main quote HERE:
“One of the most incredible things in a period when the notion of the nation state is collapsing before our eyes is that there are those who are trying to advance, in one way or another, the founding of yet another nation-state — even as it remains unclear how the people of Jenin are connected to the people of Hebron, and uncertain that there is a common denominator between those in Judea and Samaria and those in Gaza.”
To view the larger version of this newspaper article click on the picture
One of the more common things I hear from Israelis is “Palestine never existed”. The argument is that Palestine was just a geographical territory not realizing that countries are also geographical territories. You often hear “they’re Jordanians” and “there never was a Palestine”.
For Israelis whose goal is to steal all of the land “from the river to the sea” – it is very important to believe that Palestinians aren’t a people because then it’s perfectly acceptable to kick them off this land. Nevermind – Palestinians have been living on this land for generations.
And there is a direct correlation between the attempt to delegitimize even the existence of Palestinians with Israel’s attempts to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land. After all – if a people don’t exist …. you’re not really harming anyone. Many Israelis use this logic (lack of) in order to justify and ignore the ethnic cleansing, theft of lands, demolition of homes, human rights abuses, torture and murder of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli army.
Except – there is historical evidence that Palestine was in fact it’s own country. Nevermind that Palestinians have lived on this land for centuries through many empires i.e. Ottomans, British etc; quite simply – Palestine exists. This article from the New York Tribune shows the language used after the breakup of the Ottoman empire in 1917. Notice the language “bold proposal of a Jewish state in Palestine.” Coincidentally – there is one word I do not see written by this author who advocates passionately for a Jewish state: Israel. That’s because unlike Palestine – Israel didn’t exist at that time.
One of the more common things I hear from Israelis is “Palestine never existed”. The argument is that Palestine was just a geographical territory not realizing that countries are also geographical territories. You often hear “they’re Jordanians” and “there never was a Palestine”.
For Israelis whose goal is to steal all of the land “from the river to the sea” – it is very important to believe that Palestinians aren’t a people because then it’s perfectly acceptable to kick them off this land. Nevermind – Palestinians have been living on this land for generations.
And there is a direct correlation between the attempt to delegitimize even the existence of Palestinians with Israel’s attempts to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land. After all – if a people don’t exist …. you’re not really harming anyone. Many Israelis use this logic (lack of) in order to justify and ignore the ethnic cleansing, theft of lands, demolition of homes, human rights abuses, torture and murder of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli army.
Except – there is historical evidence that Palestine was in fact it’s own country. Nevermind that Palestinians have lived on this land for centuries through many empires i.e. Ottomans, British etc; quite simply – Palestine exists. This article from the New York Tribune shows the language used after the breakup of the Ottoman empire in 1917. Notice the language “bold proposal of a Jewish state in Palestine.” Coincidentally – there is one word I do not see written by this author who advocates passionately for a Jewish state: Israel. That’s because unlike Palestine – Israel didn’t exist at that time.
4 sept 2013
Israel must provide Palestinians living in the occupied territories with gas masks, a Palestinian official has said, in the event of a spillover of violence from Syria. Israel has been distributing gas masks to its citizens over the last two weeks amid fears of reprisals against the Jewish state, following anticipated US military intervention in neighboring Syria.
"If there is any war in the region, the responsibility (for ensuring Palestinians civilians are prepared) falls upon Israel, because it is the occupying authority," Palestinian Authority security services spokesman Adnan al-Dumayri told AFP on Tuesday.
"If there is any war in the region, the responsibility (for ensuring Palestinians civilians are prepared) falls upon Israel, because it is the occupying authority," Palestinian Authority security services spokesman Adnan al-Dumayri told AFP on Tuesday.
3 sept 2013
The population of Israel has grown by 1.8 percent over the past Jewish year to stand at 8.081 million, revealed Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics.
The annual report was released Monday, on the eve of the Jewish New year.
The report said 75.1 percent of the population are Jewish and the Arab population represents 20.7 percent of the Israeli inhabitants.
The remaining 4.2 percent of the population follows other religions.
