47 years to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights!

1908 Days to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza:

End Israeli Apartheid Now!

Support Palestinian universities – it is what people under the Israeli jackboot ask you to do

Any army fighting against children, has already lost the war!

Israeli War Criminals and Pirates – to the International Criminal Court, NOW!

Make Zionism History!

Demand the destruction of Israeli WMDs NOW!

 EDITOR: Haaretz website privatised…

Joining the Murdoch press in privatising their website, Haaretz made the full content available only to the rich who can pay the full cost of subscription, from this week. Regrettably, I shall be unable and unwilling to pay that cost, and hence will be unable to bring readers the full range of Haaretz articles, as this website did in the past. This is a sad moment, in which right wing sentiments and interests have taken over what was a liberal newspaper.

3 YEARS TO THE MURDEROUS INVASION OF GAZA!

WE SHALL NOT FORGET!

EDITOR: The more it changes, the more it stays the same…

The second year of summer protest in Israel, and the picture is just as confusing as before. If ‘social justice’ was not vague enough, then this shortcoming seems to have been resolved… now the ‘people wants all things’ and now… it seems that the May Day tradition of political rallies has been replaced by a new kind of public festival – the public airing of unformed, or malformed, personal misgivings about everything under the sun, but mainly, not about the issues which have shaped Israel and Palestine for almost a century. One could call this the ‘Eid of Denial’, I reckon. After all, denial is a national sport in Israel  – in a country in which the law forbids the indoigenous population to commemorate the Nakba, a Denial Holiday will come in handy.

No doubts, the fruits of this diffused, confused and colourful ‘protest’ will be like those of last summer – much a do about something, but without knowing about what, and with no political results whatsoever. In the meantime, Netanyahu is becoming stronger, and prepares his next war with Iran.

The new face of Israel’s social protest: Haaretz

If the slogan of the 2011 protest was ‘the people demand social justice,’ the slogan this year is ‘the people demand all kinds of things.’

Gideon Levy
Israelis protest in Kikar Rabin in Tel Aviv, May 12, 2012. Photo by Moti Milrod
Social protest showed a new face last night: What began in the summer of 2011 as a small tent protest, aimed at bringing down housing prices, is in the summer of 2012 a strange and endless coalition of interests and agendas that have yet to find common ground. If the slogan of the 2011 protest was “the people demand social justice,” the slogan this year is “the people demand all kinds of things.”

Rabin Squarelooked more like Woodstock, without the drugs, than the Bastille, on Saturday night. The music was loud and contemporary, no more Eyal Golan or Shlomo Artzi, and the average age has gone down. The language is completely different and the burning anger that was so missing last summer, was, unfortunately, absent last night as well.

The founding fathers and mothers were walking around in the square, among them Daphni Leef and Regev Kuntas, but they were like strangers, interviewed on TV in an appearance that seemed more nostalgic than political. The protest, generation 2, has not produced new leaders like Leef. The organizers took care to put unknown faces on the dais, who read from prepared texts passing the microphone on as if this were a Shavuot play at a kibbutz.

“Ask yourselves why you know more about the Iranian nuclear reactor than the Jesse Cohen neighborhood in Holon,” one said, referring to a poor neighborhood. “Why is there such a broad government with such narrow interests?” another asked.

The texts were interrupted repeatedly by the call, for those present to put down political protest signs. “This is a demonstration of being together. This is not a political demonstration.” Not political? If that’s the case, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can continue to rest through another summer of settlements, bombings and social injustice.

Since last summer the government coalition has broadened and public support of it has not decreased at all, according to the polls. Perhaps that is last summer’s failure. Since then, taking to the street in protest has become almost a matter of course. That may be a good sign. But it is doubtful that a coalition consisting of the Social Guard; the Social Darma movement; the First Cooperative for Social Change; New Peace – Come Learn and Create; and the Suckers Encampment; My People – the Future of Israel; the Venus Project; a group organizing fun days for Palestinian children; and a group supporting the legalization of cannabis, are more threatening to the government and the existing order than the cries of the homeless that echoed last summer.

The good news is that (very ) young people took over the square, the bad news is that they were much too diffused. Someone counted no less than 30 groups, and not one major group was there. TV monitors showed live broadcasts of protests elsewhere in the world, in Madrid, Barcelona and London, May having been declared the month of international protest and “we are not alone.”

But the globalization of the protest is unlikely to help the residents of the Jesse Cohen neighborhood in Holon. They were (once again ) missing from last night’s rally, although it had begun with the march of the few from south Tel Aviv, it was (once again ) a rally of young, secular, Ashkenazi Tel Avivians from Facebook. It’s good to see them disconnect from their computers, going out into the streets, worrying not only about themselves, and at least imagining that they are protesting.

About an hour before the protest started, a big circle of dancers covered the square to “hold hands” against the sunset. Two women invited me for a hug; two others for two minutes of silence together. Only a man collecting tin cans asked a traffic policewoman, “what’s the protest about,” and she did not know the answer.

Yes, the police were there last night, as at every Israeli protest, far too many. But last night at least they were not violent, for a change. The emcee spoke of the “amazing voice” in the square as if we were in an ashram in Pune or an evangelical church in the southern United States.

Of all people, it was the promising leader of this summer’s protest, the veteran and devoted social activist Shaul Mofaz, who was absent. Only one or two MKs dared appear, with hatred for politics and political parties having grown with the expansion of the coalition. “All the parties have failed,” one speaker said. And that is not necessarily a good sign.

EDITOR: Fascist environmentalism

In normal countries, the principles of environmentalism are usually held and supported by progressive parties of and on the left. In Israel, this position is held by Gilad Erdan; read below to learn of the fascist and racist positioning argued under the cover of ‘environmental issues’.

Hunger strikers expose an inhuman system: Observer Editorial

Israel cannot claim the moral high ground while it is holding Palestinians without charge
The disclosure that six of almost 1,600 Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike to protest against the Israeli policy of “administrative detention” are close to death has profound implications for Israel and for the stalled Middle East peace process. The rule of law and fair and proper judicial processes, where those accused of a crime may be charged and are guaranteed an opportunity to speak in their own defence in open court, is a key human right that a properly functioning democracy should guarantee even in a troubled period of peacetime.

Internment for prolonged periods without charge on the suspicion of secretive and unaccountable intelligence agencies, whose claims cannot be adequately tested – in Guantánamo Bay, the UK or in Israel – must always be opposed. And in Israel, in particular, administrative detention, first introduced by the UK during the British Mandate, has long been a stain on Israel’s democracy, a process by which that detention can be renewed every six months without formal charges in a system administered by the military including, on the West Bank, relatively junior officers.

Last December, it was estimated that more than 300 prisoners were held in this way.

The office of UN high commissioner for human rights, Navanethem Pillay, is clear on the legality of administrative detention: it “should only be used in exceptional cases and only for imperative reasons of security”.

Yet far from being exceptional, it is commonplace. Indeed, according to the UN’s special rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, over the past year the number of administrative detentions has almost doubled despite the period of relative peace in Israel.

The claim by the Red Cross that the six hunger strikers who have been refusing nourishment the longest are now in danger of dying comes as the secretary-general of the UN, Ban ki-Moon, last week raised the stakes by calling for those being held to be tried or released.

There is an evident risk of violence for both Israelis and Palestinians should any of the hunger strikers die (as officials on both sides have warned). But the success or failure of this protest has further far-reaching implications. The deaths of Bobby Sands and fellow IRA and INLA hunger strikers in 1981 become a focus for both IRA political and paramilitary activity, Sands’s funeral alone attracting tens of thousands of mourners.

And for Israel, the new Palestinian tactic should serve as a warning. At a time when more and more observers are increasingly convinced that the two-state solution is failing, the nonviolence of this hunger strike is already deeply suggestive of what a Palestinian civil rights movement might look like – should Palestinians abandon the demand for their own self-determination and, instead, insist on full equality within a binational state.

While Israel, confronted by the spectre of violence, has found it easy to put forward the argument of necessity, the grim spectacle of uncharged prisoners dying in its jails deprived of the most basic rights will be difficult to justify.

The UN secretary-general is right. Israel must either put on trial or release those that it holds within this inhuman system. In doing so it will help to affirm that it is a free and open society.

Environment Minister: Israel should cut power supply to Gaza in case of shortage: Haaretz

Environmental Protection Ministry study shows 4.5% of Israeli electricity exported to Gaza; Minister Erdan says ‘our poor come first.’
By Ophir Bar-Zohar

Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan on Sunday sought support from other government ministers to add a stipulation to any policy decision regarding the expected electricity shortages this summer.

Erdan said that he wishes to add a clause to the agreement stipulating that if any electricity service needs to be temporarily stopped, such temporary outages should be implemented in Hamas-controlled Gaza, before affecting the power supply to residents of Israel.

Erdan made it clear that the stipulation is not meant to be a sanction against Gaza, nor its residents, but simply a logical step toward the philosophy of putting “the poor of your own city first.”

Erdan said that it is not reasonable to reduce the power supply to residents of Israel in the event of a shortage, while continuing to supply power to Gaza, from which Israel disengaged roughly seven years ago, and is no longer responsible for what goes on within its borders.

Erdan noted in his letter to government ministers that experts in the field predict that a power shortage this summer is unavoidable, and a schedule of regulated, intentional power outages will need to be implemented.

Erdan pointed out that according to a study conducted by the Environmental Protection Ministry, Israel exports roughly 4.5% of electricity it generates to the Palestinian Authority. Thus Erdan suggests that if even after all countermeasures are in place, periodic stoppages of electricity need to be implemented, such outages should be felt in Gaza before in Israel.

“As the Environmental Protection Ministry is warning against a possible ‘electricity drought,’ steps are being made to counter it, including possible stops of service – there is no question, rather a clear decision in that case – Gaza first,” said Erdan.

Egyptian presidential candidates in first television debate: Guardian

Millions of Egyptians tune into two private satellite channels to watch Amr Moussa and Abdel-Moneim Abul-Futoh debate
Abdel-Rahman Hussein in Cairo
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 May 2012

With former president Hosni Mubarak languishing in hospital as he awaits sentencing next month, Egyptians watched two private satellite channels to witness an event held within its borders for the first time: a bona fide presidential debate.

There are 13 candidates in the campaign, which begins on 23 May, but the two who showed up for the TV bout were the established frontrunners in the polls, former foreign minister Moussa and former Muslim Brotherhood member Abul-Futoh.

Taking away the leftist revolutionary candidates, Moussa and Abul-Futoh exemplified perfectly the fault-lines of the upcoming election. Moussa was affiliated to the previous regime while Abul-Futoh was a prominent supporter of the revolution. Also, Moussa is a secular liberal while Abul-Futoh is a moderate Islamist.

