Sabbah Report » Ehud Barak

“Israel has never been so ugly”

Alan Hart — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:44:41 +0000

Ari Shavit

I often say that critics of Israel and America's unconditional support for it are wrong to call the monster that has Congress by the testicles the "Israel lobby". That description of it implies that it speaks for all Israelis. It does not and in Ha'aretz recently there was a remarkably good analysis of what's happening in Israel which illustrates, proves, my point. Its author is Ari Shavit, a senior correspondent and member of the newspaper's editorial board. The headline over his piece is the one above.

I am now going to quote the article in full (with my emphasis added) and conclude with a comment or two.

"We have never been so ugly. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu seeks to silence the call to prayer over the loudspeakers of the country's mosques, and to shut down Channel 10 television. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman expresses support for the Russian 'democtator' who has just rigged elections. Defense Minister Ehud Barak stands by while Jewish settlers victimize Palestinians and ultra-Orthodox religious nationalists victimize female soldiers.

Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman is trying to turn the Supreme Court into other one of his subsidiaries. Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein is working to prevent the media from reporting on investigations against public figures. Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman excludes women from participation in an official award ceremony.

Coalition chairman Zeev Elkin undermines and neuters civil society. Religious fanatics exclude women, tyrannize secular citizens and spit at priests. Jewish terrorists burn Muslim houses of worship, invade Israel Defense Force bases and attack soldiers.

We see what we would never believe with our own eyes. Darkness at noon, a dark Israel snuffing out an enlightened Israel. There have been dark moments in the past. The 1956 killing of Israeli Arabs at Kafr Qasem, the 1982 massacres by Israeli allies in Lebanon at Sabra and Chatila, the 1994 Hebron massacre by Baruch Goldstein. There have also been prior attempts at silencing the press, publications such as Kol Ha'am, Haolam Hazeh and Hadashot.

There have been assaults on the judicial system. Former Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, and Daniel Friedmann and Daniel Friedmann. Time after time there have been assaults by the secular right and the religious right on the principles of liberalism and on liberal institutions, but there has never been an all-out, multi-pronged and multi-dimensional attack on the core values of the Jewish democratic state.

There has never been such a comprehensive attempt to remake the face of Israel and to replace it with something else. Under Netanyahu and Lieberman's leadership, Israel been turned into a country with the values of Newt Gingrich and the look of Vladimir Putin. What's happening here? And why now exactly? Why are anti-democratic forces at work now to run roughshod over human rights and human dignity and freedom? Why are the Jewish nationalists and ultra-Orthodox fanatics, along with Russian statism, bursting forth now all at the same time?

The answer is Netanyahu. In the past he was conservative, cautious and democratic. With American Jewish leader Ron Lauder at his side and popular historian Paul Johnson in his hand, Netanyahu sought to turn Israel into a strong free-market country sharing the values of Republican America.

As a result, the first time around as prime minister he governed like a democrat and lost like a democrat. And when the left wing tripped him up and got him out of office, he was subdued and a gentleman about it. Just as the Republican Party has changed over the past decade, so too has Netanyahu. The follower of Ronald Reagan has become a Tea Partier. With Sheldon Adelson at his side and Avigdor Lieberman tying his hands, the second iteration of Netanyahu is an aggressive ruler.

He is not guided by the rules of the game, but by the desire to gain a position of strength. It is not protecting democracy that is uppermost in his mind but retaining power. He is therefore not interested or capable of demonstrating moral leadership. Netanyahu is letting his Rottweilers devour liberal democracy while he himself stands by watching. He is not fulfilling his role as the guardian of the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Netanyahu's weak leadership and moral laxity are what unleashed this frenzy. The fact that he has not put a stop to the dark forces that have always oozed from our depths is what brought us to this situation, but it is not yet too late. Netanyahu can put a stop to this insanity in an instant. All he has to do is halt the totalitarian legislation and to deliver one major address extolling enlightened democracy and human rights.

He must make it clear that violence will not be tolerated, that women are equal. Arabs are equal and every human being is created in God's image. If the super-leader of the right wing would order the lunatic fringe on the right to stop, they would. If the leader of the State of Israel would say that liberty and equality and law and freedom of expression are the beating heart of the state, so it would be.

Not a single party would quit the government coalition. Not a single minister would quit the cabinet. But the young people who are called upon to defend this place would know what they are protecting. And the older generation who built this place would know what they built. The face in the mirror would again be our face."

If the Gentile me or any non-Jewish critic of Israel had written such things, I and they would have been smeared by Zionism's propaganda machine as a rabid Jew hater.

Ha'aretz reflects all Israeli points of view and prejudices but it my opinion it is second to none in the newspaper world for the honesty and integrity of its reporting about what is happening in the Zionist state and why. I sometimes wonder how different the situation might have been today if over the years Ha'aretz had been required daily reading for every occupant of the White House and every member of Congress.

If I was a very wealthy Arab I would create a foundation to make that happen.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Israel decries Arab democracy

Khalid Amayreh — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:03:41 +0000

While Israel keeps urging the Palestinian Authority (PA) to resume largely discredited peace talks, Tel Aviv is continuing unabated the expansion of Jewish colonies throughout the West Bank.

Disingenuous as they are, Israeli calls for resuming peace talks are apparently aimed at giving the impression that the Palestinians, not Israel, is the party impeding efforts to revive the stalled process.

However, for Palestinians at least, facts on the ground speak louder than public relations.

In recent weeks, the Israeli government, arguably the most extremist since the creation of the Israeli state, decided to build thousands of additional settler units in the central West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In Jerusalem, the so-called Planning and Building Committee has been considering a plan to build a "park" in the heart of the Palestinian neighbourhood of Jabal Al-Mukaber in East Jerusalem.

Palestinian officials as well as peace-minded Israelis insist the planned park is nothing but a ruse to set up a new settlement designed to besiege Arab demographic growth in the occupied city.

"The plan is aimed at strangulating Arab presence in Jerusalem," says Khalil Tufakji, a prominent Jerusalemite cartographer. "They hope this will kill any possibility for building a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."

Israel is also planning to build some 4000 settler units in the Silwan neighbourhood south of the occupied Arab city.

US Vice President Joe Biden protested the plan last year. However, the Israeli government waited a few months until the issue was forgotten before reviving the plan.

Israeli pundits seemed convinced that US officials critical of Israeli settlement activities don't really mean what they say and that in any case they are not capable of acting on statements critical of Israel given Israeli clout and influence on domestic American politics.

Israel also calculates, seeming correctly, that the Obama administration will not undermine its own re-election chances at home by pressuring Israel to rethink its settlement expansion plans.

The intensive expansion of settlements in the West Bank has coincided with a serious escalation of Jewish terrorist activities against Palestinians and their property. The wave of terror and vandalism included, among other things, kidnapping Palestinian villagers and shepherds, torching Palestinian olive groves, and denying access to Palestinian traffic.

This week, Jewish settlers kidnapped a Palestinian shepherd near the northern West Bank city of Nablus. Eyewitnesses said the settlers also seized 50 of the man's sheep. Normally, the Israeli occupation army, which controls the area, doesn't take meaningful action against settlers who attack Palestinians and vandalise their property with impunity.

As for the Israeli justice system, it deals quite lightly with settlers as many of the judges in Israeli courts are ideologically affiliated with the religious Zionist camp, or the settler camp.

This week, Israel decided to transfer to the PA the sum of $100 million dollars, which the Israeli government withheld earlier this month in an effort to bully the PA leadership into reconsidering efforts to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by international organisations such as the UN.

According to the Israeli media, Israel released the money after German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with halting a German plan to deliver a submarine to Israel if the latter refused to resume the transfer of tax revenues to the PA.

According to a report published in the right-wing Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Israel yielded to pressure from Berlin and unfroze the Palestinian funds.

Germany reportedly announced it would build and pay up to one-third of the cost of a sixth Dolphin-class submarine to be delivered to the Israeli navy.

The agreement stipulated that Germany would pay the sum of 135 million Euros in partial financing of the deal.

The submarine will cost between 372 million and 520 million Euros. Defense experts believe the submarine will enhance Israel's second-strike capability since it can carry nuclear weapons.

Merkel has repeatedly appealed to Netanyahu to unlock the peace process, only to be met with prevarication from the Israeli premier.

Meanwhile, some Israeli officials have been voicing their anxiety over the initial results of the Egyptian elections; with the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak admitting that Israel didn't like the ostensible victory of Islamists in the first round of the parliamentary poll.

Barak said he hoped that Israel's partners and friends in Cairo would retain significant influence that would keep the cold peace between Israel and the largest Arab country "as warm as possible".

Some Israeli commentators are already referring to the Egyptian elections results as a "nightmare coming true," bringing to the fore Israel's worst fears.

David Buki, a pro-settler commentator, lashed out at those Western powers that advocated and pressed for democracy in the Arab world. "When you give a Muslim a free voice in electing his leaders, he will pick an Islamist leadership every time because that is what he knows and appreciates."

"Israel's worst fears regarding its relationship with the Arab world -- and with Egypt in particular -- are coming true before our eyes. The rise of the Islamists in Egypt means the end of the peace treaty with Egypt and the rise of a government committed to the ideological Islamist goal of the destruction of Israel."

The Israeli commentator ignored the fact that Israel is made up of several fascist parties advocating discrimination and apartheid and even genocide against non-Jews.

Earlier this year, the spiritual mentor of Shas, a main coalition partner in the current Israeli government, was quoted as saying during a Sabbath homily in West Jerusalem that all non-Jews were very much like donkeys who were created by the Almighty on two legs so that they will serve the master race, the chosen people -- Jews.

Some http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/tag/rabbis/ have gone so far as permitting a Jew to murder a non-Jew in order to extract his organs if the Jew needs them.

* Khalid Amayreh a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983.

Israeli media paving the way for an attack on Iran

SR Editor — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:21:06 +0000

Is Israel Preparing to Attack Iran?

By Neve Gordon*

Skimming the newspapers as I rushed to get my children ready for school, I suddenly understood that Israel might actually be preparing for a military attack against Iran. "[United States Secretary of Defence Leon] Panetta Demanded Commitment to Coordinate Action in Iran" read one headline, and "A Bomb at Arm's Length" read another.