The report also noted that some 163,000 new babies were born in Israel last year.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv could defend itself and that the Zionist entity would enjoy a calm New Year holiday.
The remarks came amid regional tensions over the crisis in Syria, as a number of Western countries, including the US and France, are mulling a military action against the Arab country, according to PressTV.
The annual report was released Monday, on the eve of the Jewish New year.
The report said 75.1 percent of the population are Jewish and the Arab population represents 20.7 percent of the Israeli inhabitants.
The remaining 4.2 percent of the population follows other religions.
The report also noted that some 163,000 new babies were born in Israel last year.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv could defend itself and that the Zionist entity would enjoy a calm New Year holiday.
The remarks came amid regional tensions over the crisis in Syria, as a number of Western countries, including the US and France, are mulling a military action against the Arab country, according to PressTV.
Israel's Deputy Defense Minister, Danny Danon, said on Tuesday that the Likud would not permit any of its lawmakers to support an interim agreement with the Palestinians, The Jerusalem Post Israeli newspaper reported.
Danon, one of the more prominent hawks in Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's party, told Israel Radio that any faction member who backs an arrangement that "gives away our assets in exchange for nothing" will be removed from the Likud.
He also said that he trusted Netanyahu to avoid making the mistake of clinching an interim deal, adding that there is no indication that Netanyahu was considering such an option, according to JPost.
Danon, one of the more prominent hawks in Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's party, told Israel Radio that any faction member who backs an arrangement that "gives away our assets in exchange for nothing" will be removed from the Likud.
He also said that he trusted Netanyahu to avoid making the mistake of clinching an interim deal, adding that there is no indication that Netanyahu was considering such an option, according to JPost.
2 sept 2013
Posters at UC Berkeley calling for divestment from Israeli goods
After pro-Palestinian groups at several schools within the University of California system were accused of 'anti-Semitism', the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation.
This week, they released the findings of their months-long investigation, announcing that the accusations of anti-Semitism were without merit, and that the accusations may have been attempts to stifle free speech on campus.
In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:
Civil rights organizations this week welcomed news that the Department of Education's (DOE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has closed three investigations against three University of California schools, at Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Irvine, which falsely alleged that Palestinian rights activism created an anti-Semitic climate. The complaints underlying the investigation claimed that student protests and academic programing in support of Palestinian rights and critical of Israel "created a hostile environment for Jewish students."
"The organized legal bullying campaigns have failed," said attorney Nasrina Bargzie, of Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus (ALC), who alongside attorneys from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) advocated for the students whose activism was scrutinized in the investigations.
"OCR's decision in these cases confirms the obvious - that political activity advocating for Palestinian human rights does not violate the civil rights of Jewish students who find such criticism offensive, and that, to the contrary, colleges and universities have an obligation to create an environment that supports freedom of expression.” said Bargzie.
In its letter to UC Berkeley, OCR officials stated that student demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights "constituted expression on matters of public concern directed to the university community. In the university environment, exposure to such robust and discordant expressions, even when personally offensive and hurtful, is a circumstance that a reasonable student in higher education may experience. In this context, the events that the complainants described do not constitute actionable harassment."
"We speak out on campus about matters of fundamental human rights. Students at institutions that are all about learning deserve to be part of robust discussion about one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time," said Taliah Mirmalek, a student at UC Berkeley and a member of Students for Justice in Palestine.
The Berkeley complaint was filed in July 2012 by two attorneys who had previously filed an unsuccessful federal lawsuit on similar grounds. The Berkeley investigation was the latest of the three to be open; the Santa Cruz investigation was opened in March 2011, and the Irvine investigation in 2007.
A number of legal and advocacy groups, including Advancing Justice - ALC, CAIR, CCR, NLG, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Muslims for Palestine, the Arab American Institute, and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California have worked to challenge the misuse of civil rights law to intimidate students and dissuade them from advocating for Palestinian rights on campus.