Each candidate set out to accentuate his credentials to the detriment of the other. Abul-Futoh alluded to Moussa’s ties to the Mubarak regime many times, while Moussa reciprocated by attacking Abul-Futoh’s affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Candidates were asked a broad selection of questions over the four and half hours of the debate, ranging from the relationship with the ruling military junta, minority rights and the implementation of Sharia law.

Moussa brought up Sharia law many times in order to attack Abul-Futoh, which led the latter to admit he did intend to implement the rulings of Sharia law, though he argued it would not contravene civil liberties nor the rights of non-Muslims.

“There is no duality between religion and citizenship, the state or the constitution. The nature of Islam is that it looks for the interest of people. When we look for their interests, this is congruous with Sharia law,” Abul-Futoh said.

For his part ,Moussa distanced himself from Mubarak and his regime, stating, “When the regime fell, it fell with its men and I wasn’t one of them. I left 10 years ago and when it fell I wasn’t part of it.”

The candidates were also asked about the ruling military junta and the litany of abuses conducted by them, including the infamous virginity tests against female protesters. They both responded by saying that if it did happen, a full investigation must take place and those responsible held accountable.

The candidates were also asked about Israel, the US and Iran. Ever the diplomat, Moussa said relations with Israel must be reconfigured until a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital was created.

Abul-Futoh was more scathing, labelling Israel a threat to Egypt with its 200 nuclear warheads and continued broaching of Egyptian sovereignty on its borders. Both were rather more blasé about the US. Regarding Iran, Moussa urged that there should be no attack, while Abul-Futoh said Iran was welcome to have relations with Egypt as long as it did not attempt to spread Shia beliefs.

The London riots also made its way into the debate, when Abul-Futoh pointed out that police protected looters even as they rioted, in way of explanation that it was the job of police to avoid deaths even if protests turn violent.

The debate was aired concurrently on two satellite channels belonging to prominent Egyptian businessmen Naguib Sawiris and Ahmed Bahgat. It was not aired on national television and was full of ad breaks, giving it a Superbowl-type atmosphere and leading to criticism that it was a money-making endeavour as much as it was a historic occasion.

It was also not without its surreal moments. Beforehand, the presenters discussed debates in the US and Europe, and while talking about the debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin of 2008, footage was aired of Tina Fey impersonating Palin on the satirical television show Saturday Night Live.

EDITOR: The rule of law in Israel has never been weaker than now

With Israeli government refusing to follow its own Supreme Court rulings on the Migron and Ulpana Hill settlements, a new low has been reached in Israel. A year after the famous vacuous Tent Protest has exploded all over Israel, promising ‘a new democracy’ and more equal society, and avoiding totally any mention of the occupation, this new trough of Israeli political life is something to behold. Within a year, Netanyahu is the most popular politician in Israel, starting a new coalition government with Shaul Mofaz, who only two weeks ago, as he was making promises before being elected the Kadima party leader, has undertaken to continue as Opposition leader, and not to enter a coalition with Netanyahu. This victory of the lie and the criminal deed over law and democracy is emblematic, a sign of the deep and doomed state of the Israeli polis. It befits Netanyahu to preside over this final collapse of law, order and propriety. It is exactly where success for Netanyahu marks the total failure of Israeli political life, ina government which acts illegally, even in the face of its own legal system, not just the international law.

In surprise move, Netanyahu, Mofaz agree to form unity government, cancel early elections: Haaretz

PM, opposition leader reach dramatic late-night agreement to form national unity government, in which Kadima head Mofaz expected to be appointed deputy prime minister.
By Jonathan Lis     and Ophir Bar-Zohar
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition chairman MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) reached a surprise agreement early Tuesday morning to form a national unity government.

The move came as the Knesset was preparing to disperse for early elections, which were expected to be scheduled for September 4.

Under the agreement, Kadima will join Netanyahu’s government and commit to supporting its policies through the end of its term in late 2013. Mofaz is expected to be appointed deputy prime minister, as well as minister without portfolio.

Mofaz will also serve as a member of the security cabinet, and Kadima members will serve as chairmen of the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committees, the economics committee, and any others that are agreed upon by both sides.

Chairwoman of the Israel Labor Party, Shelly Yacimovich, will become opposition leader instead of Mofaz. The process is also likely to affect Yair Lapid’s new party, Yesh Atid – it will have to wait another year and a half for elections to the 19th Knesset.

In exchange, Netanyahu’s government will support Kadima’s proposal to replace the Tal Law, which enables ultra-Orthodox youth to defer national service.

The sides also agreed on instituting changes to Israel’s electoral system.

Yair Lapid responded to the move on Tuesday morning on his Facebook page. He described the formation of the unity government as “the old kind of politics” and “corrupt and ugly.”

“It is time to remove it from our lives,” he wrote, adding, “This is politics of chairs instead of principles… of the interests of the group instead of the whole nation. They think that now they will continue for some time, and that we will forget, but they are mistaken. This disgusting political alliance will bury all those involved.”

Shelly Yacimovich criticized the move, and calling it an alliance of cowards, and the most ridiculous zig-zag in Israel’s political history. She also said that the move represented an opportunity for the Israel Labor Party to lead the opposition.

Meretz head Zahava Gal-On expressed outrage over the surprise move, calling it a “mega-stinking maneuver by a prime minister who wants to avoid elections and a desperate opposition chairman facing a crash.”

“This is a disgrace to the Israeli parliament and a terrible message to the public, which is losing faith in the leadership of the state,” she added.

Shaul Mofaz was elected head of Kadima less than two weeks ago, when he defeated former party head Tzipi Livni in the party’s leadership primary.

In an interview with Haaretz ahead of the primary, Mofaz insisted that, if elected, he would not join a government led by Netanyahu.

“Kadima under my leadership will remain in the opposition. The current government represents all that is wrong with Israel, I believe. Why should we join it?” he said at the time.

Ulpana illegal outpost must be gone by July, Israeli government is warned: Guardian

Judges reject coalition’s plea for delay and set new deadline for demolition of unauthorised buildings on Palestinian land
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem

The Israeli government has been given a fresh deadline for the controversial demolition of a Jewish outpost built on private Palestinian land after the supreme court rejected its request to renege on an earlier commitment.

In a ruling that will be vehemently opposed by pro-settler parties and factions, the court said five apartment buildings in Ulpana, on the edge of the Beit El settlement in the West Bank, must be evacuated and demolished by 1 July.

The government had agreed to a 1 May deadline, a year after the court declared the buildings to be illegal under Israeli law. Under international law, all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal.

But faced with stiff resistance from within the coalition, the government requested a delay to allow it to reconsider its policy on how to deal with illegal outposts in the West Bank. The issue had significant consequences involving “diplomatic, public and operational considerations,” the government petition said.

The court rejected the argument, saying it was important for the state to honour its commitments, and that revisiting the issue “may lead to difficult consequences”.

On Sunday, when hearing the petition, the judges were highly critical of the government’s stance. “When the state says it will do something, it never enters our heads that the thing won’t get done,” said one. Another said: “Exceptional requests are becoming the norm. That isn’t healthy, from either a legal or public standpoint.”

Michael Sfard, the lawyer representing the Palestinian landowners, said in response to the ruling: “The moment the state submitted its unprecedented request, this case became a broader struggle than that of the [Palestinian] petitioners alone, and became a struggle to preserve the basic norms of a regime based on the rule of law.”

But an Ulpana resident, Harel Cohen, said he was confident the buildings would not be razed. “This crazy plan to uproot a very nice neighbourhood is not reasonable and cannot be done,” he said. “We are speaking to the prime minister and the government, and we know they will find a way out.”

The scheduled demolitions of Ulpana and Migron – another outpost built on private land, which is due to be demolished by 1 August after a series of delays – are seen as a test of the government’s readiness to comply with Israeli law in the face of pressure from pro-settler groups, whose influence on government policy is growing.

Critics say they are also an indication of the likely scale of resistance to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement on borders that would require the removal of tens of thousands of settlers from the land of a future Palestinian state.

The government recently retrospectively authorised three other illegal outposts in a move that was sharply criticised by the US, UK, French, German, Danish and Jordanian governments, the European Union, the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority. There are about 100 unauthorised developments in the West Bank.

About 350,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements and outposts, and a further 200,000 in East Jerusalem. The issue of settlements is seen by the Palestinians and the international community as the main impediment to a peace agreement.

Rejecting state request, High Court orders demolition of West Bank outpost to go forward: Haaretz

Justices criticize government for wishing to reopen closed cases over changed policy, adding that the state had not provided the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would force revisiting a court verdict.
By Tomer Zarchin
Rejecting a state appeal, the High Court of Justice ordered on Monday the demolition of illegally-built structures in the Ulpana neighborhood.

The ruling came after state appealed to the High Court on Friday, requesting it reconsider its ruling to evacuate the Ulpana neighborhood, part of the West Bank settlement of Beit El, and tear down the structures there, which were built on private Palestinian land.

That day, the state cited the difficult ramifications an evacuation is likely to have for Beit El residents.

On Sunday, during a hearing regarding the state’s request, the court criticized Israel for not fulfilling its legal commitment to demolish the outpost. Justice Uzi Fogelman said that “when the state claims it will do something, we do not imagine that it will not be done. There is respect between the branches.”

In the ruling issued Monday, Supreme Court President Ahser Grunis along with Fogelman and Justice Salim Joubran rejected the state’s request, saying the illegal Ulpana structures would have to be evacuated by July 1.

The justices wrote that it was especially important for the state to honor its obligations to the High Court, adding that, by “accepting the state’s position, according to which the need to revisit policy is a reason to reopen a finalized process, my lead to difficult consequences.”

“Policy, in its very nature, isn’t a static thing. Will the state request to review processes that ended in a verdict every time a policy is reconsidered!?” the court asked, adding that a change in policy was not a reason to divert from the finality of a verdict,” the justices added.

The justices went on to say that the “authority to reopen a finalized legal procedure, assuming that it exists, is reserved for unusual situations and extraordinary circumstances.”

“Those circumstances have not been presented in this case, even if it does raise difficult question of public and social policy,” they added.

The state had previously pledged in court to implement the demolition orders for the neighborhood buildings, but last month it asked for 90 days to reevaluate its policy on enforcing demolition orders for illegal buildings in the West Bank, as it takes into account strategic, public and operative considerations together.

According to legal experts, the government’s request represents a problematic move – breaking the accepted rules for the relationship between the executive and judicial branches – that would put the country in a difficult position.