Feeding this hype were a series of military events that had been planned months in advance yet mysteriously coincided with the publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's efforts to produce a nuclear bomb. For four days straight all of the major television channels repeatedly showed images of Israel preparing for war.

It began with a report on Israel's testing of a long-range ballistic missile, which emphasised the missile's capacity to carry nuclear warheads. This was followed by interviews with pilots who were part of a comprehensive Israeli Air Force drill on long-range attacks carried out at an Italian NATO air base. Archival images of a missile being launched from an Israeli submarine were also shown. Ha'aretz readers were told that the submarine was important because it would enable Israel to carry out a second strike in case of a nuclear war.

These images of offensive arrangements were followed by images of Israel's defence preparations. On November 3rd, the three major news channels dedicated several minutes of air time to covering a drill simulating an attack on central Israel; these clips showed people being carried on stretchers and soldiers treating casualties who had been hit by chemical weapons. A day later, Ha'aretz reported that the military preparations against Iran had indeed been upgraded.

Iran with nuclear capabilities has been continuously presented as an existential threat to Israel. On October 31, in the opening speech of the Knesset's winter session Prime Minister Netanyahu noted that a "nuclearised Iran will constitute a serious threat to the Middle East and to the whole world and obviously also a direct and serious threat against us," adding that Israel's security conception cannot be based on defence alone but must also include "offensive capabilities which serve as the basis for deterrence."

Analysts repeatedly mentioned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier and Reuven Barko from Yisrael Hayom even compared Iran to Nazi Germany. One cannot underestimate the impact of this analogy on the collective psyche of Jewish Israelis.

Barko went on to connect Hamlet's phrase "to be or not to be" to Israel's current situation, while posing the existing dilemma confronting the State as "to hit or not to hit". President Shimon Peres claimed that Iran is the only country in the world "that threatens the existence of another country", but neglected to mention that for generations, the Palestinians have been deprived of their right to self-determination.

On the day when the International Atomic Energy Agency report was finally published practically all Israeli media outlets described it as a "smoking gun". The report, according to the media, provides concrete evidence that Iran's nuclear programme is also aimed at producing weapons. Zvi Yechezkeli from Channel Ten described it as "the end of the era of Iranian ambiguousness", but failed, of course, to remark that Israel's own ambiguity regarding its nuclear capacities continues unhindered; Roni Daniel from Channel Two declared that "we are relieved" by the report, suggesting that Israel's claims have now been corroborated and that the report can serve to justify both the imposition of harsher sanctions against Iran and even an attack.

Notwithstanding the endless war mongering, most Israeli commentators claimed that the frenzy was no more than a "nuclear spin". The majority of political analysts tended to agree that the media campaign, which presented Israel as seriously preparing to attack Iran, was orchestrated just in order to pressure the international community to impose harsher sanctions against Iran. Channel Ten's Or Heller put it succinctly when he said: "It appears that neither Iran nor the Israeli public is the target of what is going on here, but first and foremost it is the international community, the Americans, the British."

The commentators also noted that there is wall-to-wall opposition to an Israeli assault, including the US, Europe, Russia and China. Alex Fishman summed up the international sentiment when he wrote:

"If someone in Israel thinks that there is a green or a yellow light coming from Washington for a military attack against Iran - this person has no inkling whatsoever of what is going on; the light remains the same, a glaring red."

The portrayal of Israel as a neighbourhood bully who feigns a rage attack while calling out to his friends to hold him back is not particularly reassuring, however.

After 10 days of media frenzy, Defence Minister Ehud Barak tried to calm the public by saying that "not even 500 people would be killed" in the event of an attack - but he failed to say that there would be no attack.

Yossi Verter from Ha'aretz explained that the media hype serves Barak's interests. "A successful attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities under his ministerial leadership can rehabilitate his personal status, and help him recover the public's trust." Verter cites a leading member of the political system, who claims that "Barak is convinced that only a person of his security stature can lead perhaps the most fateful battle in Israel's history since the War of Independence."

Regardless of whether Netanyahu and Barak are already set on launching an assault, the media hype and the portrayal of Iran as constituting an existential threat to Israel surely help to produce the necessary conditions for a military campaign.

What is remarkable about this saber rattling is its abstraction. Not a single analyst noted that entering war is easy but ending it is far more difficult, particularly if on the other side stands a regional power with vast resources and a well-trained military (unlike Hamas or Hezbollah). And, of course, no one really talked about the likelihood of a gory future or what kind of life we were planning for our children. This kind of abstraction makes war palatable, providing a great service to the war machine.

* Neve Gordon is an Israeli activist and the author of Israel's Occupation and author of (University of California Press, 2008). He can be contacted through his website www.israelsoccupation.info

Avnery Reveals: The Return of the Generals

James M. Wall — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:11:39 +0000

By James M. Wall * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Uri Avnery, intrepid columnist, ageless Israeli peace activist, and retired IDF soldier, has seen, up close, the actions of every government Israeli voters have put in office since the nation was created.

He is not fooled by the antics, decisions and deceptions of the current Israeli right-wing government. Avnery peers into the soul of the Netanyahu-Lieberman team and reports back to his readers the dark visions he finds there.

With a wisdom that was sadly missing from US media following 911, Avnery writes that the recent deadly exchange of fire in the southern Sinai gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the excuse he needed to change Israel's public conversation. Avnery calls his posting, "The Return of the Generals".

At the beginning of the week, Binyamin Netanyahu was desperately looking for a way out of an escalating internal crisis. The social protest movement was gathering momentum and posing a growing danger to his government. The struggle was going on, but the protest had already made a huge difference. The whole content of the public discourse had changed beyond recognition.

The city square of Tel Aviv has been covered with protesters living in tents. There was danger the Arab Spring spirit would soon engulf the region's so-called "Only Democracy".

Talk of "security" was pushed aside. As Avnery put it, TV talk show panels, which had previously been filled with "used generals", were now packed with social workers and professors of economics.

And then it happened. A small extremist Islamist group in the Gaza Strip sent a detachment into the Egyptian Sinai desert, from where it easily crossed the undefended Israeli border and created havoc. Several fighters (or terrorists, depends who is talking) succeeded in killing eight Israeli soldiers and civilians, before some of them were killed. Another four of their comrades were killed on the Egyptian side of the border. The aim seems to have been to capture another Israeli soldier, to strengthen the case for a prisoner exchange on their terms.

In a communications pattern familiar to American consumers of radio and TV news, discussions by economic experts about young people angry about jobs and housing were replaced by the "old gang of exes – ex-generals, ex-secret-service chiefs, ex-policemen, all male, of course, accompanied by their entourage of obsequious military correspondents and far-right politicians".

Netanyahu was once again playing the role that allowed him to be seen as "the he-man, the resolute fighter, the Defender of Israel". He became George W. Bush after 911, when the cowboy president from Texas grabbed a bull horn at Ground Zero and pledged to hunt down those dirty, murderous people who dared to attack the homeland.

After the Eilat clash Netanyahu sent his forces into action, not waiting for verification as to the source of the attackers. Richard Silverstein, writing on his Tikun Olan blog, finds that this attack handed Israel a "gift".

This is exactly the sort of gift that Israeli rightists like Bibi Netanyahu love. Faced with a mounting internal crisis in the form of the J14 movement, Palestinian rejectionists have handed him his "Get Out of Political Crisis Free" card.

Yesterday's attack in Eilat has fueled an Israeli reaction that can be described as uncontrollable fury, which has killed 14 including three children. Today [August 19], an Israeli drone performed heroically for the fatherland by incinerating a car (or in other reports a motorcycle) carrying a Palestinian doctor and his family to hospital seeking treatment for a sick child.

The doctor, his brother, and the doctor's little boy were killed in the attack. Ynet announced: Oops, we missed. The drone was aiming for a terrorist cell traveling nearby. WAFA says the doctor's brother was an Al Quds commander, which would mean that the IDF is willing to kill sick 2 year old children in order to get alleged terrorists as well.

In a flash, Netanyahu had changed the subject, just as Bush changed the subject in 2001 from the economy to "security against terrorists". The Israeli leader is not concerned with the truth. He will leave that task to future revisionist historians. The Israeli leader wants only to fire up the fear of the populace and remind them that security is to be found only in the military prowess of the world's fourth largest military force.

On his blog, War in Context, Paul Woodward posted a video clip of an interview with an IDF officer which suggests that the Israel retaliation attack on Gaza was carried out before Netanyahu could identify the culprits involved. In the posted video interview with an IDF official, Woodward found that the government's own military leaders did not know exactly who had attacked the Israeli bus.

So, the IDF says it "knows" the gunmen came from Gaza because they were using Kalashnikovs. That's about as logical as saying they know they came from Gaza because they appeared to be Arabs.

Why then is Israel now bombing Gaza? Simply because it bombs Gaza every chance it gets. It bombs Gaza knowing that Washington will never object. It bombs Gaza because whenever Jews are killed the easiest form of revenge is to kill Palestinians — even when those particular Palestinians most likely have nothing whatsoever to do with the deaths that triggered this particular cycle of violence.

Why, indeed, is Israel once again bombing Gaza? One rather obvious answer is that the Israeli public must be persuaded that Palestinians are not to be trusted to form their own government. The pattern is obvious. Israel is in danger of losing the September 20 vote for Palestinian statehood in the United Nations General Assembly. Latest predictions from Palestinian officials: They are only three to five votes short of obtaining a majority in their favor.

Since President Obama is on record promising to veto a subsequent Security Council vote for Palestinian membership in the UN, there is no chance that this will be the year UN grants statehood status to the Palestinian Authority delegation.

Meanwhile, Israel maintains its stubborn posture in the battle of "apologies" in the region, rejecting the demand from Turkey that Israel apologize for its deadly assault by naval commandos that killed nine Turkish citizens traveling on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza on May 30, 2010.

When Israel refused to apologize for the attack Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and has subsequently announced that "it would launch a diplomatic and legal assault on Israel". Sources in the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Turkey would implement "Plan B", which will include an anti-Israel campaign in UN institutions, with an emphasis on the International Court of Justice.