"Students have faced a pervasive stigma that at times negatively impacted our ability to fundraise and hold events on campus, and even intimidated some of our peers into silence," said Rebecca Pierce, a recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz and member of the Committee for Justice in Palestine. "However, we feel vindicated that the DOE has rejected this attack on our freedom of expression, and we will continue to advocate in accordance with our values regarding human rights and social justice."
"The First Amendment unequivocally protects the activities that were targeted in these complaints - holding demonstrations, distributing flyers, street theatre - criticizing the governmental policy of the State of Israel and supporting Palestinian human rights. It is long past time that students engaging in First Amendment activities are able to do so without fear," said Liz Jackson, Cooperating Counsel with CCR, who also worked with the targeted students. “While there continue to be threats of Title VI complaints against other universities, we are confident that OCR recognizes these claims as attempts to silence certain speech on Israel/Palestine, and do not present viable claims of discrimination against Jewish students,” said Jackson.
After pro-Palestinian groups at several schools within the University of California system were accused of 'anti-Semitism', the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation.
This week, they released the findings of their months-long investigation, announcing that the accusations of anti-Semitism were without merit, and that the accusations may have been attempts to stifle free speech on campus.
In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:
Civil rights organizations this week welcomed news that the Department of Education's (DOE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has closed three investigations against three University of California schools, at Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Irvine, which falsely alleged that Palestinian rights activism created an anti-Semitic climate. The complaints underlying the investigation claimed that student protests and academic programing in support of Palestinian rights and critical of Israel "created a hostile environment for Jewish students."
"The organized legal bullying campaigns have failed," said attorney Nasrina Bargzie, of Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus (ALC), who alongside attorneys from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) advocated for the students whose activism was scrutinized in the investigations.
"OCR's decision in these cases confirms the obvious - that political activity advocating for Palestinian human rights does not violate the civil rights of Jewish students who find such criticism offensive, and that, to the contrary, colleges and universities have an obligation to create an environment that supports freedom of expression.” said Bargzie.
In its letter to UC Berkeley, OCR officials stated that student demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights "constituted expression on matters of public concern directed to the university community. In the university environment, exposure to such robust and discordant expressions, even when personally offensive and hurtful, is a circumstance that a reasonable student in higher education may experience. In this context, the events that the complainants described do not constitute actionable harassment."
"We speak out on campus about matters of fundamental human rights. Students at institutions that are all about learning deserve to be part of robust discussion about one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time," said Taliah Mirmalek, a student at UC Berkeley and a member of Students for Justice in Palestine.
The Berkeley complaint was filed in July 2012 by two attorneys who had previously filed an unsuccessful federal lawsuit on similar grounds. The Berkeley investigation was the latest of the three to be open; the Santa Cruz investigation was opened in March 2011, and the Irvine investigation in 2007.
A number of legal and advocacy groups, including Advancing Justice - ALC, CAIR, CCR, NLG, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Muslims for Palestine, the Arab American Institute, and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California have worked to challenge the misuse of civil rights law to intimidate students and dissuade them from advocating for Palestinian rights on campus.
"Students have faced a pervasive stigma that at times negatively impacted our ability to fundraise and hold events on campus, and even intimidated some of our peers into silence," said Rebecca Pierce, a recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz and member of the Committee for Justice in Palestine. "However, we feel vindicated that the DOE has rejected this attack on our freedom of expression, and we will continue to advocate in accordance with our values regarding human rights and social justice."
"The First Amendment unequivocally protects the activities that were targeted in these complaints - holding demonstrations, distributing flyers, street theatre - criticizing the governmental policy of the State of Israel and supporting Palestinian human rights. It is long past time that students engaging in First Amendment activities are able to do so without fear," said Liz Jackson, Cooperating Counsel with CCR, who also worked with the targeted students. “While there continue to be threats of Title VI complaints against other universities, we are confident that OCR recognizes these claims as attempts to silence certain speech on Israel/Palestine, and do not present viable claims of discrimination against Jewish students,” said Jackson.
1 sept 2013
And this time, it’s hard to see who will be able to stop him.