High Court may have ruled against West Bank outpost, but the story isn’t over: Haaretz

While it looks like the High Court was defending the rule of law, woe unto a generation that needs the High Court to tell the government that it’s meant to obey its rulings.
By Aeyal Gross
In the printed version of Monday’s High Court of Justice decision reiterating the order to vacate Beit El’s Ulpana neighborhood, there’s something interesting about the punctuation: Two sentences end with both a question mark and an exclamation point, something rare, if not unprecedented, in a court document.

“Does the state, every time a new policy is considered, plan to ask the court to reopen proceedings that have ended in a ruling?!” wrote court President Justice Asher Dan Grunis, who also wondered, “What … would be the reason for providing the exceptional remedy of reopening a legal proceeding .. in which the state has committed to act in a certain fashion?!”

On the one hand, one must welcome the court’s decision to reject the request to reopen the hearing on Ulpana Hill, which reinforces not only the finality of court decisions but reinforces the basic principle of carrying them out.

On the other hand, if in the case of Migron, the fact that there had to be a petition to the High Court to enforce a previous court ruling demonstrated the degree to which the occupation tramples on equal rights and the rule of law, in the Ulpana case there’s been an even further slide down the slippery slope.

Here the High Court had to deal with a specific request from the state not to obey a ruling it received.

So while it looks like the High Court was defending the rule of law, woe unto a generation that needs the High Court to tell the government that it’s meant to obey its rulings. No wonder the High Court had to append exclamation points to its question marks.

But the biggest question mark of all still remains: Will the structures built on private Palestinian land near Beit El be demolished by July 1, the date the court set? Migron, don’t forget, is meant to be dismantled by August 1.

This means that on the eve of general elections, the government is going to have to twice demolish buildings and evacuate settlers from private Palestinian land. If the government would prefer not to obey these rulings for political reasons, there are three possible scenarios.

The first could be a horrific one, in which despite the High Court’s unequivocal rulings the government simply doesn’t implement them, in what would be a total trampling of the rule of law. A second possibility is that the government would seek more extensions from the High Court, though based on its recent rulings it isn’t likely the court will agree.

The third scenario is that in an effort to codify the theft, various elements will try to pass “High Court bypass” laws that would retroactively legalize those outposts built on private Palestinian land. In such an instance, the High Court would once again be called upon to decide if such laws are constitutional, or if they contravene the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom.

At issue is not just the rule of law in its formal sense, which was at least defended this time, but also the substance of the rule of law, which continues to be crushed.

It’s clear that the violations of law in these cases and the efforts to avoid carrying out the court rulings stems from the fact that these lands belong to Palestinians, and in this context, as in many others, the government relates to Palestinian rights as negatable.

One must recall that the rulings on Migron and Ulpana Hill represent the tip of the iceberg of government land grabs in the territories. The Spiegel Report, which was prepared based on Civil Administration data and revealed by Haaretz three years ago, found that in more than 30 settlements there had been extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure on private Palestinian land in the West Bank.

Let’s not delude ourselves that the cases that have reached the High Court of Justice will solve the deeper, much more serious problem.

Click here to continue reading “May 8, 2012″ »

EDITOR: The old methods are the best…

Israel is proudly using the old methods of the czarist secret police, the Cheka. In order to make sure that violence erupts when they need it, they plant undercover agent provocateurs in the Palestinian villages, who proceed to ‘attack’ the IOF forces, hence supplying the necessary spark and excuse for brutal and illegal behaviour. It is good to hear it from the horse’s mouth, of course. If this is what they admit to, just imagine what they are not telling us… Please note that the photo is described as : ‘MK Mohammed Barakeh confronting IDF soldiers in Bil’in in 2005′… look at it and make up your own mind.

‘Undercover Israeli combatants threw stones at IDF soldiers in West Bank’: Haaretz

Testimony by commander of the Israeli Prison Service’s elite ‘Masada’ unit sheds light on IDF methods in countering demonstrations against barrier.

Undercover soldiers hurled stones in the “general direction” of IDF soldiers as part of their activity to counter weekly demonstrations in the Palestinian village of Bil’in, the commander of the Israeli Prison Service’s elite “Masada” unit revealed during his recent testimony in the trial of MK Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash).

Barakeh has been charged with assaulting a border guard in Bil’in who was attempting to arrest a demonstrator.

Since 2005, the weekly protests against the separation barrier in Bil’in, which cuts the village off from much of its residents’ land, have attracted international attention as well as the participation of Israeli and international activists.

Several “Masada” fighters testified two weeks ago in Barakeh’s trial in the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s court. The fighters testified from behind a curtain and their identity is to remain secret. The central witness was “Fighter 102,” an officer in “Masada,” who told the court that “we were sent to counter the disruptions at the separation barrier in Bil’in. It was the first time I was undercover. Two men were arrested, they were Palestinians.”

When quizzed by defense attorney Orna Kohn if the undercover soldiers hurled stones, “102″ answered that they did. When asked if he hurled stones toward IDF soldiers, he answered “in the general direction.”

The unit’s commander, “fighter 101,” who commanded the operation that day, shed light on the unit’s operational methods. “I was commander of the force, directed by the IDF, following intelligence about a huge demonstration due to take place in the Bil’in area. We had several forces in the field – one of them was an undercover force whose mission was to provide intelligence and carry out ‘quality’ arrests, if needed, and a rescue force which was wearing regular uniforms,” he revealed.

“An enormous demonstration began, coming down from the village. It seemed that the army was losing control. Some 500 demonstrators came down and ignored the orders of the deputy battalion commander, who was in charge of the operation, and simply passed by him without blinking. The army forces swiftly lost their ability to effectively control the situation,” the officer continued.

“At a certain stage the deputy battalion commander told me he had lost control and requested that we act to stop the demonstrators. We used equipment for dispersing demonstrations and managed to stop them. When the undercover unit reported, it identified ‘quality’ targets – that is substantial activists who led the demonstration, hurled stones and constituted a danger to the forces. I ordered the undercover forces to carry out arrests. I caught the back of a man who attacked one of my soldiers, and identified him as MK Barakeh. As far as I’m concerned if an undercover soldier arrested someone, he must be a quality target,” the commander told the court.

MK Barakeh originally faced four charges, but two were dropped in the preliminary proceedings. The second of the two remaining charges dates back to July 2006, when the prosecution alleges he assaulted a right-wing activist who attempted to attack peace activist Uri Avnery.

EDITOR: Supreme Court may go to hell, for all Netanyahu cares…

So, as the Supreme Court has not yet annulled its own ruling, that the buildings in Ulpana were erected illegally, and should be vacated, The IOF has found away of extending the building further, while making fun of Israel’s legal system. It is not clear who is left laughing after this, but the extreme right, Netanyahu’s power-base and reserve army of political violence. For the good souls in the west, still speaking of the Israeli legal system as some beacon in the darkness, this should come and welcome relief – every illegal crime has been legally carried out, like in some other regimes in the past. There is nothing like the law to make a crime kosher.

Military order allowed construction: Haaretz

The municipal boundaries of Beit El were effectively expanded without any public announcements that might have generated domestic or international protest.
By Akiva Eldar
The state’s request to delay the evacuation of the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El reveals that a military order, giving the settlement jurisdiction over lands outside its borders, was part of the process leading to the construction of those homes.

Section 2A (a ) of the military order relating to local authorities states that “The Israel Defense Forces commander in an area is allowed to announce that the regulations [meaning regulations governing the management of local authorities], in whole or in part, will also be applied in the event that a local authority decides to impose its authority under the regulations to people who are found ‘adjacent to its defining borders.’ This [IDF] order will determine to which kind of people or over which land the regulations will be applied.”

In accordance with the section of the military order, on July 1, 1997 the local military commander signed an “announcement relating to imposing authority in certain places, such as Beit El.”

According to the announcement, “The regulations … will apply to the area adjacent to and contiguous with the defining borders of the Beit El local authority as was valid on the date this announcement was signed … The Beit El local authority will impose its authority, under the regulations, on people in the adjacent area as well.

“This announcement applies to residents of Israel, whomever lives in the area and is an Israeli citizen or is eligible to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return … who lives in the adjacent area.”

In this way, the municipal boundaries of Beit El were effectively expanded without any public announcements that might have generated domestic or international protest.

In 2009, the Supreme Planning Council, the top planning body in Judea and Samaria, in a procedural announcement, further stated that the chairman of the Supreme Planning Council is allowed to determine “that any area will be seen as part of the local authority if he sees it having a close link to the local authority’s jurisdiction.”

The spokesman for the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories refused to say which local authorities in the West Bank other than Beit El had been granted authority outside their jurisdictions under these regulations.

 

 

EDITOR: The Co-Op joins BDS, but stays short of full boycott

On Sunday, we heard that the Co-Op, a large European network of supermarkets, as joined the boycott of settlements products, but avoids a boycott of all other Israeli products. While the boycott of the settlements is very welcome, it is based on a deep misunderstanding of Israel, its society and politics.

The settlements were NOT a result of private enterprise, ever.  The settlers have been organised, armed and financed by the Israeli governments of left and right, ever since 1968. There is not a single mainstream Israeli politician who agreed to stop the illegal process, not to mention pulling them out, as required by international law. The settlements project is the largest such project – over 12% of Jewish Israelis live in the settlements, and Israel controls the life of all Palestinians by a system of racist “Jews only” roads, checkpoints, the 800 km Apartheid wall, house demolition, extrajudicial killings, the mass uprooting of trees, illegal land confiscation, and the re-rooting of water and other resources. This is NOT a project carried out by the settlers alone – the while Israeli society, with the support of the US, EU and other countries, is breaking international law by these activities, for nearly half a century. hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have joined the Nakba victims, being forced out of their land and houses. By refusing to boycott Israel itself, the Co-Op is avoiding this thorny issue.

Of course, in comparison to other companies in Europe, not to mention North America, the Co-Op is indeed being progressive and forthright, which we should recognise and support. The next stage, however, must be the mass boycott of Israel, if the Middle East conflict between the Zionist settler state and the indigenous population of Palestine is to ever be resolved in a peaceful and just manner. Israel will not stop this illegal effort to uproot ALL Palestinians from their land, and replace them with Jewish settlers, until the world, united, acts against this as it once did in the case of South African apartheid.

Co-op boycotts exports from Israel’s West Bank settlements: Observer

UK’s largest mutual takes lead among European supermarkets
Tracy McVeigh and Harriet Sherwood
The Observer, Sunday 29 April 2012
The Co-operative Group stresses that its move is not an Israeli boycott and that it will use other suppliers in the country that do not source from illegal settlements. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Observer
The Co-operative Group has become the first major European supermarket group to end trade with companies that export produce from illegal Israeli settlements.

The UK’s fifth biggest food retailer and its largest mutual business, the Co-op took the step as an extension of its existing policy which had been not to source produce from illegal settlements that have been built on Palestinian territories in the West bank.