Turkey also plans to encourage the families of the raid's victims to file suits against senior Israeli figures in European courts.

Also on the apology front, the Cairo News reports that Egypt has demanded an apology from Israel for the deaths of three police officers in the IDF attacks along the Egyptian-Gaza border this week.

Late Saturday afternoon, Israel took the unusual step-unusual for Israel, which rarely acknowledges mistakes–of "regretting" the deaths of the Egyptian police officers:

Breaking a customary silence on the Sabbath, the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, released a statement saying, "We regret the deaths of members of the Egyptian security forces during the terror attack on the Israeli-Egyptian border."

Mr. Barak, who had seemed on Thursday to blame lax Egyptian security for allowing the attacks near the border, said that after an internal inquiry, an Israeli-Egyptian committee would investigate. And he went on to note the importance of the peace treaty with Egypt and his admiration for the judgment and responsibility of the Egyptian people.

These events all occurred after 81 members of the US House of Representatives returned to their home districts, basking in the warm hospitality of their Israeli hosts. One of those House members was Jesse Jackson, Jr., who, before he returned home, wrote a column for the Jerusalem Post, which included these paragraphs:

Marwan Barghouti, even though he has been jailed since 2002, is an influential Fatah leader who is serving five life sentences for acts committed in the second intifada. He has called "on our people in the homeland and in the diaspora to go out in a peaceful, million man march during the week of voting in the United Nations in September."

He told an Egyptian news service that a US veto would be a "historic, deadly mistake" and that there would be strong protests throughout the Arab and Muslim world and beyond. Does a convicted terrorist who has used violence in the past, and has not ruled out its use in the future, really have the moral authority and credibility to advocate a nonviolent march and be believable?

Good question, Congressman, which leads to a follow up question: You express such familiarity with the Israeli hasbara narrative, that your constituents might want to ask if you are also familiar with the Palestinian narrative which would provide you with a different take on the career of Marwan Barghouti.

Congressman Jackson, yes, he is the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., had previously expressed interest in receiving a direct appointment to the US Senate seat from the now-disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich, the seat which President Obama vacated to move to the White House. It was the "attempted sale" of that seat that pending appeals, is expected to send Blagojevich to a federal prison.

If Congressman Jackson still wants to run for that seat with the backing of the same AIPAC-related forces that funded his August visit to Israel, he would have to first win a Democratic primary and then compete with Republican incumbent Senator Mark Kirk. Why would AIPAC, a long time backer of Kirk, turn its favors to Jackson?

Kirk has his detractors in Illinois, as the lively video below, suggests. Sing along, and if you are of a mind to do so, drop Senator Kirk a note and ask him about the "moral authority" of the IDF drone that killed "a Palestinian doctor, his brother, and the doctor's little boy in Gaza".

Video link: http://youtu.be/7cNTd1JmZ0E

The video at the end of the posting was uploaded to YouTube by The Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine (CJPIP), based in Chicago.

* James M. Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Jim launched personal blog April 24, 2008.

Eretz Yisrael: Lawless, Corrupt and Dysfunctional

Stephen Lendman — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:50:17 +0000

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

What do you call a country that persecutes occupied people and one-fifth of its own population for not being Jewish? An illegal occupier for over 44 years, suffocating over 1.6 million Gazans under siege! A nation practicing torture, persecution, and racism as official policies! A modern day Sparta, glorifying wars and violence!

A country spurning rule of law principles! An unparalleled regional state terrorist! A nuclear armed global threat! A society of extreme social inequality! A nation with no legitimacy for all of the above reasons, besides having stolen another people's nation violently!

It's called Eretz Yisrael - Israel, a nation where thousands of fed up Jews vote with their feet and leave regularly. Like America, Israel isn't fit to live in. One day perhaps that will be its epitaph.

Many Jews and analysts believe Zionism is destroying Judaism. In his book "Overcoming Zionism," Joel Kovel explained how it fosters "imperialist expansion and militarism (with) signs of the fascist malignancy," adding that it turned Israel "into a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses."

Author Alan Hart calls Zionism "the real enemy of the Jews," an ideology contemptuous of moral and ethical principles. Others call it corrosive, destructive, racist, extremist, undemocratic and hateful, espousing violence, not peaceful coexistence.

Nations living by the sword in the end die by it. Israel and America aren't exceptions. They've, in fact, partnered on a self-destructive mission, perhaps taking planet earth with them before they're through.

Daily snapshots make the case. Multiple US wars rage, spending trillions of badly needed dollars waging them, besides diverting billions more annually to support Israel's out-of-control militarism. They endanger every other nation and their own, at the same time sacrificing homeland needs.

Lawless, corrupt and dysfunctional barely describe what some call a blight on humanity, threatening it by its presence with its Washington paymaster/partner.

In mid-August, one of its prominent rabbis, Yosef Elitzur, co-author of the controversial book "The King's Torah," was denied UK entry for advocating discrimination against gentiles and killing them. The book states:

"Anywhere where the presence of a gentile poses a threat to Israel, it is permissible to kill him, even if it a righteous gentile who is not responsible for the threatening situation."

In January 2010, co-author Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of a prominent yeshiva in the West Bank Yitzhar settlement, was arrested for torching a Palestinian Yasuf village mosque. Later, however, he was released uncharged.

In August 2010, Elitzur was also arrested for his advocacy of violence, though he, too, was released and charges against him quietly dropped.

However, their extremism isn't unique. On August 19, 2010, Ynet News said "(d)ozens of rabbis, educators, public figures and right-wing activists attended" a rally for Rabbis Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef "who refused to report for police questioning over their endorsement of" Elitzur and Shapira's book.

Senior rabbis support them, believing it's OK to kill non-Jews, a shocking indictment of what too many in Israel believe, including top officials.

It plays out daily in real time, including on August 16 when Israeli soldiers shot and killed a mentally disabled child, 400 meters inside the border separating Israel from Gaza, east of Deir al-Balah. In fact, 10 bullets struck his head and chest. He never had a chance.

Israeli radio merely said soldiers observed someone approaching the security fence, opened fire and shot him.

The same day, other shelling and shooting incidents occurred, killing one man and seriously wounding two others in Gaza City. In addition, another man and a child were wounded in Khan Yunis and Rafah in southern Gaza.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) called these incidents "part of a series of war crimes (regularly) committed by" Israeli forces in Occupied Palestine, reflecting the "total disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians."

When state-sponsored violence is institutionalized, is it surprising that perhaps many prominent Israelis (including influential rabbis) endorse racism and killing non-Jews!

What better example of a sick society, deserving universal condemnation, especially by righteously indignant Jews wanting no part of what's so lawlessly repugnant. In fact, growing numbers of Jews and others understand what's happening and reject it.

Numerous daily examples highlight the problem. On August 18, Haaretz covered several, including Netanyahu again refusing to apologize to Turkey for murdering nine of its citizens during the infamous May 2010 Mavi Marmara attack in international waters.

At the time, universal outrage condemned it. In contrast, Israeli officials, like their Washington counterparts, believe they never have to say they're sorry, even when caught red-handed and denounced.

A second Haaretz article quoted Netanyahu's outgoing director general, Eyal Gabai, saying "(t)he current government will not deliver Israelis a welfare state," despite weeks of mass protests across Israel demanding it, wanting years of social injustice reversed.

Combined, neoliberalism and Zionism are suffocating Israel, a topic an August 18 Gideon Levy commentary addressed titled, "Israel's swinish Zionism ought to be stopped," saying:

As an MK, Shimon Peres coined the term "swinish capitalism," referring to then finance minister Netanyahu. "It's worth remembering that there is also swinish Zionism," Levy added.

"Swine are insatiable....gorg(ing) themselves until they die." Capitalism and Zionism are no different. What began as a national movement to establish a Jewish homeland ended up "caus(ing) grave injustice to the previous inhabitants of the land...." And for years, it's neoliberal version has been harming Jews.

Perhaps if Zionism "stop(ped)....reined in its lust and greed, atoned for the original injustices in 1948 and changed direction, it would have become an admired movement." Because it didn't, "Israel is only beginning to pay the price."

Many of Israel's wealthy "also started out well....But here too," their appetite proved insatiable. The time of reckoning has arrived. People want redress. "The word 'tycoon' has become a curse and 'wealthy' has nearly become despicable."

Today a new awakening is emerging. Israel's wealthy are "beginning to pay the price." Zionism so far escaped. Calling it swinish is heretical.

"But when the time for the reckoning comes we'll ask: Why didn't we stop (it) in time," especially its reliance on violence, occupation, racism, social injustice, and lawlessness.

Policies that extreme can't go on forever, and won't! Not in Israel, America or anywhere!

A Final Comment

On August 18, Maan News reported two shooting attacks on buses near Eilat, Israel, killing at least seven and injuring dozens more. Israel's Channel 10 said three militants armed with Kalashnikovs opened fire on one bus from a car.

A second incident occurred near Netafim, Israel, injuring others. In addition, an explosive device wounded more.

"Assailants also attacked a second bus and a car soon after," according to Al-Arabiya, killing five.

"In a third incident, mortars were reportedly fired at Israeli forces near the southern border causing injuries, although initial reports were ambiguous about" their origin.

Israel's knee-jerk reaction came as expected, Defense Minister Ehud Barak blaming Hamas, saying "(w)e will exhaust all measures against the terrorists."

Senior Hamas official Salah Bardawil rejected Barak's accusation, saying Israel, ahead of another Gaza attack, blamed Hamas and other Gaza groups to deflect attention from its own internal problems.

Since mid-July, unprecedented numbers of Israelis have rallied for social justice so far denied. It thus begs the question whether these attacks may have been a false flag diversions, to focus attention on "terrorist" threats, not economic hardship.

So far, the identity of attackers is unknown. Nonetheless, Haaretz said "Israeli Defense Forces struck targets in (Gaza) Thursday evening, hours after the earlier incidents."

Reports indicate at least six killed, others injured. Giving no details, Israel confirmed the strikes, saying operations were underway in southern Gaza.