Netanyahu hasn’t said anything publicly, but the consensus here is that the lesson he’s taking from Obama’s refusal to bomb Syria straight away, and instead to turn to Congress for approval, is that the U.S. president can’t be trusted to keep his word about preventing Iran from going nuclear – so he, Netanyahu, must prepare to carry out the task alone. And the consensus seems to be that this is the correct conclusion, too.
“Netanyahu was right when he sought to act on his own. No others will do the job,” wrote Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Yoaz Hendel, who used to be the PM’s hasbara chief.
Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post’s pro-government diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
The lack of a strong international response in the face of rows and rows of gassed bodies wrapped eerily in white shrouds just 220 kilometers from Jerusalem might not compel Israel to take action against Assad, but it surely may compel it to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace.”
Even Haaretz’s liberal military affairs reporter Amos Harel seems to see the wisdom in this view:
The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely. … With the U.S. administration’s year of hesitancy since Assad first deployed chemical weapons, American difficulty in building an international coalition for a strike in Syria, and [U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin] Dempsey’s excuses, it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
I think it is pretty obvious that this indeed is Netanyahu’s thinking. He wanted to bomb Iran last year, sometime before the U.S. presidential election in November; what stopped him (and his partner, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak) was the opposition of Israel’s military-intelligence leadership, headed by IDF Chief Benny Gantz. Afterward Netanyahu went to the UN and drew a cartoon bomb with a red line, saying that Iran would cross it and come within reach of a nuclear bomb “next spring, at most by next summer, at current [uranium] enrichment rates.”
Then, two months ago, Bibi’s red line got effectively erased as the moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, and the West gained new hope that diplomacy could ensure that Iran didn’t go nuclear. Netanyahu, of course, considered that the usual Western liberal naiveté, but it seemed too outrageous for Israel to go bombing Iran on its own, with all the consequences that could bring, when the US and other world powers not only opposed an attack but were actively trying to persuade Iran, with its new, reformist president, into seeing things their way. The military option against Iran was “off the table” for a year or so, before it appeared. The opposition from Israel’s warrior class remained fully in place. Netanyahu couldn’t have persuaded them otherwise, and may not even have wanted to, given the international mood.
All that may very well have changed last night. As the commentators quoted above and others are saying, Netanyahu’s well-known dictum that “Israel can only depend on itself” has been vindicated by the performance of Obama and the rest of the world in the Syrian crisis. The U.S. president can’t be trusted to bomb Iran’s nukes, and since, according to Netanyahu, his government and even the Israeli military-intelligence establishment, a nuclear-armed Iran “is not an option,” that would seem to knock the legs out from under the argument made by Gantz and the rest of the war council in favor of restraint.
That argument, which was made in leaks to the media by the warriors and publicly by President Shimon Peres, and which backed by a majority of the Israeli public in polls, was that the wisest course by far was to let America bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because it had the military means to do so much more decisively than could Israel. Another, related argument was that if Israel attacked Iran without U.S. support, it would be politically calamitous. A third, related argument was that at best, an Israeli strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or so, which was not worth the missiles and political isolation Israel would get in return. The conclusion from all three arguments was: Trust Obama, at least until he gives Israel reason not to trust him.
That reason was just provided last night from the podium on the White House lawn. Even if Congress agrees to an attack on Syria and Obama carries it out, the likely limits on such a strike, and above all Obama’s extremely uncertain route to executing it (if he does), will not redeem his newly dashed reputation among the tough guys who run this country. It appears Netanyahu has won the argument. In a month or so, after the High Holidays, I expect the countdown to resume on an Israeli strike on Iran, and this time I don’t know who will be able to stop it.
Netanyahu hasn’t said anything publicly, but the consensus here is that the lesson he’s taking from Obama’s refusal to bomb Syria straight away, and instead to turn to Congress for approval, is that the U.S. president can’t be trusted to keep his word about preventing Iran from going nuclear – so he, Netanyahu, must prepare to carry out the task alone. And the consensus seems to be that this is the correct conclusion, too.
“Netanyahu was right when he sought to act on his own. No others will do the job,” wrote Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Yoaz Hendel, who used to be the PM’s hasbara chief.
Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post’s pro-government diplomatic correspondent, wrote:
The lack of a strong international response in the face of rows and rows of gassed bodies wrapped eerily in white shrouds just 220 kilometers from Jerusalem might not compel Israel to take action against Assad, but it surely may compel it to think twice about relying on the world to rid it of the Iranian nuclear menace.”
Even Haaretz’s liberal military affairs reporter Amos Harel seems to see the wisdom in this view:
The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely. … With the U.S. administration’s year of hesitancy since Assad first deployed chemical weapons, American difficulty in building an international coalition for a strike in Syria, and [U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin] Dempsey’s excuses, it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”
I think it is pretty obvious that this indeed is Netanyahu’s thinking. He wanted to bomb Iran last year, sometime before the U.S. presidential election in November; what stopped him (and his partner, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak) was the opposition of Israel’s military-intelligence leadership, headed by IDF Chief Benny Gantz. Afterward Netanyahu went to the UN and drew a cartoon bomb with a red line, saying that Iran would cross it and come within reach of a nuclear bomb “next spring, at most by next summer, at current [uranium] enrichment rates.”
Then, two months ago, Bibi’s red line got effectively erased as the moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected to succeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, and the West gained new hope that diplomacy could ensure that Iran didn’t go nuclear. Netanyahu, of course, considered that the usual Western liberal naiveté, but it seemed too outrageous for Israel to go bombing Iran on its own, with all the consequences that could bring, when the US and other world powers not only opposed an attack but were actively trying to persuade Iran, with its new, reformist president, into seeing things their way. The military option against Iran was “off the table” for a year or so, before it appeared. The opposition from Israel’s warrior class remained fully in place. Netanyahu couldn’t have persuaded them otherwise, and may not even have wanted to, given the international mood.
All that may very well have changed last night. As the commentators quoted above and others are saying, Netanyahu’s well-known dictum that “Israel can only depend on itself” has been vindicated by the performance of Obama and the rest of the world in the Syrian crisis. The U.S. president can’t be trusted to bomb Iran’s nukes, and since, according to Netanyahu, his government and even the Israeli military-intelligence establishment, a nuclear-armed Iran “is not an option,” that would seem to knock the legs out from under the argument made by Gantz and the rest of the war council in favor of restraint.
That argument, which was made in leaks to the media by the warriors and publicly by President Shimon Peres, and which backed by a majority of the Israeli public in polls, was that the wisest course by far was to let America bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because it had the military means to do so much more decisively than could Israel. Another, related argument was that if Israel attacked Iran without U.S. support, it would be politically calamitous. A third, related argument was that at best, an Israeli strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program by a year or so, which was not worth the missiles and political isolation Israel would get in return. The conclusion from all three arguments was: Trust Obama, at least until he gives Israel reason not to trust him.
That reason was just provided last night from the podium on the White House lawn. Even if Congress agrees to an attack on Syria and Obama carries it out, the likely limits on such a strike, and above all Obama’s extremely uncertain route to executing it (if he does), will not redeem his newly dashed reputation among the tough guys who run this country. It appears Netanyahu has won the argument. In a month or so, after the High Holidays, I expect the countdown to resume on an Israeli strike on Iran, and this time I don’t know who will be able to stop it.
MK Orit Strock, proposer of the bill to extend women's rights laws to the West Bank
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein: The extension of Israel legislation to the West Bank 'could have ramifications at the level of international law.’
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein opposes a proposed bill that would extend the country’s labor laws to Israeli women working in the occupied territories, saying its approval would have “far-reaching” legal consequences for the state.
The bill was recently approved by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, but after Science and Technology Minister Jacob Perry (Yesh Atid) formally submitted his objection to the bill, it is slated to be discussed once more by the cabinet Sunday. In a letter to Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mendelblit, the attorney general reveals he had presented his professional opinion to the members of the cabinet before it approved the proposed bill, but they chose not to adopt his view.