Now the retail and insurance giant has taken it one step further by “no longer engaging with any supplier of produce known to be sourcing from the Israeli settlements”.

The decision will hit four companies and contracts worth some £350,000. But the Co-op stresses this is not an Israeli boycott and that its contracts will go to other companies inside Israel that can guarantee they don’t export from illegal settlements.

Welcoming the move, Palestinian human rights campaigners said it was the first time a supermarket anywhere in the west had taken such a position.

The Co-op’s decision will immediately affect four suppliers, Agrexco, Arava Export Growers, Adafresh and Mehadrin, Israel’s largest agricultural export company. Other companies may be affected by the policy.

Hilary Smith, Co-op member and Boycott Israel Network (BIN) agricultural trade campaign co-ordinator, said the Co-op “has taken the lead internationally in this historic decision to hold corporations to account for complicity in Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights We strongly urge other retailers to take similar action.”

A spokesperson for the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Work Committees, which works to improve the conditions of Palestinian agricultural communities, said: “Israeli agricultural export companies like Mehadrin profit from and are directly involved in the ongoing colonisation of occupied Palestinian land and theft of our water. Trade with such companies constitutes a major form of support for Israel’s apartheid regime over the Palestinian people, so we warmly welcome this principled decision by the Co-operative. The movement for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law is proving to be a truly effective form of action in support of Palestinian rights.”

Boycott campaigns against Israel are routinely denounced by Israeli officials as part of a drive to “delegitimise” the Jewish state. A law, passed last July, allows those that call for economic, cultural or academic boycotts against Israel, its institutions or areas under its control to be sued.

Major British supermarket chain announces boycott of produce made in West Bank settlements: Haaretz

Co-op, fifth biggest supermarket chain in Britain, emphasizes it will continue doing business with companies that can guarantee none of their products come from outside the Green Line.
By Anshel Pfeffer

One of the largest supermarket chains in Britain has announced that it intends to boycott Israeli agricultural exporters that market also produce from the West Bank settlements.
While British food retailers have for some years now been labeling products that are grown or manufactured in settlements and in some cases boycotting them entirely, this is the first move by a major company to end all dealings with companies that export products from within the Green Line and from the settlements. The main companies that will be impacted by this decision are Agrexco, Mehadrin and Arava.

The announcement came this weekend following years of campaigning by pro-Palestinian organizations in Britain that have been lobbying for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel. Co-op, the fifth biggest supermarket chain in Britain has emphasized that this is not a boycott of Israel and that it will continue doing business with companies that can guarantee none of their products originate from outside the Green Line.

The attempts to limit the export of settlement produce to Europe were led in the past by the European Union and the British government. In 2009, the British government, at the express instructions of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, issued guidelines to retailers on clear labeling of produce made in settlements, differentiating it from Palestinian produce and products that were made within the Green Line. These guidelines followed Israeli refusals to label settlement products before being exported to the EU. The issue of labeling settlement produce was a major bone of contention between the British and Israeli governments at the time.

In recent years, the BDS movement has targeted companies such as Agrexco, an export cooperative that serves thousands of farmers, kibbutzim and small agricultural companies in Israel that has continued to export settlement produce.

Hilary Smith, of the Boycott Israel Network welcomed the the Co-op’s decision saying that the chain “has taken the lead internationally in this historic decision to hold corporations to account for complicity in Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights. We strongly urge other retailers to follow suit and take similar action.”

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem responded saying that “it is a pity to see some, who ostensibly pretend to contribute to peace and reconciliation, advance a negative agenda of boycotts, inject an atmosphere of confrontation and widen the distance between the parties involved. It would be prudent to seek a more positive approach to conflict resolution.”

Israeli negotiation expert has NHS workshop cancelled after union protests: Guardian

Unison says it objects to lessons in conflict resolution by Professor Moty Cristal as it ‘supports the Palestinian people’
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
Children wave a Palestinian flag in the Gaza Strip – Unison said it was its official policy to support the people of Palestine. Photograph: Ali Ali/EPA
A National Health Service workshop due to be led by an Israeli expert on negotiation, conflict resolution and crisis intervention has been cancelled after union objections.

Professor Moty Cristal had been invited to lead a session for managers and union officials in Manchester next week, entitled The Role of Negotiation in Dealing With Conflict, run by the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. But on Friday he received an email from the workshop organisers cancelling the event after pressure from the trade union Unison.

The session was cancelled, said the email, “on the grounds that it is Unison’s policy and also that of the Trades Union Congress to support the Palestinian people”.

Cristal is chief executive of Nest Consulting, an Israeli firm that advises and trains companies and organisations in the private and public sectors in crisis management and complex negotiation. Its clients are based in Europe, the US, Russia and south-east Asia as well as Israel. Union-management relations are one of Cristal’s specialisms.

“I’m furious from a professional point of view and deeply disappointed from a national point of view,” he told the Guardian.

“I have always been perceived first and foremost as an expert, rather than an Israeli. But here people didn’t have the wisdom to look behind the Israeli flag to my professional contribution.”

It was ironic, he added, that in his lectures he stressed the “importance of having dialogue between people with different ideas. This is what conflict resolution is all about.” He and his company had worked with Palestinian and civil action organisations, he said.

A spokeswoman for Unison confirmed that its members had requested that Cristal’s invitation be withdrawn. The union’s policy was to support a boycott of goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank rather than “a direct boycott of all Israeli people”, she said.

But, she added, “we are supportive of people in Palestine. The trade union movement has a long history of international solidarity. Our members would find it difficult to be lectured in conflict resolution by someone from Israel.”

Unison members in Manchester were also concerned about the inappropriateness of the trust inviting a lecturer from abroad in a time of austerity, and objected to the notion that union-management relations within the trust needed “conflict resolution”, she said.

In a statement, the trust said: “Moty Cristal’s name was originally put forward by a third party organisation … subsequently, however, Unison representatives informed the [trust] that participation by its members would be in direct conflict with the union’s official policy stance. This position was corroborated by Unison’s full-time regional officer, at the trust’s request. Given the … likelihood that large numbers of staff would not attend, the [trust] took the decision to cancel the event.”

The move follows a decision at the weekend by the UK’s fifth biggest food retailer, the Co-operative Group, to end trade with companies that export produce from illegal Israeli settlements. It announced it would no longer be “engaging with any supplier of produce known to be sourcing from the Israeli settlements”. The decision will affect contracts worth around £350,000.

There is a distinction among campaigners between those who favour boycotting goods and services emanating from or associated with West Bank settlements, and those who argue for a more general boycott of Israeli produce and individuals such as visiting academics, artists and athletes.

Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry, said: “Boycotting someone because of their citizenship is tantamount to racism. It’s particularly ironic that Professor Cristal was supposed to participate in a workshop on conflict resolution. It looks like those who cancelled it are in urgent need of such training.”

EDITOR: To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question…

Israel’s argument in support of bombing Iran in order to stop it from producing a nuclear bomb has never made any sense, of course. The corollary would be to bomb Israel, because it already HAS nuclear weapons. Israel’s pair of demagogues, Netanyahu and Barak, both war criminals with pedigree, have spent a number of years working on this theme, with Israel’s massive propaganda machine serving this aim, as well as the full support of Israel’s smaller partner, the US… President Obama has become a senior official of the Israeli administration, despite having a full time job already, and has himself argued in line with his senior colleagues in the Israeli government.

But this neat plan started unraveling some weeks ago, reaching a screeching crescendo this week, with more and more voices in the Israeli public arena calling the plan nothing short of madness.For once, one is forced to agree with them. Two senior intelligence chiefs, the serving chief of Staff of the IOF, and many politicians are all lining up against this criminal madness prepared by Barak and Netanyahu, whi should instead be preparing their defense portfolios for the International Criminal Court, in the wake of the latest and ground-breaking indictment of the war criminal Taylor, last week.

No doubt, the growing furor about their insane plan of attack will not resrain them, as long as Obama and other western leaders are behind them, and these should likewise think of their own appearance before the ICC court… one wonders if this criminal folly can still go ahead, in the face of growing opposition inside Israel’s army and intelligence community; if only some of this opposition was voiced outside of Israel…

Ehud Barak restates case for military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme: Guardian

Israel’s defence minister dismissed criticism that political leaders were misleading the public over the consequences of action
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
Israel’s defence minister Ehud Barak speaks of the Iranian nuclear threat to the Foreign Press Association in a hotel in Jerusalem. Photograph: Jim Hollander/EPA
Israel’s defence minister Ehud Barak restated the case for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme before it reaches the “immunity zone”, dismissing criticism from the country’s former intelligence chief that political leaders were misleading the public over the consequences of action.

“I believe it is well understood in Washington, as well as in Jerusalem, that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,” Barak told a meeting of the Foreign Press Association.

But in a clear reference to former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin’s comments, he added: “Parts of the world, including some politically motivated Israeli figures, prefer to bury their heads in the sand.”

In an explosive speech to a community meeting on Friday, Diskin said he had no faith in Israel’s “messianic” political leaders to conduct a war. Barak and prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu were “not the people whom I would truly want to be at the helm when we set out on an endeavour of that sort.” He cited expert opinion that a military strike was likely to accelerate Iran’s programme.

Barak conceded that a military option “would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world.”

Defence officials believe that once Iran’s nuclear programme reaches what it terms the “zone of immunity”, the option of Israeli or US military action will be closed off. The zone was defined as the point when it would become impractical to “surgically attack” Iranian nuclear sites because of their number, location, degree of protection and the amount of uranium being enriched.

Because Israel’s military capability is more limited than that of the US, it has a greater sense of urgency. “For us, the clock is ticking faster,” said one official.

Other prominent Israeli political figures tried to tone down the impact of Diskin’s comments by countering the rhetoric from Barak and Netanyahu. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert told Israel’s Channel 10 that “there is no reason at this time not to talk about a military effort, but definitely not to initiate an Israeli military strike.”

And former military chief Gabi Ashkenazi told a conference in New York that economic sanctions needed to be given time to work. “I think we still have the time. [The time for action] is not tomorrow morning.”

Click here to continue reading “May 1, 2012″ »

EDITOR: French Jews are up to date with current developments…

It is good to read below that some French Jews have found it not only possible, but also necessary to support the Front National of Marine Le Pen. Well, they say, if she is against the Muslims, then it is good for the Jews! Perfect logic, isn’t it? What is even more impressive, are the hints that the CRIF is also supportive of their actions. This fits well with the many reports of the support of Euro fascism given to the Zionist state of Israel, as part of their crusade against Islam and Muslims in Europe. It is also good to know that in this round of the modern crusades, the Jews, at least in France and Israel, seem to be with the crusaders… There is no low which the deep hatred of Arabs and Muslims so carefully developed by Zionism, may not sink to. Soon the sons and daughters of Jewish refugees from Algeria and Morocco, where they never suffered what Jews in Europe suffered, are now preparing to fight against the human rights of their former co-citizens of the Maghreb! What could be more logical?… Trust Zionism to turn every misfortune into a catastrophe.