Explaining nothing about daily atrocities US forces commit against innocent civilians in multiple wars, Hillary Clinton "condemn(ed) today's attacks in southern Israel and all acts of terrorism in the strongest terms," calling them "brutal" and "cowardly."

As expected, she added that America "stand(s) by Israel as our friend, partner, and ally - now and always," omitting mention of their state-sponsored terrorism against victims unable to fight back.

What better description of two global bullies, rogue state sponsors of intimidation, terror and torment as standard operations. Calling them democracies is ludicrous and offensive.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

The forthcoming Gaza flotilla: heroism vs violent intransigence?

Richard Lightbown — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:22:56 +0000

By Richard Lightbown* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

After he returned from his ordeal on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, Fiachra O'Luain, the second mate on the Challenger I, was asked if he would go again to break the siege of Gaza. He replied "yes ... and again, and again".

Many of the survivors of the flotilla will be on the next one, due to sail for Gaza towards the end of June. Called Stay Human, it will commemorate Vittorio Arrigoni who gave his life (as did 10 activists on the Mavi Marmara: nine dead and one in a coma) for justice and human rights for the Palestinian people.

In the face of Israeli propaganda, parroted by the BBC and other mainstream media, we should hold fast to the truth that these people are prepared to face. All of the survivors of the previous flotilla were maltreated and humiliated. Many of them were beaten, tasered by electric stun guns, attacked with stun grenades and tear gas, deprived of food and water and subjected, by terrorists in the employ of the state of Israel, to treatment described by a United Nations Fact-Finding Mission [.PDF] as tantamount to torture. Many suffered injury from deliberately over-tightened handcuffs. Several had their passports stolen (for use in who-knows-what future outrage by Mossad criminals), all cameras, mobile phones and computers were illegally seized and many lost large sums of money: plundered in individual acts of piracy by members of one of the world's most criminal and immoral armies. All of the victims experienced first-hand the ruthless contempt for human dignity that the Zionist state considers its right.

On the Mavi Marmara, passengers and crew saw friends and comrades killed, wounded or maltreated by thugs with no more respect for human life than Al Capone's gangsters. Some of these same criminals later appeared on the BBc programme "Panorama". Wary of the daylight they lurked in the night shadows of Haifa docks like wharf rats, referred to their victims as "terrorists", and falsely accused them of shooting at commandos who were indulging a blood bath totally outside of any remit granted by international law. (A terrorist, we should remember, is someone who uses violence against civilians for political ends. The commandos defined the term as someone who comes prepared to commit violence, dressed in military clothing with covered faces. Either definition accurately fitted the commandos themselves, who in any event would never be accorded the protection that internationallaw demands for civilians.)

The blood of men who believed in universal human rights dripped down the stairs of the Mavi Marmara that night as war crimes were committed on the orders of Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak under the guise of defending the state of Israel. Knowing all this, in a few days time an even larger flotilla with even more human rights workers on board will sail for Gaza. Binyamin Netanyahu has tried every trick in the diplomatic book to prevent it. We can be sure that Mossad has been hard at work too, trying to sabotage ships bound for the high seas.

Despite well-publicized claims to the contrary, and despite the recent opening of the Rafah Crossing to many civilians, the sadistic Israeli closure remains firmly locked on Gaza. There has been no confirmation that the 4,500 tons of building materials on the last flotilla ever reached Gaza. Desperately needed sewage pipes from the Malaysian ship the Spirit of Rachel Corrie are in an Egyptian warehouse instead of being delivered to Gaza. (Ironically, this would have helped to reduce pollution in the eastern Mediterranean where the tides presumably wash untreated Gazan sewage onto beaches in Israel and Egypt.) Permitted exports from Gaza amount to around two lorry loads a day in place of the 400 per day that Israel agreed to allow in a deal brokered by Condoleezza Rice in 2005. Meanwhile, the scarcely-reported ceasefire of missiles from Gaza, applied after the successful Palestinian unity talks, attracts no concessions from Israel's continuing occupation of the Gaza Strip.

The heroism and sacrifice of this next flotilla will not be in vain. Despite more brazen lies from Mark Regev and biased portrayals of events by the likes of Jane Corbin, Mr Netanyahu's stubborn, blinkered stupidity will further damage Israel's international image while further advancing the Palestinian cause. No Nobel Peace Laureate will be able to disguise the guilt if more Israeli hoods batter more human rights workers. No selectively edited whitewash report, with of without endorsement from professors of international law, will be able to conceal the truth this time from the people of the world. The flotilla is coming, and just as Mickey Mouse's sorcerer's apprentice merely increased the activities of his animated broom when he attacked it with an axe, Mr Netanyahu only risks further opprobrium in the eyes of the world, further censure for his pariah state and further flotillas if he insists in perpetuating the use of violent crime against lawful protest on the high seas.

* Richard Lightbown - studied the impacts of the Rwandan civil war on four Ugandan forests for his Masters dissertation. He has been a volunteer in Gaza and the West Bank, and assisted with a forestry proposal for the Arab areas of the occupied Golan.

Once the ships sail it will be possible to track them here. Any assault is likely to be before dawn on the night before the anticipated arrival in Gaza.

Netanyahu’s War on Gaza

Stephen Lendman — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:22:02 +0000

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Israeli commandos seen raiding Freedom Flotilla in an Al-Jazeera television video grab.

Governing lawlessly by any standard, Netanyahu waged war on Gaza since becoming Israel's prime minister for the second time on March 31, 2009.

Under his leadership, May 31 marked the anniversary of Israel's barbaric slaughter of nine Freedom Flotilla activists in international waters, injuring dozens more trying to deliver thousands of tons of vital aid to besieged Gazans, suffocating illegally since June 2007.

At the time, Defense Minister Ehud Barak blamed Flotilla organizers for inciting the attack, while his deputy, Danny Alalon, said they were connected to international terrorist organizations, trying to smuggle in arms. In fact, none were on board nor on other aid ships trying to breach Israel's lawless blockade.

Caught red-handed in a bald-faced lie, Haaretz writer Gideon Levy said:

"The Israeli propaganda machine has reached new highs (distributing) false information. It embarrassed itself by entering a futile public relations battle....There is nothing to explain, certainly not to a world that will never buy (its) web of explanations, lies and tactics."

Video footage on board the Mavi Marmara mother ship showed Israeli commandos opened fire during the assault, activists saying it began when they stormed on board.

Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, aboard the ship, said "a white surrender flag was raised (and) there was no live fire coming from the passengers."

What happened was clear. IDF commandos planned and executed a premeditated attack against unarmed, nonviolent activists, trying to break Israel's illegal blockade to deliver essential aid. Cold-blooded murder resulted.

An independent UN Human Rights Council (HRC) fact-finding mission held Israel entirely culpable, calling its assault brutal and disproportionate. Based on eye witness testimonies, forensic evidence, video footage, and other photographic material, it:

"concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation....The preponderance of evidence from impeccable sources is far too overwhelming to come to a contrary opinion."

Israel's justification on "security grounds" was called entirely baseless. Moreover, prosecuting Israeli criminals is warranted and essential under Fourth Geneva's Article 147, covering:

willful killing;
torture or inhuman treatment; and
deliberately causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

In emergency session ahead of its investigation, the HRC criticized Israel's "outrageous attack on aid ships attempting to breach a blockade on the Gaza Strip," calling it "piracy, (an) act of aggression, (a) brutal massacre, (an) act of terrorism, (a) war crime, (a) crime against humanity - unprovoked, unwarranted, atrocious, (and) brutal."

It described activists onboard as "peaceful, innocent, noble, unarmed, (and) defenseless," setting the record straight on what happened.

Following its own investigation, Turkey also held Israel responsible, accurately explaining the facts, not Israel's web of lies and coverup, its speciality.

High Seas Barbarism and Piracy

Israel violated the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS' Article 101, maritime piracy includes "any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation....against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State (and) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating (such) an act."

Usually it refers to robbery or criminal violence committed by private parties. Broadly interpreted, it can apply to states committing lawless acts. UNCLOS lets them interdict at sea to prevent illegal arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities - not applicable to Flotilla activists despite Israel's accusations.

Its mission was humanitarian. Inspected before departure, its cargo included food, medicines, educational, construction, and other materials, not weapons, munitions or anything threatening Israel. Under UNCLOS, its commandos had no right to interdict or attack activists on board, especially in international waters.

Under customary maritime law, ships have "innocent passage" rights through all international and coastal area waters, subject to certain restrictions.

UNCLOS defines "innocent passage" as expeditious, continuous passage through waters in ways not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of a coastal state.

America's Defense Department defines it as:

"The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic water of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary for force majeure (a natural or unavoidable catastrophe) or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger of distress."

Israel's brazen slaughter was lawless, punishable under international law. Claiming it was self-defense was spurious, reprehensible and laughable on its face.

Law Professor and international law expert Francis Boyle said Israel also "violated the SUA (Suppression of Unlawful Acts) Convention, to which Israel, Turkey and the USA are all parties." SUA followed "in reaction to the (1985) Achille Lauro Hijacking and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer."

It's "one of the Conventions adopted by the UN and its affiliated organizations to deal with the phenomenon of international terrorism," what Israel stands guilty of repeatedly, yet remains free from accountability, ready to do it again.

It's Coming: Freedom Flotilla Two (FF 2)

On May 31, 2011, Haaretz writer Amos Harel headlined, "Israel prepping to block next Gaza flotilla," saying:

On the massacre anniversary date, "Netanyahu said Israel prefers (diplomacy, but will) exercise force against anyone (trying) to disobey the navy's orders...." to thwart an expected late June arrival.

Called "Freedom Flotilla Two (FF 2)," 15 ships with over 1,500 activists from about 100 countries are sailing on June 20 from various Mediterranean ports, calling on UN member states to support their humanitarian mission to deliver medical equipment, educational supplies, construction materials, (including 700 tons of cement), and other vital aid to besieged Gazans awaiting them.

In readiness, Israel held drills, involving ships and mobilized reserve combatants, including surveillance, "based mainly on open communications and Internet sites." Focusing on riot-control measures, brute force will be used "as a last resort."