The proposed bill by MK Orit Strock (Habayit Hayehudi) calls for the extension of Israel’s labor laws to women working in the settlements. It would grant them various forms of protection - for instance, protecting them from being fired while pregnant, during maternity leave and for a period of 60 days after the maternity leave has ended. It also protects the rights of women working in the settlements who are undergoing fertility treatments or want to adopt a child.
Weinstein believes Israeli labor laws should not be extended to the territories and that the protection of women working in the settlements can be secured through an order signed by the major general in charge of the GOC Central Command of the Israel Defense Forces, or through military legislation (the current method).
In his letter to Mendelblit, Weinstein writes: “From the legal standpoint, the extension of Israeli legislation of a territorial nature to the [territories] could have ramifications at the level of international law.
In this context, the extension of that law to the territories could have far-reaching consequences.
Up until now, the Knesset has generally limited the extension of Israeli legislation to directly personal matters concerning Israeli citizens and relating to issues that primarily relate to taxation, criminal law, service in the army, elections, etc.”
Perry and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (Hatnuah), both members of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, were not present when the committee approved the proposed bill. They are now spearheading opposition to the bill.
Last Thursday, they published a joint statement: “The bill proposed by MK Orit Strock is an attempt to annex the territories from the legal standpoint and to harm Israel’s international standing under the guise of a mechanism for protecting the rights of Israeli and Palestinian women working in the territories,” they said. “In order to grant all of the rights provided by Israel’s labor laws to women working in the West Bank, there is no need for major legislation.”
Strock responded: “I am proposing the extension of a norm that is accepted in Israel: the protection of women who are in various stages of their family’s expansion, namely, their protection from dismissal or from any undermining of their rights as employees. The extension of Israel’s labor laws to the West Bank is not annexation, but instead represents the granting of personal rights, workers’ rights, and women’s rights. ”
PM: Law discriminating women beyond Green Line to be amended
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that by the upcoming Knesset session, the law that differentiates women within the Green Line and beyond it will be amended. Ynet reported that due to a legal flaw, Jewish and Palestinian women living beyond the Green Line are not protected during pregnancy and can be fired from their work at any time. Netanyahu ordered to have the matter changed through legislation or an order issued by the IDF Central Command chief.
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein: The extension of Israel legislation to the West Bank 'could have ramifications at the level of international law.’
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein opposes a proposed bill that would extend the country’s labor laws to Israeli women working in the occupied territories, saying its approval would have “far-reaching” legal consequences for the state.
The bill was recently approved by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, but after Science and Technology Minister Jacob Perry (Yesh Atid) formally submitted his objection to the bill, it is slated to be discussed once more by the cabinet Sunday. In a letter to Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mendelblit, the attorney general reveals he had presented his professional opinion to the members of the cabinet before it approved the proposed bill, but they chose not to adopt his view.
The proposed bill by MK Orit Strock (Habayit Hayehudi) calls for the extension of Israel’s labor laws to women working in the settlements. It would grant them various forms of protection - for instance, protecting them from being fired while pregnant, during maternity leave and for a period of 60 days after the maternity leave has ended. It also protects the rights of women working in the settlements who are undergoing fertility treatments or want to adopt a child.
Weinstein believes Israeli labor laws should not be extended to the territories and that the protection of women working in the settlements can be secured through an order signed by the major general in charge of the GOC Central Command of the Israel Defense Forces, or through military legislation (the current method).
In his letter to Mendelblit, Weinstein writes: “From the legal standpoint, the extension of Israeli legislation of a territorial nature to the [territories] could have ramifications at the level of international law.
In this context, the extension of that law to the territories could have far-reaching consequences.
Up until now, the Knesset has generally limited the extension of Israeli legislation to directly personal matters concerning Israeli citizens and relating to issues that primarily relate to taxation, criminal law, service in the army, elections, etc.”
Perry and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (Hatnuah), both members of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, were not present when the committee approved the proposed bill. They are now spearheading opposition to the bill.