Amid elections, France’s Jews debate support of rightist Le Pen: Haaretz

On supporter says told by right-wing leader that it’s important that Jews participate in the National Front; Jewish journalist: Few Jews will vote for Le Pen.
By Shirli Sitbon
A few years ago, policeman Michel Thooris worked for the Jewish Crif, the umbrella organization for France’s Jewish groups, helping it fight anti-Semitism in the vigilance bureau. Now, he’s running for parliament for the National Front, yet he says there’s no contradiction between the two.

“I’m not going to share with you what Crif officials told me. But my belief is that it’s natural to turn to [Marine] Le Pen when you’re Jewish. She fights crime and Islamism and that means she defends Jews,” Thooris told Haaretz.

Not so long ago, the whole Jewish community condemned Le Pen supporters, such as Richard Sulzer who has long worked for the Le Pens. “He was a respected professor, but when he chose Le Pen, his wife left him,” said one Jewish community leader. Yet, Le Pen’s new supporters say their own situation isn’t as tough.

“People’s attitudes have changed because the National Front has changed,” said Thooris. “Marine Le Pen expressed her horror at the holocaust. Jews know that.”

Another Le Pen supporter Michel Ciardi, who created an association supporting Le Pen, said his family wasn’t as supportive.

“My children told me they don’t share my views, but I don’t share theirs either,” said Ciardi. He called his associations the French Jews Union, putting the word French first, unlike most Jewish groups.

“I created the association 6 months ago when I met with Le Pen,” Ciardi said. “I was invited to dine with her at a Jewish friend’s house and I was thrilled. She has so much ambition for our country. She told me that it’s important that we, Jews participate in the National Front.”

“We Jewish Le Pen supporters show the racist anti-Semitic National Front supporters that we belong in the party too. They must accept it,” he added.

Ciardi says his association, supported by another pro-Le Pen group Riposte Laique, has 150 members, but Jewish journalist Michel Zerbib who looked into the group says the group is an empty shell.

“I looked for people, but couldn’t find any. I think it’s an isolated initiative,” Said Zerbib, adding that he believed few Jews voted for Le Pen.

“It was absolutely no surprise that Le Pen got such a good score, but what did surprise me was that 7 or 8 percent of the Jews voted for her. It’s still a lot – but much less than the rest of the population – about a third.”

French poll institutes are not allowed to survey by communities. They can’t tell how many Jews, Muslims, Christians or foreigners voted for Le Pen, yet Jewish organisations came up with their own methods to tell what Jews vote.

“We take results in areas where there’s a big Jewish community, and analyse the figures. It’s not scientific but we realised that in Jewish neighbourhoods people voted much less for Le Pen,” said Zerbib, who has always refused to invite Le Pen to his station. “It may seem strange as journalists, but we also have a responsibility.”

The exact figures are difficult to know, but Michel Thooris himself admitted some people are still repelled by the extremist party.

“We run for Le Pen not for the National Front. It’s a way to catch some votes wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.” Like many Le Pen supporters, Thooris says he’s not certain to vote for Sarkozy in the runoff and hopes Sarkozy’s party would collapse after the election. “Hollande and Sarkozy are the same. They’re for Catherin Ashton’s Europe,” he added.

EDITOR: The right entrance to the Israeli Air force base

Blow you can read about a creative use of history – making the famous Arbeit Macht Frei wrought iron iconic gateway in Auschwitz, into the entry gate into an IAF base! Well, I say, why not? Now that Jews are so liberated, that they can stand in Parliamentary elections on the Nazi side against the Muslims of Europe (and elsewhere…) why not start using Nazi insignia? The next one to adopt, I think, Is Blut und Boden, and maybe also Lebensraum – all good healthy concepts which Zionism has been using in their Hebrew transliterations for some years. There may be some money owed to the Nazis on copyright, huh?

IDF soldiers erect replica of infamous Auschwitz sign for Holocaust Day: Haaretz

Israel Air Force base near Mitzpe Ramon reconstructs ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ sign as part of the base’s Holocaust Remembrance Day events.
By Ofer Aderet

Soldiers serving on an Israel Air Force base in southern Israel found an unusual and controversial way to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day last week, erecting a replica of the infamous Auschwitz “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign.

Alongside the replica, the soldiers at the IAF base near Mitzpe Ramon placed lines of barbed wire, mimicking the death camp’s fence. As part of the Holocaust Remembrance Day activities, the base was also visited by a Holocaust survivor who shared his story with the troops.

In a photo circulating among Facebook users, and which can be seen here, a soldier wearing an IAF uniform is seen standing next to the replica.

Testimonies of other IDF soldiers, which were passed on to Haaretz, indicate that this was not the first time in which educational officers, especially in the IAF, arranged Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremonies with the aid of unusual accessories.

In the past, one testimony claimed, one of the bases brought in an empty train car, meant to represent the trains which led the Jews to the death camps during the Holocaust.

The IDF Spokesman’s Unit said in response, “The sign was set up for a Holocaust Day ceremony on the base, and essentially served as the entrance to the base. The picture shows part of the ceremony’s set for Holocaust Remembrance Day, in the framework of educational activity to mark the day.”

“The set was taken down following the ceremony. Any attempt to take a certain part of the set and distort its meaning is baseless. Moreover, there was no intention at all to hurt the feelings of any of the participants in the ceremony.”

EDITOR: The Architects of Oslo notice that the building is somewhat faulty…

Good timing. It only took this couple 20 years to notice what the rest of us have understood in the 1990s. Of course, being responsible for this debacle, they took longer to notice…

Look beyond the Oslo accords, say architects of Middle East peace plan: Guardian

Former Israeli minister Yossi Beilin and ex-Palestinian PM Ahmed Qurei question usefulness of two-state plan they drew up
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem

Two of the architects of the Oslo accords, which were intended as the basis of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict almost 20 years ago, have radically changed their position following the long-term impasse between the two sides.

Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli minister who worked in secret on the accords before the historic signing ceremony at the White House in September 1993, has called on the Palestinians to dismantle their governing body, which was set up under Oslo, saying it had become a fig leaf and a farce.

Ahmed Qurei, the former Palestinian prime minister who was one of the key negotiators in the Oslo process, said the two-state solution was defunct, and the option of one single democratic state for both Israelis and Palestinians must now be considered.

Both men reflect a view held by many observers of the stalled peace process, that the window of opportunity to create a Palestinian state has closed or is about to close. The alternatives to two states, they say, are a continuation and entrenchment of the status quo, or one state which denies equality to a large and rapidly growing minority, or one binational state of equals which would no longer be Jewish in character.

Beilin, who served in the Israeli parliament for both Labour and the leftwing Meretz parties, wrote an open letter to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, this month urging him to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. The Oslo accords, he said, had become “a device that has allowed the parties to block a two-state solution”.

The agreement, which had been “a tremendous victory for the peace camps on both sides”, had been thwarted by its adversaries who did not want to advance two states for two peoples.

“I feel a responsibility,” he said. “I pushed for something in 1992.” But Oslo was intended to be an interim process, a “corridor” to a permanent agreement. “The extremists on both sides were very much against it until they learned that this idea might not be a corridor but a living room – and the most convenient living room in the world – to continue the settlements or not to divide the land. I feel the responsibility for the perpetuation of my corridor.

“No one thought the PA would be there for 20 years. It should have ended. So I find myself in a bizarre situation in which I am actually asking to put an end to it. But the bottom line is that, paradoxically, all those who cursed Oslo are now cherishing it.”

Despite pressure from Barack Obama, Abbas included a veiled threat to dissolve the PA in the final version of a letter delivered last week to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. If there was no breakthrough in peace talks, the letter said, the Palestinians would “seek the full and complete implementation of international law as it pertains to the powers and responsibilities of Israel as the occupying power in all of the occupied Palestinian territory”.

In other words, according to Beilin, they would “end the farce” and deny Netanyahu a “fig leaf” for the occupation. “It is implicit, but it is very clear,” he said.

Despite Beilin’s dismay at the long-term outcome of Oslo, he insisted the two-state solution was “in trouble but not dead”. A one-state outcome “is not an option because it means a Jewish minority dominating a Palestinian majority in a few years from now, and this is something that neither Israelis and for sure not the world will accept”. He added: “Or is it possible to have one state in which a Palestinian will be the prime minister or president? No, Israelis will not accept that.”

In contrast, Qurei said a two-state solution had been killed by Israel’s policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that a “one-state solution, despite the endless problems it embraces, is one of the solutions that we should be contemplating”.

In an article published in the Palestinian media, he wrote: “We must seriously think about closing [the book on] the two-state solution and turning over a new leaf.” A one-state solution would allow Palestinians “to expand our manoeuvring room and to continue [our] comprehensive diplomatic campaign to take [back] the basic rights of freedom, independence and human honour that we have been denied”.

Other prominent Palestinians have also recently espoused the idea of a one-state solution. Sari Nusseibeh, president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem and former advocate for a two-state solution, now argues for a Palestinian-Israeli federation between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean, rather than separation.

There is support – albeit limited – for the one-state idea among both Palestinians and Israelis, and from the right and left. Some rightwing pro-settler Israelis are in favour of annexing the West Bank and forcing Palestinians who stay to live under Israeli rule. Some on the left see a state in which an eventual majority of Palestinians have equal rights as their only chance for self-determination, even if it is at the expense of a Jewish homeland.

According to Beilin, there is another possible scenario, in which a rightwing Israeli government unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank to the separation barrier in a move comparable to the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. “It’s not totally unrealistic, but it will not happen tomorrow. The Palestinians would not accept it as a peace plan, but they will take whatever is given. If Israel says it is yours, what will they say?”

A trigger for this could be the point when the Palestinian population in Israel and the Palestinian territories outstrips the Jewish population. “Then the whole world will say now there is a minority of Jews dominating a majority of Palestinians, and the South African example will be raised again. Under such international pressure, someone like Netanyahu might take this decision. Like [Israel's withdrawal from] Gaza, the world will not love it but they will say it is better than the previous situation. And this would also be the reaction of somebody like myself. I will not love it but I will say at least Israel got out of 92% of the West Bank.”

 

EDITOR: Israel loses gas supply from Egypt!