In fact, it's Israel's method of choice, showing contempt for rule of law standards. Former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, in fact, admitted that activists resisting interdiction will be shot, knowing after action whitewashes will absolve Israel's worst crimes, calling them self-defense, the last refuge of lawless scoundrels.

Knowing the risks, 1,500 courageous activists are still coming, determined to breach Gaza's blockade no matter what Israel intends. From what's known, expect force, including "surprises" from the same commando unit that murdered activists last May.

They're preparing, undergoing "extensive training in hand-to-hand combat taught by experts from Israel's Shin Bet security service." More still involving "mock raids aboard a vessel that simulates events aboard the Mavi Marmara."

Israel calls cold-blooded murder self-defense and international water interdiction "legal." Others call them barbarism and piracy.

Wikileaks shocker: Did Abbas know in advance about the devastating blitz on his countrymen in Gaza?

Stuart Littlewood — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:45:08 +0000

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

One of the most grotesque Wikileaks revelations so far is the disclosure that Palestinian top dog (Fatah section), Mahmoud Abbas, was told in advance about the murderous assault on his countrymen in Gaza two years ago.

Some claim that the Wikileaks eye-openers are a 'dirty tricks' operation by people with a large axe to grind. It is certainly odd that ‘evidence’ is selected to portray Arab states as eager to see Iran zapped for an unproven nuclear threat when, actually, the Middle East is far more anxious about the very real and present nuclear threat from Israel.

That same mentality would no doubt wish to drive an ever bigger wedge between Fatah and political rival Hamas.

So what are we to make of the documents claiming that in a June 2009 meeting between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and a U.S. congressional delegation, Barak said that the Israeli government "had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas"?

Fatah deny that it happened. Top aid to Palestinian president Abbas, Saeb Erekat, said: "We knew about the war because the Israelis were saying there was going to be a war."

Several months before it started, at a meeting that he, Erekat, attended, Abbas asked Israel's then-prime minister, Ehud Olmert, not to go to war, saying "he would not go to Gaza on an Israeli tank."

So they admit they were talking about it…

I put the question to the Palestinian ambassador in London, Professor Manual Hassassian. "I am surprised to read the Wikileaks revelation that Mr Abbas, along with Mr Mubarak, was informed of Operation Cast lead in advance. I don't recall his issuing a public warning to the unfortunate people of Gaza or appealing to the UN and western powers to intervene. Why would a Palestinian president keep quiet about an evil and horrendous war-crime he knew was about to be committed against his own people? Can you please throw any light on the matter?"

The ambassador replied: "I am surprised as you are, and cannot confirm the Wikileaks revelation whether they are authentic or not."

No flat-out denial then, nor did he say he would refer the question upwards for clarification. You'd think the embassy would wish to show a clean pair of hands.

Abbas, as we all know, is living his elevated lifestyle on borrowed time. Since January 2009, when his term as president officially expired, western-backed Abbas has clung like superglue to power and overstayed his welcome. A year ago, having already taken a one-year extension regarded by many, including Hamas, as unlawful, he announced he had no wish to seek re-election at a presidential poll he promised for last January. But January came and went, and there was still no presidential election. Abbas is now nearing the end of his second year of illegitimate tenure.

I have two vivid images of Palestinians. The first, in Gaza, was the sight of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and the crusty old Catholic priest, Fr Manuel Mussallam, who had guarded his flock through utmost deprivation and the darkest of days (with many more to come), standing shoulder to shoulder in front of the microphones and cameras, both proclaiming that they were Palestinians first and Muslim/Christian second.

That’s unity of a welcome sort.

The other is of Fatah playing Israel's armed poodle, reminiscent of the Vichy French government’s militia set up to fight the French Resistance and do much of the Nazis’ dirty work. Is Fatah prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Gaza Palestinians against the common enemy – the occupier - and proclaim themselves "Palestinians first" and Fatah/Hamas second?

Judging by their track record, no. Arrest and torture of their own people is more their game, we hear.

That’s disunity of the worst kind.

And you have to wonder why, if the story’s true, the Israelis felt comfortable discussing with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority what would happen after their tanks and aircraft had pulverized the Gaza part of Palestine and shredded and vaporized its women and children.

A genuine leader knowing about plans for such a mega-crime would surely have sounded the alert and raised merry hell at the UN for preventive action.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

What, really, is the Obama-Clinton game plan for Israel/Palestine?

Alan Hart — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:41:23 +0000

By Alan Hart * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

On the face of it the package of “incentives” Secretary of State Clinton offered Prime Minister Netanyahu to persuade him to buy and sell to his coalition government a one-time-only freeze of 90 days on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank could be summed up with one “c” word - criminal.

Criminal because by excluding occupied Arab East Jerusalem from the desired freeze, the Obama administration is not only going back on its own previous demands which were in accord with international law and various UN Security Council resolutions. It is effectively endorsing Israel’s illegal settlement activities there. Simply stated the U.S. is now openly complicit in Israel’s defiance of international law.

It doesn’t matter that Netanyahu may have said to Hillary Clinton in their seven or eight-hour conversation something like: “There’s no point in you asking for a freeze in Jerusalem. I couldn’t deliver it even if I wanted to, and I don’t.” What any Israeli prime minister can or cannot deliver because of the pathological mindset of most Israelis is not the point. It is that if peace is to have a last chance, the Zionist (not Jewish) state must be obliged to comply with international law (not to mention a host of UN Security Council resolutions).

In my analysis there are three possible readings of the Obama-Clinton game plan.

One is that terrified of offending the Zionist lobby too much, they are desperate and hoping that if they can develop a little momentum, something positive might happen.

Another is that Obama believes that, with the assistance of the Arab regimes, he will be able to bribe and bully Abbas and his quisling Palestinian Authority into accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table if negotiations can be re-started. (If the PA agrees to re-start talks with Israel while it goes on colonizing Arab East Jerusalem, Obama will imagine that he has a chance of earning his Nobel peace prize. He would, of course, be wrong - I really mean deluded - to think that).

It is interesting to note that there are Israeli leaders who believe that a way must be found to “force” the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. One who has said so openly is Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He said on Army Radio that Israel has two options. "Either we reach understandings with the Americans to find a way to force the Palestinians to sit around the negotiating table, or the Palestinians and the Arab world will reach understanding with the Americans and it will be us eating frogs." (Whatever that means).

A third possibility - my speculation here will convince many that I have taken leave of my senses - is that Obama might have an ace up his sleeve.

Via Secretary of State Clinton, Obama told Netanyahu that if he put in place a 90-day moratorium on construction on the West Bank, he (Obama) will guarantee to continue the American presidential tradition of vetoing UN Security Council resolutions which are not to Israel’s liking. That would mean, among other things, blocking any Palestinian attempt to obtain international recognition of statehood on the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, and preventing Israel from being called to account for war crimes.

Probably Hillary Clinton did not say so to Netanyahu, but one possible implication of the American incentives package is that if Netanyahu fails to deliver a 90-day moratorium, or does and is still only playing games, the U.S. will NOT block a Palestinian attempt to obtain international recognition of statehood, and will NOT obstruct efforts to call and hold Israel to account for war crimes.

As regular readers of my contributions to informed and honest debate know, I do not believe Obama entered the White House programmed to do Zionism’s bidding. I think, as I have written, that he was naïve and inexperienced.

The question for the coming days is whether Obama has the will and courage to play his ace card if Netanyahu continues to humiliate him and demonstrate, with or without a 90-day moratorium, that he and virtually all of his leadership colleagues are not interested in peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could just about accept.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Britain hangs out ‘welcome’ sign to war criminals

Stuart Littlewood — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:49:51 +0000

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The UK is to become a safe haven for Israeli psychopaths while they continue their brutal military occupation, colonization and ethnic cleansing of the Holy Land, and carry on bombarding blockaded Gaza and executing or abducting anyone bringing humanitarian help.

That's the British government's latest contribution of Middle East peace.

The Zionist entity's Trojan Horse at the heart of our government - otherwise known as the Conservative Friends of Israel - held a reception recently attended by our foreign secretary William Hague.

Hague told the 400 guests:

"We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on universal jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK...

"We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced... The Justice Secretary will bring into the House of Commons adding to legislation going through the House of Commons later this year and I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals".

Who can forget that Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister, was largely responsible for the terror that brought unspeakable death and destruction to Gaza's civilians nearly 2 years ago?

And who'd have believed a British government minister would undermine our justice system in order to make the UK a safe haven for the likes of her?

Showing no remorse and with the blood of 1,400 dead Gazans (including 320 children and 109 women) on her hands, and thousands more horribly maimed, Livni's office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead (the murderous blitz she had unleashed). And speaking later at a conference at Tel Aviv's Institute for Security Studies, she said: "I would today take the same decisions."

Few of us would want to touch such a person with a barge-pole. But Hague is so smitten that he said it was "completely unacceptable" that someone like Tzipi Livni felt she couldn't visit the UK. "We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country. The situation is unsatisfactory [and] indefensible. It is absolutely my intention to act speedily," Hague said.

He even tried to make Livni's monstrous crime look good by claiming, as reported on the CFI website, that "the immediate trigger for this crisis [the war on Gaza] was the barrage of hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel on the expiry of the ceasefire or truce." It is well known that the ceasefire didn't expire. It was deliberately breached by an Israeli raid into Gaza that killed several Palestinians with the intention of deliberately provoking a response that would re-ignite the violence and provide an excuse to launch Operation Cast Lead, which the Israelis had been preparing for months.

The foreign secretary concluded his talk to the CFI by encouraging stronger business links between Israel and Britain and saying he intended to visit Israel in coming weeks.

One of the delights awaiting Hague is a meeting with his opposite number, Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in an illegal squat on stolen Palestinian land and is a wanted criminal on that score alone. He is also pushing for 1.3 million Arabs currently living in Israel to be stripped of citizenship and forcibly transferred outside Israel's future borders.

To that end Israel's military and civil authorities have just finished an exercise rehearsing a crushing response to the riots this latest 'ethnic cleansing' programme will inevitably cause.