Last Thursday, they published a joint statement: “The bill proposed by MK Orit Strock is an attempt to annex the territories from the legal standpoint and to harm Israel’s international standing under the guise of a mechanism for protecting the rights of Israeli and Palestinian women working in the territories,” they said. “In order to grant all of the rights provided by Israel’s labor laws to women working in the West Bank, there is no need for major legislation.”
Strock responded: “I am proposing the extension of a norm that is accepted in Israel: the protection of women who are in various stages of their family’s expansion, namely, their protection from dismissal or from any undermining of their rights as employees. The extension of Israel’s labor laws to the West Bank is not annexation, but instead represents the granting of personal rights, workers’ rights, and women’s rights. ”
PM: Law discriminating women beyond Green Line to be amended
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that by the upcoming Knesset session, the law that differentiates women within the Green Line and beyond it will be amended. Ynet reported that due to a legal flaw, Jewish and Palestinian women living beyond the Green Line are not protected during pregnancy and can be fired from their work at any time. Netanyahu ordered to have the matter changed through legislation or an order issued by the IDF Central Command chief.
31 aug 2013
Leaked documents reveal that the United States is considering Israel as one of the top spying threats facing the country’s intelligence services.
The revelation was made by a secret budget request obtained by The Washington Post from former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the community,” the FY 2013 congressional budget justification for intelligence programs reads.
According to the document, the United States is investing in “target surveillance and offensive CI [counterintelligence]” against Israel and some other countries.
Another document by Snowden also showed the US has built an “intelligence-gathering colossus” with a whopping “black budget” of $52.6 billion for the current fiscal year.
The US spy agencies spend tens of billions of dollars annually on spy programs without being able to provide “critical information to the president on a range of national security threats,” the document said.
The US intelligence budget is not allowed to be published for those outside of the intelligence community and is only made known to a portion of people who are briefed on spying operations.
According to the newly-disclosed documents, the “black budget” is larger than the sum received by the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce and NASA this year combined.
The revelation was made by a secret budget request obtained by The Washington Post from former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the community,” the FY 2013 congressional budget justification for intelligence programs reads.
According to the document, the United States is investing in “target surveillance and offensive CI [counterintelligence]” against Israel and some other countries.
Another document by Snowden also showed the US has built an “intelligence-gathering colossus” with a whopping “black budget” of $52.6 billion for the current fiscal year.
The US spy agencies spend tens of billions of dollars annually on spy programs without being able to provide “critical information to the president on a range of national security threats,” the document said.
The US intelligence budget is not allowed to be published for those outside of the intelligence community and is only made known to a portion of people who are briefed on spying operations.
According to the newly-disclosed documents, the “black budget” is larger than the sum received by the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce and NASA this year combined.
Body of man in his 30s found in alleyway; was stabbed in the back
The body of a 30-year-old man who was apparently murdered was discovered Saturday on Herzl Street in Haifa's Hadar neighborhood.
Police have launched an investigation into the man's death.
The body, which had stab wounds on it, was found shortly after 8:30 in an alley, near the entrance to a home. Passersby alerted Magen David Adom paramedics, who pronounced the man dead. "The body had signs of violence and stab wounds on it," one of the paramedics said. The victim was stabbed a number of times in his back.
Name released of man whose body in Haifa
The man found stabbed this morning in Haifa has been identified as Igor Zandelvich, 43, a resident of the city. The court issued a gag order on the details of the investigation following a police request. The background of the murder is still unknown.
The body of a 30-year-old man who was apparently murdered was discovered Saturday on Herzl Street in Haifa's Hadar neighborhood.
Police have launched an investigation into the man's death.
The body, which had stab wounds on it, was found shortly after 8:30 in an alley, near the entrance to a home. Passersby alerted Magen David Adom paramedics, who pronounced the man dead. "The body had signs of violence and stab wounds on it," one of the paramedics said. The victim was stabbed a number of times in his back.
Name released of man whose body in Haifa
The man found stabbed this morning in Haifa has been identified as Igor Zandelvich, 43, a resident of the city. The court issued a gag order on the details of the investigation following a police request. The background of the murder is still unknown.