Israeli pundits already called the Egyptian decision ‘financial suicide’, as if Israel is the only client for Egyptian gas, and the bizarre agreement, supplying Israel with gas at a loss to Egypt was a financial miracle…

This is the first substantial result of the Egyptian revolution of last year, and may point the way not just for Egyptian politicians, but also those of other Arab countries. Israel may never enjoy the centre stage again in the Arab world, and the days it could rely on the Arab autocracies may be over. This must have long term effect on the chances of the Palestinian struggle.

In an excellent piece by Akiva Eldar, he calls on Abbas to go for a popular uprising against Israeli occupation. This call is likely to go unheeded – Abbas is an apparachik of the Israeli-American partnership, and will never do what Palestine needs.

Egypt cancels natural gas deal with Israel: Haaretz

Egypt’s national gas company notifies EMG about cancelation; Israeli, Egyptian officials say move is due to business dispute and has nothing to do with Egypt-Israel diplomatic ties.
By Avi Bar-Eli     and Reuters
Egypt’s national gas company EGAS announced Sunday that it will be cancelling its natural gas supply deal with Israel.

Ampal-American Israel Corporation, a partner in the East Mediterranean Gas Company (EMG), which operates the pipeline, said the Egyptian companies involved had notified EMG they were “terminating the gas and purchase agreement.”

The company said in a statement that the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company had notified them of the decision, adding that “EMG considers the termination attempt unlawful and in bad faith, and consequently demanded its withdrawal.”

It said EMG, Ampal, and EMG’s other international shareholders were “considering their options and legal remedies as well as approaching the various governments.”

Sources close to EMG said in response, “Egypt does not understand what it is doing. This move will bring back the country – politically and economically – by 30 years. This is a breach of the peace agreement with Israel.”

Diplomatic officials in Jerusalem, however, said that the cancellation was done as a result of a business dispute.

“In talks between Israeli and Egyptian diplomatic officials, it was made clear that the cancellation of the deal was part of a business dispute between a private company and Egyptian government companies – a dispute that is currently found in legal proceedings abroad,” a diplomatic source said. “This has nothing to do with the diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt.”

Moreover, Mohamed Shoeb, the head of the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company, said the decision to cancel the deal was not political.

“This has nothing to do with anything outside of the commercial relations,” Shoeb told The Associated Press.

He said Israel has not paid for its gas in four months. Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor denied that.

Shoeb told Egyptian TV that the decision to cancel the contract was made Thursday because “each side has rights and we are representing our rights.”

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz’s office responded to the news on Sunday, saying that, the finance minister was “very worried” about the cancellation of the gas deal with Israel, “both in political and in economic terms,” and describing the cancellation as “a dangerous precedent” that threatens ties between Egypt and Israel.

Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz said also responded on Sunday that the cancellation was an unprecedented low point in relations between Egypt and Israel. “This is a blatant violation of the peace treaty,” he said. “This unilateral step requires an immediate American response,” as the U.S. was present at the signing of the Camp David Accords.

A deal was reached in 2005 between the Israeli and Egyptian governments as part of a political agreement according to which Cairo undertook to allocate 7 billion cubic meters (BCM) of Egyptian gas to the Israeli market for 20 years, with an option to double the supply.

Ampal, Israeli businessman Yossi Maimon’s company, controls 12.5% of EMG, which sells Egyptian gas to customers in Israel, primarily the Israel Electric Corporation. It exports the gas by means of a pipeline that runs through Sinai. That pipeline has been attacked more than 14 times since the popular uprising that ousted longtime Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.

Before the sabotage, Egypt supplied about 40 percent of Israel’s natural gas, which is the country’s main energy source.

Israeli officials have said the country was at risk of facing summer power outages due to energy shortages.

Companies invested in the Israeli-Egyptian venture have taken a hit from numerous explosions of the cross-border pipeline and are seeking compensation from the Egyptian government of billions of dollars.

Ampal and two other companies have sought $8 billion in damages from Egypt for not safeguarding their investment.

Robert Fisk: Counter-revolution – the next deadly chapter: Independent

ROBERT FISK    SATURDAY 21 APRIL 2012

It was my old Jordanian-Palestinian chum Rami Khouri who first spotted what is going on in the Middle East right now: it’s the counter-revolution. Bahrain is crushing dissent. Syria is crushing dissent. Mubarak’s former head of intelligence, the sinister Omar Suleiman, is standing for president in Egypt – the cancellation of his candidacy last week by a dodgy “electoral committee” may well be overturned. Libya is at war with itself. Yemen has got its former dictator’s sidekick back. Sixty-one dead in a battle between soldiers and al-Qa’ida last week – in a single day. All in all, a pretty mess.

But let me quote Khouri. “In Washington-speak, a ‘crisis’ is like love: you can define it any way you want, but you know when it happens to you. So a popular revolt in Bahrain for full civil rights is a crisis that must be crushed by force. But a revolt in Syria is a blessed event that deserves support. Similarly, this peculiar mindset warns against Iranian support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, while accepting as perfectly logical and legitimate for the US and its allies to send arms and money to their favourite rebel groups around the region – not to mention attacking entire countries…”

And there you have it. As Khouri notes, there’s now a new group called the “Security Cooperation Forum” linking the US with the Gulf Cooperation Council. La Clinton turned up to assure the oil states of Washington’s “rock solid and unwavering commitment” to the GCC. Now where have we heard that before? Why, isn’t that what Obama is always saying to the Israelis? And weren’t Bibi Netanyahu of Israel and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia the two guys who called Obama to ask him to save Mubarak?

And in Syria – where the Qataris and the Saudis are all too keen to send weapons for the rebels – things are not going very well for the revolution. After claiming for weeks a year ago that “armed bands” were attacking government forces, the bands now exist and are well and truly attacking Assad’s legions. For many tens of thousands who were prepared to demonstrate peacefully – albeit at the cost of their lives – this has become a disaster. Syrian friends of mine call it a “tragedy”. They blame the Gulf states for encouraging the armed uprising. “Our revolution was pure and clean and now it’s a war,” one of them said to me last week. I believe them.

And the violence is creeping ever closer to Lebanon. Last week’s killing of TV cameraman Ali Shabaan has shocked the normally unflappable Lebanese, with even the pro-Syrian Hezbollah condemning his death – like the Hezbollah, of course, Shabaan was a Shia – and citizens of Lebanon have noted that while Syrian troops were on their border, Lebanese troops, at the time of the shooting, were nowhere to be seen. Pro-Syrian MPs in the Lebanese parliament have even blamed their own security authorities for Shabaan’s death.

I suppose it’s a rueful observation to make, but some of the early revolutions in the Arab world did not exactly go according to plan. A few days ago, the Algerians celebrated the 50th anniversary of their victory over the French. French television showed major documentaries on the fearful struggle which cost the lives of at least half a million people, films which could be seen in Algeria. But what have the Arabs got for their titanic battles? A pseudo-dictator and a corrupt elite, a shameful unemployment figure and enough oil to make Algeria rival Saudi Arabia – if the revolution had worked, that is.

Nasser’s revolution wasn’t exactly a roaring success – maybe Nasser was in personal terms, but he and his successors were awful, running Egypt as if it was their personal property, taking Egypt into two bloody wars against Israel. Now there are signs that Iraq may be helping Syrian rebels – just as it did under Saddam’s rule, when he and President Bashar al-Assad’s father Hafez loathed each other. And now Sunni militants inside Iraq have declared war on Iran – now that there are no more Americans to attack.

If this seems a pessimistic horizon, then so be it. I suspect that the Arab Awakening will still be going on after we’ve all died of old age. But eventually, I think, there will be real freedoms in the Middle East, yes, and dignity for all its peoples, and an astonishment among the next generation that their fathers and grandfathers tolerated dictators for so long. And they will ask what happened to missing fathers and grandfathers.

I say this because a brave group of women gather every day in Beirut to remember their loved ones – all men, Lebanese and Palestinian – who were taken from their homes or from the street during the long years of Syrian rule in Lebanon. Many who made the dismal journey to Damascus were offered false hope by middlemen wanting bribes but have kept their faith intact. The Lebanese daily L’Orient-Le Jour carries a weekly column on each missing man.

Samia Abdullah is waiting for her brother Imad, a 20-year-old Fatah fighter who disappeared in 1984. Fatme Zayat wants her sons back; they have been missing for 27 years. Afife Abdullah is looking for seven members of her family. Adele Said el-Hajj waits for her son, Ali, who was arrested by the Syrians in 1989. That’s 23 years. The Lebanese civil war ended in 1990. Thousands are still missing. Last month marked the 37th anniversary of its beginning. Some Lebanese at the time even claimed it was a revolution.

The Israeli government’s badge of shame: Haaretz Editorial

If Netanyahu feels he lacks the political power to obey the High Court’s directives he must dissolve the government and demand an electoral mandate for its peace and settlement policies.

The behavior of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most of his ministers with regard to Beit El’s Givat Ha’ulpana neighborhood recalls that of a career criminal who is undaunted by condemnation or punishment.

Despite the harsh response from the High Court of Justice, led by Supreme Court President Asher Grunis, to the government’s request to postpone yet again the evacuation of the Migron outpost, Netanyahu has told Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to “find a solution” that would allow the state to violate its promise to the court to demolish Givat Ha’ulpana’s buildings by the end of the month.

As with the recent case of the so-called Machpelah House in Hebron, which settlers moved into without the necessary permits, our elected officials are competing with each other in attacking Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who dares to try to meet the state’s commitment to the nation’s highest court.

A year ago Netanyahu himself signed off on the state’s promise to evacuate the dozens of families living in Givat Ha’ulpana and demolish their homes. He now says the court order is “a decree the public cannot tolerate.” The prime minister should now explain to the Palestinian public how it is supposed to tolerate the theft of its land and to the Israeli public how it is supposed to tolerate the repeated lawbreaking in the territories for as long as it serves the interests of the settlers.

The size of Givat Ha’ulpana and the duration of its residents’ use of the private Palestinian land on which it was built, with state support, are not mitigating circumstances but rather a badge of shame for the rule of law. The government’s repeated postponements of its legal, moral and international obligations to evacuate the illegal outposts – particularly those built on privately owned Palestinian land – is no substitute for good policy.

If Netanyahu feels he lacks the political power to obey the High Court’s directives he must dissolve the government and demand an electoral mandate for its peace and settlement policies. One can only hope that the public will shake off its apathy and cry out against stealing land from the helpless, breaking the law and spitting in the face of the justice system.

Time for Abbas to take to the streets: Haaretz

If our founding generation had waited in the offices of the ‘Israeli Authority’ until the British would graciously agree to leave, we would not be celebrating 64 years of independence.
By Akiva Eldar
The crisis over Beit El’s Ulpana Hill neighborhood and Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner’s attack on a Danish protester have something in common. Both controversies reveal the Israeli government’s weak spot. Both demonstrate that the Jewish mind has not succeeded in inventing a magic glue that can fuse occupation and settlements to human rights and democracy.