Few individuals are more obnoxious than former club bouncer Lieberman, who is a convicted child-beater and described even in Israel as "a virulent racist" and "a certified gangster". He is also reported to be under investigation for corruption. All the same, Hague wants him freely walking the streets of London with Livni. No doubt the media will soon be sprouting propaganda photos of Hague and Lieberman triumphantly shaking hands, smirking, embracing and doing whatever else two crazies do when they get together.

A Masterclass in grovelling

The "universal jurisdiction" fuss flared up again last year after Israeli top brass, including Ehud Barak, Livni and retired general Doron Almog, cancelled engagements in London for fear of being arrested. Israel complained bitterly. The then British foreign secretary David Miliband apologized and, according to a press report, "promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws that enable the issue of arrest warrants against Israeli officials accused of war crimes".

Outraged members of the public were immediately asking who Miliband thought he was, grovelling in their name to Israeli thugs who had the temerity to whinge about the perfectly proper operation of British law, especially when the warrants were issued to answer well-founded charges.

Under universal jurisdiction all states that are party to the Geneva Conventions are under a binding obligation to seek out those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them, regardless of nationality, to justice. There should be no hiding place for those suspected of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Applications can be made to a court for private arrest warrants, and this has been happening because the government itself shirks its duty under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and drags its feet until the bird has flown.

Livni bleated: "It's about the entire State of Israel and our ability to go on working together against common threats."

The threats Israel faces are caused by its racist expansion, land theft, general lawlessness and hateful attitude towards its neighbours, and by the nuclear threat Israel itself poses to others in the region and the Islamic world generally. To suggest we have anything in common is an insult.

Israeli prime minister Netanyahu's office butted in with this arrogant statement: "We will not agree to a situation in which [former prime minister] Ehud Olmert, [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak and [opposition leader and former foreign minister] Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the bench. We utterly reject the absurdity that is happening in Britain."

And the Israeli ambassador in London, Ron Prosor, had the cheek to chastise the British foreign secretary telling him it was time the British government took action.

Miliband obligingly called the warrants intolerable and said he had asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Jack Straw to find an urgent solution.

Dancing to Tel Aviv's tune

The solution is simple enough. If Israel wants talks in London they send people with clean hands. There should be no concessions, anyway, to a regime that shows such contempt for international law and normal codes of conduct.

Instead Brown, a patron of the Jewish National Fund, said Livni was "most welcome in Britain any time", and our Ministers of the Crown are dancing to Tel Aviv's tune. No moves were made by Labour in their last days in office, but it seems the incoming Conservatives and their Liberal-Democrat partners are planning to put the Director of Public Prosecutions in charge of issuing arrest warrants. This turns what should be a strictly judicial process into a political one that keeps any warmongering child-killer our ministers happen to admire out of the clutches of the UK's courts.

William Hague was recruited into the Conservative Friends of Israel at the worryingly tender age of 15.

In 2007, while shadow foreign secretary, he said: "We will always have strong economic and political ties with Israel. We will always be a friend of Israel."

In 2008 he declared:

"The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time."

Hague told the Jewish Chronicle in an interview: "We don't approve of expanding settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem because it makes the two-state solution more difficult." Not because it's a barbaric crime to dispossess Arabs of their lands, homes and livelihoods... he doesn't approve because it's a bit awkward politically.

"I've traveled across the country," he continued. "I've stood on the Golan Heights and swam in the Sea of Galilee. I've stood on the part of the West Bank where you can see the Mediterranean, where you really understand Israel's strategic fragility."

If he had stood in the rubble of Gaza and seen the devastation to homes and infrastructure and visited the shattered schools and hospitals there... if he had stood in Bethlehem, imprisoned on all sides by the evil separation wall, and made his way on foot with Palestinian workers (those with permits) through the sinister steel barriers and holding pens of the Israeli checkpoint - a process that can take hours - before beginning the journey to Jerusalem, he might have understood how the Israeli jackboot chokes the life out of the Palestinian people.

Hague's Zionist sympathies visibly ooze from every pore. Livni appears to have him eating out of her hand. If Parliament passes his measures to weaken powers of arrest in order to harbour those wanted for crimes against humanity, doesn't that make the whole British nation an accessory to those crimes?

And before MPs approve such measures they should reflect on how it would be the lowest thing they could do.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Israel’s New Loyalty Oath

Stephen Lendman — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:52:19 +0000

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Since inception, Israel's democracy was illusory, but of late it's further eroded. The Cabinet's October 10 adopted Law of Citizenship amendment requires all non-Jews wanting it to pledge loyalty to "the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," its latest anti-democratic measure.

Voting 22 - 8, it evoked protests from Israeli artists, writers and intellectuals in front of Tel Aviv's Independence Hall against "the continuous erosion of Israeli democracy." Actress Hana Maron quoted Israel's Declaration of Independence saying:

"I will read this again: '(the state of Israel) will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.' This makes me want to cry. What has become of us?"

Author Sefi Rachlevsky said:

"a country that invades the sacred space of the citizen's conscience, and punishes him for opinions and beliefs that are not in line with the authorities ceases to be a democracy and becomes a fascist state."

Defying the Cabinet's edict, Rachlevsky read excepts from a document titled "the declaration of independence from fascism," stating:

"We, citizens of Israel....have gathered here to announce that we shall not be citizens of the country purporting to be the state of Israel."

Professor Gavriel Solomon compared today's Israel to 1935 Germany, saying:

"the idea of Judenrein (Jew free zone) or Arabrein is not new....Some might say 'how can you compare us to Nazis?' I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward toward these kinds of laws. The government is clearly declaring our incapacity for democracy."

Solomon referred to the Nuremberg Laws, explained here.

Among other provisions, they:

protected "German Blood and German Honour;"
prevented marriage or sexual relations between Jews and Aryans;
denied rights and citizenship to anyone with Jewish blood;
banned Jews from holding professional jobs to exclude them from education, politics and industry;
segregated Jews from Aryans; and
effectively denied Jews all rights, in what became a prelude to genocide, what Palestinians (and to a lesser degree Israeli Arabs) have incrementally endured for decades by racist laws, persecution, land theft, dispossession, exclusion, isolation, mass imprisonment, torture, targeted assassinations, violence, and slaughter.

Israel's direction mirror's 1930s Germany, especially under a Netanyahu/Lieberman/Shas coalition and most extremist ever Knesset, flouting democratic freedoms one law or edict at a time. Lieberman and other extremists called the new measure a first step to loyalty legislation they want enacted as well as other anti-democratic laws to be considered in the Knesset's winter session. A forthcoming article addresses them.

On October 11, Haaretz writer Carlo Strenger headlined, "Stranger than Fiction/Loyalty oath is not about Arabs, it's about hatred of liberal values," calling the measure "bad, harmful and useless," Labor Party Minister Isaac Herzog warning that it moves incrementally toward fascism.

Legal expert Mordechai Kremnitzer said it accomplishes nothing except to make Israeli Arabs feel unwanted. Others stressed Israel's deteriorating image in world opinion. Supporters, however, see the measure as a step "toward ensuring loyalty to the state by legislation," singling out Arab citizens "whom Avigdor Lieberman is alienating and insulting almost every day, and Palestinians who want to gain Israeli citizenship."

Others (including MKs Benny Begin and Dan Meridor) noted the "strange alliance" between Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is our home) secular ultranationalists and Shas, the major ultra-Orthodox party. Why are they cooperating and allied with other hard right parties? Perhaps it's less fear of Israel's enemies and more about:

"a visceral hatred for the Western values and the liberal ethos. They all hate freedom; they all hate the idea of critical, open discourse, in which ideas are discussed according to their merit. They keep criticizing what they see as the liberal bias of the media and academia, and they have sustained attempts to curtail freedom at the universities."

Lieberman is a notorious racist, representing Israel's most extreme hard right, a man critics denounce as espousing hatred for Arabs, democracy, and the rule of law. A previous article on him can be accessed here.

For decades, Shas only pretended to support democracy, believing, in fact, that citizens have no right to think freely and critically. "(T)hey believe that only their spiritual leader, Ivadia Yossef, must determine what is right and what is wrong."

Moreover, secular and religious extremists want Israeli Arabs and Palestinians denied all rights; that is, what few remain, most others aren't allowed by a nation affording them solely to Jews.

As a result, Strenger says Minister Herzog is wrong believing "fascism lurks at the fringes of Israeli society. It is now in the mainstream. After all, even the majority of Likud ministers" backed the outrageous amendment.

"Israel is now facing a fateful question: will it remain a liberal democracy, or is it on the way to becoming a totalitarian ethnocracy?"

In fact, Israel was never a democracy, granting rights solely to Jews. A more accurate consideration is whether Israeli extremists will erode all freedoms, demand universal unquestioned loyalty, ban free expression and dissent, suppress all civil liberties by edict, and perhaps usurp dictatorial powers with no elections except the kinds despotic states hold.

Strenger is right, however, saying "Israel has embarked on a slippery slope; and we cannot know where it will end....It is a truly terrible tragedy" that enlightenment ideals and liberal values are being "gradually erase(d).." Growing fascism is "burying" what remains of Israeli democracy, so flawed it may easily be toppled.

Discussing the Citizen Law amendment, a Haaretz October 10 editorial sharply criticized Labor chairman Ehud Barak, saying he's turned the party into a "weak, crumbling entity devoid of any of its own staked-out positions....It has become nothing more than a tool of the extreme right" and is now irrelevant.

A same day Gideon Levy article headlined, "The Jewish Republic of Israel," saying the Cabinet measure risks it becoming a "theocracy like Saudi Arabia....Remember this day. It's the day Israel change(d) its character." It may also change its name, affecting all Israeli citizens.

"From now on, we will (openly) be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country." Calling Labor a "doormat" and Netanyahu Yisrael Beinteinu's leader, a virtual Lieberman stooge, today's loyalty oath will be tomorrow's law, "threatening to drown the remnants of democracy" for a new Israel "no one really understands, but it certainly won't be a democracy."

The Netanyahu/Lieberman/Shas cabal deplores it. But who can explain "the complacency of the masses," minority protests notwithstanding. In contrast, public opinion shows "almost no one....feel(s) affected."