The settlers know how to steal the lands of Palestinian farmers. But the mighty who lord it over the weak are helpless against “settlement detectives” like Dror Etkes (formerly of Peace Now ) and Hagit Ofran (currently of Peace Now ), who reveal the crimes of the settlers, their military partners and their political admirers. A state whose legal system would validate the wrongdoing at Beit El and aid in purifying Migron cannot call itself a democratic, law-abiding country.

They say the Israel Air Force can carry out a pinpoint strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, yet the Israel Defense Forces loses its cool when confronted by a small group of bicyclists armed solely with cameras. The Shin Bet security service knows how to locate terrorists and assassinate them, but has no clue how to cope with nonviolent civil disobedience.

During the first intifada, one man who preached nonviolent resistance to the occupation drove the Israeli government crazy. That man, Dr. Mubarak Awad, condemned violence and organized tax strikes, demonstrations and tree-plantings on land the settlers had stolen from Palestinians. Then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres decided to deport Awad on grounds that he was a provocateur. The Awad case reached the White House and put the occupation in the headlines worldwide.

At the height of the Arab Spring, Awad spoke to me by phone from his office at American University in Washington, where he gives workshops on nonviolence. He said the right way to end the occupation would be a nonviolent civil revolt by the Palestinians that would make Israelis’ lives so difficult that they would demand their government reach a peace settlement. “The key to change is in the hands of the oppressed, not in the hands of the oppressor,” said the exiled psychologist.

The Israeli government has so far been lucky that the government of the oppressed in Ramallah, rather than press for change, has preferred to maintain grand homes, new cars and positions that help their family businesses.

The chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, who calls himself “president,” runs hither and yon in his suit and tie, expecting the world to do his dirty work for him. He comes home with a sackful of promises, and perhaps some donations (on a good day ), until the next takeoff, or the next whiny interview with a local newspaper.

In September he’ll go back to the United Nations. Oh, sorry, I meant December. U.S. President Barack Obama swore to him that if he would agree to postpone his request to the United Nations to recognize Palestine until after the American elections, during his next term in the White House everything would be different.

Meanwhile, Abbas flies to Cairo to advance the reconciliation with Hamas and set up a unity government – if not today, then for sure tomorrow. He also sent Saeb Erekat to Jerusalem with a belligerent letter for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the picture distributed by the Government Press Office, we could see exactly how distressed Netanyahu was by the Palestinian threat to return to the United Nations. Another letter like that and Meretz will surely take over the government.

Eisner was removed from his post because there was no choice, and Ulpana Hill may yet be vacated, but Palestinian laborers will continue to ask the Civil Administration for permits to build the settlements. The Israelis say to themselves, perhaps justifiably, that if the Palestinians had it so bad they would turn Manara Square in Ramallah into Tahrir Square. We’ve seen that Arabs know how to fight for their rights. If Abbas was really so fed up he would replace his tie with a kaffiyeh and lead the masses in a protest march.

The Oslo Accords have turned the Palestine Liberation Organization into the mechanism for maintaining the Israeli occupation. It’s about time the Oslo generation of Palestinians admits the failure of the diplomatic option, hangs up its suits, weans itself from the pathetic honor it has accorded itself, and takes to the streets.

If our founding generation had waited in the offices of the “Israeli Authority” until the British would graciously agree to leave, we would not be celebrating 64 years of independence.

 

EDITOR: The brute is much more brutal than we knew

If you thought the brutal treatment of the Danish protester by the crazed Lt Colonel Eisner, which came out a week ago, was bad enough, think again. A video clip showing the same maniac beating up FIVE different people was just published…

Every time one thinks that we have seen the depth Israel has sunk to, they manage to prove us wrong.

WATCH: New video shows shamed IDF officer struck several left-wing activists: Haaretz

In clip taken by Palestinian TV, and released by left-wing NGO B’Tselem, Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner seen beating protesters without clear provocation.

By Gili Cohen

Days after Israel Defense Forces chief Benny Gantz opted to dismiss Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner for striking a foreign left-wing protester, new video evidence released by an Israeli NGO pertains to prove the Israeli officer employed brute force unprovoked.

According to a statement, which was attached to the Palestinian television clip, by B’Tselem, Eisner is seen striking five different pro-Palestinian protesters in last Saturday’s incident.

In addition, and in an apparent contrast to Eisner’s own contention, there seem to be no signs of violence from the protesters toward IDF troops in general, or Eisner in particular.

On Wednesday, Gantz chose to dismiss Eisner, who was filmed over the weekend hitting a Danish protester with his rifle butt in the Jordan Valley after the recommendations of GOC Central Command Nitzan Alon and Sami Turgeman, commander of the IDF’s ground forces, on the grounds that the attack was a “moral failure.”

Gantz said that an investigation into the incident revealed operational failures in the preparation of IDF soldiers for the protest bike ride in which the activist took part as well as in the soldiers’ handling of the confrontation that erupted.

Eisner, who was due to receive the rank of colonel, will be transferred to a senior staff position and will be barred from carrying out any command position in the IDF in the next two years. As of 2014, Eisner will be able to return to a command position, should he fulfill the necessary requirements.

Violent IDF officer provides snapshot of Israeli society: Haaretz

Following the disturbances on the soccer pitch, the league championship action was canceled this weekend. Eisner’s violence will stop nothing, except for slightly sidetracking his career.
By Gideon Levy
Once in a while, the Israeli occupation provides some instances of comic relief to break the monotony of desperation. Funny to the point of tears is the roundish and unkempt figure of Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, limping on his way for “medical treatment,” complaining of pains, showing the cameras his bandaged pinky and his arm hanging from a brace as if it were some serious orthopedic injury. No less amusing is the claim that demonstrators broke the deputy brigade commander’s pinky. It’s also amusing to hear one of the settler leaders say the demonstrators blocked off traffic on the “Dan-Eilat highway.”

It’s funny to hear Eisner admit that it’s possible he “committed a professional error in judgment, using my weapon in front of the cameras,” and that his actions were “in order to carry out my duty and to protect my soldiers.” It’s also funny to hear the director of the IDF’s public relations branch, Roni Daniel, warn that following this incident, “People will not want to become officers in the IDF” (as if it wouldn’t have been better if people like Eisner weren’t officers in the IDF ). And it’s no less ridiculous to hear the Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, say Eisner’s actions “run contrary to IDF values” – as if IDF officers and soldiers don’t behave in exactly the same way every day in the territories, just not usually on camera.

Indeed, even the excessive storm that the blow with the rifle butt gave rise to is funny. After all, what happened? There were cameras.

A blow with the butt of a rifle? Late last week, B’Tselem published another video clip captured by Palestinian TV near the bicycle protest: Eisner is seen walking and striking nearly everything that moves with his weapon, as if he was some nightclub bouncer. Five demonstrators tasted the butt of his weapon, from the front and the back. The video also exposes the “violence” of the demonstrators and their “threat” to the soldiers: one of them began pedaling on his bike.

This section of the video was broadcast Friday night in symbolic proximity to a report on violent incidents in soccer stadiums. The behavior of the hooligans and players in the stadiums was not much different to that of Eisner. Between the IDF on the one hand, and Bnei Lod and Hapoel Ramat Gan on the other, you will find few differences. Following the disturbances on the soccer pitch, the league championship action was canceled this weekend. Eisner’s violence will stop nothing, except for slightly sidetracking his career.

But once the brief comic relief is over, the depressing reality returns and strikes you full in the face. It’s now clear that Eisner’s action was not a momentary outburst. The thought that an officer like Eisner was to preside as deputy commander of the Officers’ Training school (had it not been for the accident with the cameras ) should be a cause for concern – first and foremost to the IDF itself.

Above all, the Eisner case provides a telling snapshot of Israeli society. Immediately following the release of the video, it reacted in line with its typical parameters: the right instantly crowned Eisner a national hero; the remainder of the left expressed shock; and the vast majority of the public, presumably, thought Eisner was wronged. It is hard to imagine why.

The basic human instinct of any person, on the right or the left, should have led him to respond in shock at seeing the scenes of an officer brutally striking a demonstrator armed with only a bicycle. The basic instinct of someone who supports democracy should also be the same. What is right or left in this case? Why is the right not shocked by the behavior of a thug? Why has Eisner become its hero? If blows against Arabs mean nothing because they are not perceived as human, and striking a blow to the face of a fair-haired young Dane stirs none of the required human response, then something very sick is going on.

True, the political brainwashing machine has imposed on us in recent years (also through the media ) the assumption that a peace activist is a terrorist, that every volunteer in the territories is an anarchist, and that everyone who is critical is anti-Semitic. Nonetheless, I suspect that the people want violence – and the more the better against everyone who does not fall into line.

The end of this affair is clear and depressing: Col. Eisner will be compensated for the “wrong” he has suffered, either in the IDF or elsewhere; the hostility (and violence ) of officers and soldiers in the IDF – which is directed against demonstrators and, especially, cameramen – will be increased even more; and the public will stick to its belief that the IDF is the most ethical army in the world.

Israel, Iran, nuclear weapons and a Shakespearean invitation: Guardian letters

Friday 20 April 2012 20.59 BST

Amid all the talk of Iran is aiming to equip itself with nuclear weapons (Report, 14 April), it seems too often ignored that the one Middle East country that indisputably has nuclear weapons is Israel. The person who, in 1986, produced the conclusive evidence for Israel having these weapons was Mordechai Vanunu. For this “crime” he has suffered 26 years loss of freedom: 18 years in prison – 12 of these in solitary confinement – followed by eight years of being forced to live in Israel against his wishes, under stringent limitations on his freedom of movement, speech and association. If an Iranian scientist came forward with firm evidence that Iran was secretly equipping itself with nuclear weapons this would be regarded as a brave act worthy of praise not punishment; surely Mordechai’s identical action in relation to Israel’s nuclear weapons should be regarded in a similar light? Today, 21 April, is the eighth anniversary of Mordechai’s release from prison, when the annual restrictions on his freedom come up for renewal. We call for these restrictions to be lifted and for him to be allowed to leave Israel. We also call for negotiations to be initiated towards achieving a nuclear free Middle East, negotiations which must include Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Ben Birnberg, Julie Christie, Bruce Kent
Campaign for a Nuclear Free Middle East
Lord Eric Avebury
Steve Bell
Jim Boumelha President, International Federation of Journalists
Victoria Brittain
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Maggie Hambling
Mike Hancock MP
Jeremy Hardy
Roger Lloyd-Pack
Caroline Lucas MP
Michael Mansfield
Miriam Margolyes
Kika Markham
Michael Randle
Venessa Redgrave
Michael Rosen
Michelle Stanistreet General secretary, NUJ
Alexie Sayle
Mark Swerotka General secretary, PCS union
Benjamin Zephaniah

• We notice with dismay that dozens of prominent members of the UK theatre and film industry are calling for a boycott of Israel’s national theatre, Habima, in London’s Globe to Globe festival, on the grounds that Habima have performed in established cultural halls in two large Israeli settlements (Letters, 30 March). It is widely accepted that any peace accord is likely to result in the larger settlement blocs, on land close to the 1967 line, becoming part of Israel, through a process of land swaps; a concept that has already been endorsed and reiterated by international leaders.

In any case, Habima’s cultural contribution to the festival ought to be celebrated and enjoyed away from the politics of the region. We commend the Globe’s management for honouring the invitation to Habima. They rightly state that “Habima are the most well-known and respected Hebrew-language theatre company in the world, and are a natural choice to any programmer wishing to host a dramatic production in Hebrew.”

We oppose any boycott of Israel. This sort of activity gives a green light to those who wish to promote the delegitimisation of Israel. It does nothing to help the Middle East peace process which will be solved when leaders on both sides can reach agreement on a two-state solution. It is unfortunate, due to the seriousness of the accusations levied against this non-government affiliated theatre group, that crucial facts have been overlooked. We call on the signatories of the letter to withdraw their remarks and become part of a more constructive debate on the future of the peace process.
John Whittingdale MP Chairman, Commons culture, media and sport select committee, Louise Mensch MP, Philip Davies MP, Damian Collins MP Members, CMS committee

EU condemns eviction of Arab family from East Jerusalem home: Haaretz

An East Jerusalem Palestinian family was evicted from its home in Beit Hanina , which a court ruled had been purchased by Jews in the 1970s.
By Nir Hasson
The European Union has condemned an Israeli eviction of an Arab family in east Jerusalem.

On Wednesday, an East Jerusalem Palestinian family was evicted from its home that a court ruled had been purchased by Jews in the 1970s. The eviction, carried out by the Bailiff’s Office with police back-up, gave Jewish residents complete control of three homes in the Beit Hanina neighborhood, paving the way for the first Jewish residential presence in the area. Israeli police evicted a family from a home in the Palestinian neighborhood of

Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said the property belonged to Jewish owners.

The European Union missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah issued a joint statement Saturday announcing they “are deeply concerned by the plans to build a new settlement in the midst of this traditional Palestinian neighborhood.”

Arieh King, who directs an organization that buys land for Jews in east Jerusalem, said Wednesday that about ten Israelis moved into the home. He has announced plans to take possession of other sites in Beit Hanina and the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which would mean further evictions of Palestinians.

 

EDITOR: Israel proves its brutality, again

The 15th of April was an international action day on Palestine. Thousands of activists were planning to fly in for peaceful protest; Israel has acted illegally to deny them entry, cnacelling their flights on many airlones, whether it had information about them and their intention or not. In most cases, it had no such information, and many of those denied flights were not even activists, includinga French diplomat with his wife whose flkight was also cancelled…

In the Jordan valley, a mad, wild officer, Shaul Eisner, ended up attackinga a group of cyclists ona peaceful protest ride, brutally assaulting a young Danish protester without any provocation, as can easily be seen from the YouTube video. For those who were still entertainig any doubts about Israeli methods, some viewing is hardly reccommended… In hindsight, this war criminal regrets doing it when cameras were present.

While they can attack protesters and stop them entering Israel, they cannot stop the protest with their brutal methods. This event has just added to the numbers of those opposed to Israeli britalities against Palestinians and all others who support their rights. Only those without an argument are using ruthless attacks against civilians, as Israel has done now for many decades. They are losing the public arena with these methods of suppression and denial.

IDF officer says regrets beating activist ‘in front of cameras’: Haaretz

IDF Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner, who was filmed over the weekend hitting a Danish protester with his rifle butt in the Jordan Valley, personally responded to allegations against him on Tuesday.

Eisner, who was suspended from duties following the incident, said that “it could have been a professional mistake to use a weapon in front of the cameras,” he told Channel 10. The televised report also showed a document indicating he had broken his finger.

Video footage posted on YouTube showed Eisner, deputy commander of the IDF’s Jordan Valley brigade, striking Danish activist Andreas Ias in the face with an M-16 rifle during a cycle rally near Jericho in the West Bank.

“It was a two minute confrontation,” he said,” so yes, it’s true that some pictures look bad, but I used a weapon… in a cold manner, as a stick. I didn’t kill anyone and I did not put anyone’s life in danger.” He added that he believes that thanks to his actions the protesters called off the demonstration.

Ias, the Danish activist that was hit in the face, said on Monday that the officer’s claim that the activists were violent is a fabrication. Also on Monday, the Danish ambassador asked Israel to explain the officer’s assault on Ias.

“These stories do not interest the Chief of Staff or my Front Commander,” Eisner added on Tuesday. He admitted there are “a few questions,” yet maintained that he “does not accept this as a moral failure in any way.” “We know the history of these anarchists,” he said, “they came with sticks and broke my hand – but no one will tell or film that.”

“There is a question here of what is more important – to carry out the mission or to look good (in pictures). I claim the mission is important enough,” Eisner said. He added: “What if they would film IDF soldiers backing down from an angry crowd? That sounds good? What, I’d let them block roads? I’d let them endanger lives?”

President Shimon Peres on Monday said he was “shocked” by the incident, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday condemned the incident, which was seen in a film posted on YouTube earlier Sunday.

“Such behavior does not characterize IDF soldiers and officers and has no place in the Israel Defense Forces and in the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

On Tuesday, a few dozen demonstrators headed by National Union MK Michael Ben Ari gathered in front of the Kirya Defense Ministry complex to show support for Eisner. They called on the IDF to award him a medal for his conduct.

Israel blocks entry to first pro-Palestinian ‘fly-in’ activists; hundreds more expected: Haaretz

650 policemen stationed at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv in anticipation of hundreds of activists due to arrive as part of ‘Welcome to Palestine’ event.

About 30 pro-Palestinian activists were held by security forces at Ben-Gurion Airport after arriving on a flight from Paris on Sunday, ahead of what Israel Police estimates will be hundreds of activists and protesters due to arrive as part of the “Welcome to Palestine” fly-in protest.

All in all, 30 activists were detained by security forces at Ben-Gurion Airport, with 27 still in questioning, after three were allowed entry into Israel.

Three of those detained were subsequently released and allowed entry into the country, while the fourth remained in questioning.

Speaking to reporters, the commander of the forces deployed at the airport Bentzi Sau said that, “as of right now, most of the activists were kept in their home countries, according to the airlines’ decision.”

“In the last hour we detected about 20 activists who have been barred entry and are in questioning. At first, we estimated that about 1,200 activists will arrive, but that number has been reduced significantly as a result of several actions,” Sau added.

The top Israel Police officer said that those who do not accept the Interior Ministry’s offer to return to their country of origin will be transferred to the Israel Prison Services for processing,” adding that “most of the flights suspected of carrying activists are due to land between 2 and 5 P.M.”

650 policemen were stationed at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv ahead in preparation for the mass event.

The activists were planning to arrive in Israel to participate in a protest against West Bank settlement construction that was scheduled to take place on Sunday. Last July, a similar “fly-in” took place, with more than 300 international activists arriving in Israel. Of those activists, 120 were detained.

On Saturday, the spokesman for the “Welcome to Palestine” protest told Haaretz that more than 60 percent of the 1,500 pro-Palestinian activists due to arrive in Israel on Sunday have received notifications from airlines that their flights were canceled.

Among the airlines that notified the activists of flight cancelations were Lufthansa, Air France and Easyjet, Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Bethlehem-based spokesman for the protest said, adding that the activists are threatening to take legal action against the airlines.

“Israel passed lists of hundreds of activists to companies, along with a letter in which it claimed that they were coming to carry out a provocation and disturb the peace, and this is just not true. It is very unfortunate that these companies bowed to Israeli pressure,” said Qumsiyeh, who added that he has no doubt that some of the activists and Palestinian organizations – including his own – will pursue legal action against the companies.

According to the spokesman, hundreds of activists will manage to board flights to Israel’s Ben-Gurion airport, and declare their intention to travel on to the West Bank upon their arrival.

Dozens of Israeli activisits are due to await the arrival of the fly-in protesters at the airport. In a notice published on Saturday, Israeli activists said they will await for the fly-in protesters with “welcome signs” and “open arms.”

Dozens of pro-Palestinian activists were prevented from boarding Israel-bound flights on Friday, due to the fact that their names appeared on the blacklist distributed by the Israeli government to a number of European airlines.

Police are planning to intercept participants in the “Welcome to Palestine” actions at the airport and prevent their entry into the country. Hundreds of police officers are expected to be stationed at the airport ahead of their arrival, most of them unarmed and clothed in civilian dress.

Israel’s leaders incite the public against peace activists: Haaretz Editorial

Use of violence against peace activists is not an image problem that can be swept aside with a suspension and denunciation.

From time to time the news media or human rights groups film an Israeli in uniform using excessive force against human rights or peace activists protesting the wrongs of the occupation.

This week it was the turn of IDF Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, deputy commander of the Jordan Valley Brigade, to be caught by the camera, in this case striking a helpless Danish national in the face with an M-16 rifle. Following the event’s widespread coverage, the officer was widely criticized by the public – not for using excessive force, but for granting human rights groups a photo op serving their interests. He also ruined the celebrations over the successful operation that prevented human rights activists from entering Israel and the territories via Ben Gurion International Airport (and grounded several people who had nothing to do with the fly-in ).

In an effort to minimize the damage to Israel’s image, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz swiftly suspended Eisner while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hastened to denounce the offending officer’s misdeed.

Such reactions are necessary, but certainly not sufficient. Use of violence against peace activists is not an image problem that can be swept aside with a suspension and denunciation. A political and military leadership that incites the public against peace and human rights activists bears responsibility for the conduct of hot-tempered officers like Eisner.

When the prime minister and foreign minister label left-wingers “anarchists,” “provocateurs” and even “terror supporters,” they are sanctioning attacks on civilians implementing the right to protest.

Instead of using, even by implication, the Damascus regime’s conduct toward its opposition as a yardstick for the expected behavior of the Israel Defense Forces, the prime minister should memorize the verdict Jerusalem Magistrate Judge Haim Li-Ran handed down in a recent hearing over the request to arrest Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity activists in Jerusalem.

“The right to demonstrate or express an opinion is deeply rooted in the foundations of democratic government. … Thousands of human beings have paid and are paying with their lives on its altar,” the judge said.

His words are doubly true when it comes to the right to demonstrate against the wrongs of occupation and to get home in one piece.