Real democracies don't demand loyalty oaths. "Only Israel. And it is being done either to provoke the Arab minority more and push them (toward less) loyalty so one day (it will be easier to) get rid of them," as well as scuttle any chance for peace, though practically none exists anyway. One way or other, Israel's current direction endangers everyone, including Jews who'll end up losers like Arabs.

Israel’s other “peace” plan: arm-twisting Obama

Jonathan Cook — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:53:39 +0000

By Jonathan Cook * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

A ghost haunted the meeting of the Arab League in Libya at the weekend, as its foreign ministers decided to give a little more time to the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Ghost of Camp David

That ghost was the Camp David talks of summer 2000, when US President Bill Clinton publicly held Yasser Arafat, the then-Palestinian leader, responsible for the breakdown of the negotiations, despite an earlier promise to blame neither side if they failed.

Mr Clinton's finger-pointing breathed life into the accusation from Ehud Barak, Israel's prime minister, that there was "no Palestinian partner for peace"; brought about the collapse of the Israeli peace movement, and ultimately sanctioned the decision of Mr Barak's successor, Ariel Sharon, to invade the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank.

A decade later, the Arab League ministers did not want to expose Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to a similar charge from Barack Obama.

They therefore played the safest hand possible: they offered Washington another month's breathing space to persuade Israel to renew a freeze on settlement building, while also supporting Mr Abbas's decision to break off direct talks until the freeze was back in place.

The decision's dual purpose was to throw the spotlight squarely back on Israel as the recalcitrant party, and allow the White House to continue to pretend the talks are still on track.

The league's new deadline was chosen precisely to appease Washington. Mr Obama's most pressing concern is shoring up his Democratic Party's vote at the congressional mid-term elections in early November. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want to be seen walking away from the president's peace initiative before then.

Instead, the Palestinians and Israelis concentrated on the blame game, thereby highlighting the fact that both think the talks are doomed. The Camp David talks lasted two weeks before collapsing; these negotiations have been on life support since they began more than a month ago.

"The Israeli government was given the choice between peace and settlements, and it has chosen settlements," the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said on 8 October.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, spun events the other way, arguing implausibly that the Palestinians should have engaged more decisively in talks during the 10-month partial freeze on settlement growth, which expired two weeks ago. "The questions need to be directed to the Palestinians: why are you abandoning the talks?" Mr Netanyhau said on 7 October.

Rather than investing wasted energy in doomed talks, the two sides appear to be adopting the same alternative strategy: cutting a deal directly with Washington that circumvents the other party.

Palestinians' US gamble

At the weekend it was reported that Mr Abbas had told Arab leaders he was considering asking the US president to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state in the whole of the West Bank.

Mr Erekat told Reuters another option might be a request for a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on member states to "recognize the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders".

In the past, Washington has greeted such Palestinian proposals unenthusiastically. But threats by Mr Abbas to resign if the Israeli settlement freeze is not renewed – leaving no obvious successor – are intended to add to the pressure on the White House.

Israel-US axis

Mr Netanyahu, meanwhile, is reported to be working on a counter-offensive he hopes will win Washington's approval. Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, officially confirmed to the Washington Post last week that the Obama administration had offered Israel a range of generous diplomatic, security and financial "incentives" to secure a few months' extension of the partial moratorium on settlement building.

Mr Netanyahu is reported to have turned down the offer but only, it appears, because he believes he can win a more valuable concession. His real aim, the Israeli media reported last week, is to persuade the White House to reaffirm a promise made in a 2004 letter from Mr Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, that Israel will not be required to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders in a peace deal.

Israeli officials understood that to mean the Americans would approve the annexation of the main settlements to Israel, allowing most of the half-million settlers to remain in place. The Obama administration has until now denied the pledge was ever made.

In exchange for Mr Obama's endorsement of the promise, Mr Netanyahu might be willing to reimpose a short-term settlement freeze, arguing to his ministers that soon it would no longer apply to most of the settlements.

Ari Shavit, a columnist with Israel's Ha’aretz newspaper, argued last week that arm-twisting the White House to honour Mr Bush's commitment was "a win-win formula" for Mr Netanyahu.

Either Washington would be committed to Israel's key demands in the talks or "US credibility" would be damaged. "Instead of Netanyahu being the dissenter, Obama will be the dissenter," he wrote.

Mr Netanyahu, however, is stuck unless he can overcome opposition to a deal on a settlement freeze within his own cabinet, led by Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right foreign minister.

According to senior officials in the Labour Party, ostensibly the most dovish of Mr Netanyahu's coalition partners, that explains the timing of his move to placate Mr Lieberman by backing a loyalty oath for non-Jews applying for citizenship.

* Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair".

(The National)

Obama’s cave-in to Israel: letter suggests US not honest broker

Jonathan Cook — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:55:53 +0000

By Jonathan Cook * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The disclosure of the details of a letter reportedly sent by President Barack Obama last week to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will cause Palestinians to be even more sceptical about US and Israeli roles in the current peace talks.

According to the leak, Obama made a series of extraordinarily generous offers to Israel, many of them at the expense of the Palestinians, in return for a single minor concession from Netanyahu: a two-month extension of the partial freeze on settlement growth.

A previous 10-month freeze, which ended a week ago, has not so far been renewed by Netanyahu, threatening to bring the negotiations to an abrupt halt. The Palestinians are expected to decide whether to quit the talks over the coming days.

Netanyahu was reported last week to have declined the US offer.

The White House has denied that a letter was sent, but, according to the Israeli media, officials in Washington are privately incensed by Netanyahu's rejection.

The disclosures were made by an informed source: David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a close associate of Dennis Ross, Obama's chief adviser on the Middle East, who is said to have initiated the offer.

The letter's contents have also been partly confirmed by Jewish US senators who attended a briefing last week from Ross.

According to Makovsky, in return for the 60-day settlement moratorium, the US promised to veto any UN Security Council proposal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next year, and committed to not seek any further extensions of the freeze. The future of the settlements would be addressed only in a final agreement.

The White House would also allow Israel to keep a military presence in the West Bank's Jordan Valley, even after the creation of a Palestinian state; continue controlling the borders of the Palestinian territories to prevent smuggling; provide Israel with enhanced weapons systems, security guarantees and increase its billions of dollars in annual aid; and create a regional security pact against Iran.

There are several conclusions the Palestinian leadership is certain to draw from this attempt at deal-making over its head.

The first is that the US president, much like his predecessors, is in no position to act as an honest broker. His interests in the negotiations largely coincide with Israel's.

Obama needs a short renewal of the freeze, and the semblance of continuing Israeli and Palestinian participation in the "peace process", until the US Congressional elections in November.

Criticism by the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington may damage Obama's Democratic Party unless he treads a very thin line. He needs to create the impression of progress in the Middle East talks but not upset Israel's supporters by making too many demands on Netanyahu.

The second conclusion – already strongly suspected by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his advisers – is that Netanyahu, despite his professed desire to establish a Palestinian state, is being insincere.

The White House's private offer meets most of Netanyahu's demands for US security and diplomatic assistance even before the negotiations have produced tangible results. For Netanyahu to reject the offer so lightly, even though the US was expecting relatively little in return, suggests he is either in no mood or in no position to make real concessions to the Palestinians on statehood.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on 1 October that senior White House officials were no longer "buying the excuse of politicial difficulties" for Netanyahu in holding his right-wing governing coalition together. If he cannot keep his partners on board over a short freeze on illegal settlement building, what meaningful permanent concessions can he make in the talks?

The third conclusion for the Palestinians is that no possible combination of governing parties in Israel is capable of signing an agreement with Abbas that will not entail significant compromises on the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state.

One US concession – allowing Israel to maintain its hold on the Jordan Valley, nearly a fifth of the West Bank, for the forseeable future – reflects a demand common to all Israeli politicians, not just Netanyahu.

In fact, the terms of Obama's letter were drafted in cooperation with Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister and leader of the supposedly left-wing Labour Party. When he was prime minister a decade ago, he insisted on a similar military presence in the Jordan Valley during the failed Camp David talks.

Ariel Sharon, his successor and founder of the centrist Kadima Party, planned a new section of the separation wall to divide the Jordan Valley from the rest of the West Bank, though the scheme was put on hold after American objections.

Today, most Palestinians cannot enter the Jordan Valley without a special permit that is rarely issued, and the area's tens of thousands of Palestinian inhabitants are subjected to constant military harassment. B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, has accused Israel of a "de facto annexation" of the area.

But without the Jordan Valley, the creation of a viable Palestinian state – even one limited to the West Bank, without Gaza – would be inconceivable. Statehood would instead resemble the Swiss-cheese model the Palestinians have long feared is all Israel is proposing.

UN Fact-Finding Mission Says Israelis “Executed” US Citizen Furkan Dogan

SR Editor — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:06:11 +0000

By Gareth Porter* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Furkan Dogan, a 19-year-old US citizen of Turkish descent, was aboard the Mavi Marmara when he was killed by Israeli commandos. (Photo: freegazaorg)

The report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla released last week shows conclusively, for the first time, that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.

The report reveals that Dogan, the 19-year-old US citizen of Turkish descent, was filming with a small video camera on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara when he was shot twice in the head, once in the back and in the left leg and foot and that he was shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground.

The report says Dogan had apparently been "lying on the deck in a conscious or semi-conscious, state for some time" before being shot in his face.

The forensic evidence that establishes that fact is "tattooing around the wound in his face," indicating that the shot was "delivered at point blank range." The report describes the forensic evidence as showing that "the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back."

Based on both "forensic and firearm evidence," the fact-finding panel concluded that Dogan's killing and that of five Turkish citizens by the Israeli troops on the Mavi Marmari May 31 "can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions." (See Report [.pdf] Page 38, Section 170)

The report confirmed what the Obama administration already knew from the autopsy report on Dogan, but the administration has remained silent about the killing of Dogan, which could be an extremely difficult political problem for the administration in its relations with Israel.

The Turkish government gave the autopsy report on Dogan to the US Embassy in July and it was then passed on to the Department of Justice, according to a US government source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the administration's policy of silence on the matter. The source said the purpose of obtaining the report was to determine whether an investigation of the killing by the Justice Department (DOJ) was appropriate.

Asked by this writer whether the DOJ had received the autopsy report on Dogan, DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney refused to comment.

The administration has not volunteered any comment on the fact-finding mission report and was not asked to do so by any news organization. In response to a query from Truthout, a State Department official, who could not speak on the record, read a statement that did not explicitly acknowledge the report's conclusion about the Israeli executions.

The statement said the fact-finding mission's report's "tone and conclusions are unbalanced." It went on to state, "We urge that this report not be used for actions that could disrupt direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine that are now underway or actions that would make it not possible for Israel and Turkey to move beyond the recent strains in their traditional strong relationship."

Although the report's revelations and conclusions about the killing of Dogan and the five other victims were widely reported in the Turkish media last week, not a single story on the report has appeared in US news media.

The administration has made it clear through its inaction and its explicit public posture that it has no intention of pressing the issue of the murder of a US citizen in cold blood by Israeli commandos.

On June 13, two weeks after the Mavi Marmara attack, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying that Israel "should be allowed to undertake an investigation into events that involve its national security" and that Israel's military justice system "meets international standards and is capable of conducting a serious and credible investigation."

Another passenger whom forensic evidence shows was killed execution-style, according to the OHCHR report, is Ibrahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen. Bilgen is believed by forensics experts to have been shot initially from the helicopter above the Mavi Marmara and then shot in the side of the head while lying seriously wounded.

The fact-finding mission was given forensic evidence that, after the initial shot in chest from above, Bilgen was shot in the head with a "soft baton round at such close proximity that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the chest from above," the mission concluded.

"Soft baton rounds" are supposed to be fired for nonlethal purposes at a distance and aimed only at the stomach, but are lethal when fired at the head, especially from close range.

The forensic evidence cited by the fact-finding mission on the killing of Dogan and five other passengers came from both the autopsy reports and pathology reports done by forensic personnel in Turkey and from interviews with those who wrote the reports. Experts in forensic pathology and firearms assisted the mission in interpreting that forensic evidence.

The account, provided by the OHCHR of the events on board the Mavi Marmara on its way to help break the economic siege of Gaza May 31 of this year, refutes the version of events aggressively pushed by the Israeli military and supports the testimony of passengers on board.

The report suggests that, from the beginning, Israeli policy viewed the Gaza flotilla as an opportunity to use lethal force against pro-Hamas activists. It quotes testimony by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak before the Israeli government's Turkel Committee that specific orders were given by the Israeli government "to continue intelligence tracking of the flotilla organizers with an emphasis on the possibility that amongst the passengers in the flotilla there were terror elements who would attempt to harm Israeli forces."

The idea that the passenger list would be seeded with terrorists determined to attack Israeli defense forces appears to have been a ploy to justify treating the operation as likely to require the use of military force against the passengers.

When details of the Israeli plan to forcibly take over the ships in the flotilla were published in the Israeli press on May 30, the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara realized that the Israelis might use deadly force against them. Some leaders of the IHH (the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Aid), which had purchased the ships for the mission, were advocating defending the boat against the Israeli boarding attempt, whereas other passengers advocated nonviolence only.

That led to efforts to create improvised weapons from railings and other equipment on the Mavi Marmara. However, the commission concluded that there was no evidence of any firearms having being taken aboard the ship, as charged by Israel.

The report notes that the Israeli military never communicated a request by radio to inspect the cargo on board any of the ships, apparently contradicting the official justification given by the Israeli government for the military attack on the Mavi Marmara and other ships of preventing any military contraband from reaching Gaza.

According to the OHCHR report, Israeli Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi testified to the Turkel Committee August 11 that the initial rules of engagement for the operation prohibited live fire except in life-threatening situations, but that that they were later modified to target protesters "deemed to be violent" in response to the resistance by passengers.

That decision apparently followed the passengers' successful repulsion of an Israeli effort to board the ship from Zodiac boats.

The report confirms that, from the beginning of the operation, passengers were fired on by helicopters flying above the Mavi Marmara to drop commandos on the deck.

Contrary to Israeli claims that one or more Israeli troops were wounded by firearms, the report says no medical evidence of a gunshot wound to an Israeli soldier was found.

The OHCHR report confirms accounts from passengers on the Mavi Marmara that defenders subdued roughly ten Israeli commandos, took their weapons from them and threw them in the sea, except for one weapon hidden as evidence. The Israeli soldiers were briefly sequestered below and some were treated for wounds before being released by the defenders.

The OHCHR fact-finding mission will certainly be the most objective, thorough and in-depth inquiry into the events on board the Mavi Marmara and other ships in the flotilla of the four that have been announced.

The fact-finding mission was chaired by Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired judge of the International Criminal Court and former attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago, and included Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former chief prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the board of directors of the International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific.

The mission interviewed 112 eyewitnesses to the Israeli attack in London, Geneva, Istanbul and Amman, Jordan. The Israeli government refused to cooperate with the fact-finding mission by making personnel involved in both planning and carrying out the attack available to be interviewed.

The Turkish governments announced its own investigation of the Israeli attack on August 10. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced the formation of a "Panel of Inquiry" on August 2, but its mandate was much more narrowly defined. It was given the mission to "receive and review the reports of the national investigations with the view to recommending ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future."

* Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam," was published in 2006.

(truthout)

Iran’s President (Tries to) Speak Out

Lawrence Davidson — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:41:28 +0000

By Lawrence Davidson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Iran’s president Ahmadinejad was at the United Nations on September 21, 2010 to address the Millennium Development Goals Summit. What he had to say was, as usual, a mixed bag of worthwhile insights and questionable assertions. We will get to some of them in a moment. But first something odd. As soon as the Iranian president took the podium and began speaking the audio feeds supporting the UN translators started to have "technical" problems. It is a sign of the suspicious world we live in that few astute observers are ready to believe that explanation without further proof. On the othaer hand, very few media outlets even commented on the glitch. Al-Jazeera, however, did prosaically refer to the incident as "Ahmadinejad lost in translation."

According to a written transcript of his speech, and apropos of the subject of the summit, the Iranian president stated that the global decision making bodies such as the UN Security Council, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the like are unjustly monopolized by aggressive and hegemonic great powers. And, if you really want to know why poverty persists in the modern world you have to take a long and hard look at the avaricious economic policies of those same powers. Actually, he has a point on both scores. It would be easy to produce the evidence for these assertions but much harder to get anyone of authority to listen. Thus, the hall in which he was making his address (sans translation) was nearly empty and he got very little media coverage. Ahmadinejad might very well complain that he was "talking to the wall." This time, at least, the problem is with the wall and not the speaker.

There are other claims, all substantially true, that the Iranian president may soon be making for the one hundredth time (he speaks to the General Assembly on Thursday the 23^rd). He will probably tell the world body all or some of the following:

That Iran has no nuclear weapons program and there is no hard evidence to the contrary.
That his country is pursuing the development of a peaceful nuclear energy program which is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
That on September 6, 2010 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified, yet again, that no declared nuclear material in Iran has been diverted for military use.
That the total amount of Iran’s enriched nuclear stockpile is for domestic energy and medical isotope programs.
That all of this is safeguarded by the IAEA.
And, finally, that any recently observed "lack of full cooperation" on Iran’s part is a product of persistent U.S. and European hectoring about the alleged insufficiency of the fairly good cooperation they have got. In other words, the West has created a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard. If you continuously question a people’s character, don’t expect them to fully cooperate with you.

Despite a policy of insisting that if Iran wants to "come back into the international community" its government must prove a negative, there was this week a glimmer of reason coming out of Washington. President Obama publically stated that "we don’t think that a war between Israel and Iran, or military options, would be the ideal way to solve this problem." Given the American media distortions on the topic of a "nuclear Iran," President Obama ought to repeat this obvious, common sense fact every day of the week indefinitely.

Getting back to Amadinejad, I think it is fair to say that the man does head a civilian controlled government that can be quite ruthless and any claims that his regime does not target peaceful protesters are false. On the other hand, it is equally as accurate to say that he is not the crazy person the Zionists and their allies make him out to be. For instance, he repeated his assertion that he is not anti-Semitic, although he certainly is anti-Zionist. Unfortunately, he does question the extent of the Holocaust and for various historical and political reasons that is enough to earn him the anti-Semitic label here in the West. But, while he is factually wrong about the Holocaust, his disavowal of anti-Semitism is believable for two reasons: one is that attacking the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, which is what the Iranian president does, is not the same as attacking Jews. Zionists may claim it is but they too are factually wrong. There are an increasing number of Jews worldwide who see Zionism as just a racist political ideology and absolutely not a stand-in for their Jewishness. The second point is the relatively prosperous and stable position of the 25,000 Iranian Jews. If Ahmadinejad was such a flaming anti-Semite, these people would not be in as good a shape as they are.

The political hype in the U.S. over Iran is, in good part, a combined product of Zionist and neo-conservative political pressure, media irresponsibility, and periodic indiscretion on the part of the Iranian president-the latter unfortunately feeding the former. And, we can rely on Israel and its supporters to keep calling for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program as some sort of litmus test for world peace. Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, told Fox News recently that "history will judge the [Obama] administration...on whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not." It is a red herring, Ehud. Go home, make a truly just peace with the Palestinians, and you will grow old safely and die in bed.

Sensibly, President Obama seems to be backing away from all this hype. He knows that it represents the same formula worldview used against Iraq in the run up to the invasion of that country. He probably got pressured to replay it by Congressional supporters of Israel and Ron Emmanuel. It is a dangerous game to play, even for the sake of a president’s domestic politics. The Iraq invasion resulted in the death of over one million people. Who wants to do that again? Well, it appears that the Zionists and the neo-cons do!

Let us hope that the Democrats do well in this November’s elections. If they do, we may see an Obama more insistent on real peace policies when it comes to places like Iran and Israel. Then he can call in the opposition (including his Democratic "blue dogs") and tell them that, if they want to reduce the world’s population, it would be easier and cheaper and quite a bit saner, to promote contraception rather than bloody war.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.