GV Menace » Israel Palestine Blogs

« Expand/Collapse

Israel Palestine Blogs (24 unread)

March 20, 2010
13:59
Times watch
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

There’s a disappointing story in the New York Times today about that fatal rocket attack on Israel yesterday. It plays pretty big, on page three.
In the first paragraph we are informed that the rocket was fired from “Hamas-controlled” territory.
It isn’t till we reach the fifth or sixth paragraph that …
March 19, 2010
23:33
NPR, Settlements, and Objective American Journalism
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

OK I need to get this off my chest. So I’m listening to NPR the other day on my way back from Yousuf’s school (note to self: don’t listen to NPR’s coverage of the Middle East, even when there is nothing else on).

They had a piece on on the “settlement row” in Occupied East Jerusalem, as though this were suddenly some new issue that is threatening to “derail efforts to get back on track” (what track? and where is it headed? the train analogies never cease).

Their reporter in Jerusalem, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, then proceeds to take us with her on a journey to the settlement colony in question, and describes it as a “tranquil” place on a lovely hilltop, the settlers as simply facing a “housing crunch”. She then goes on to speak to a calm, American-accented settler who says he is oblivious to all that’s going on around him, that it really doesn’t matter, they just want to be able to accommodate the increasing numbers of Orthodox Jews in their “neighborhood”. By contrast, she says, in the West Bank there is “violence” again as “angry” protesters take to the streets hurling stones. We aren’t told why. We don’t get a chance to hear from any of them. The next day, the NPR anchor sums up the developments in one sentence: “more violence in the Middle East”.

I was seething listening to this piece, more than usual, and immediately Joe Sacco’s words about “objectivity as practiced in American journalism” being unhelpful, non-educational, unfair came to mind. If I was an “average Joe” (what happened to him?) my take-away from this piece would be: Those angry violent Palestinians, always up in arms about something. So violent. Those poor calm settlers who just want to live in peace and expand out of their cramped quarters.

I would not learn that in fact the settlements are illegal by international law and they they will create an uninterrupted stretch of Jewish-only housing and amenities between the eastern sector of the city and two West Bank settlement blocs.

I would be given no context as to why the settlements are strategically located on hilltops nor of the assaulted lives of occupied Palestinians ghettoized around them.

That the Palestinians in East Jerusalem have extreme difficulty obtaining building permits from Israeli authorities; that after a few years of being away from the city-for studying for example abroad, their residency permits are yanked and they are no longer considered city residents; have no rights to live there.

That up to 25% of housing units in Israeli settlements are actually empty.

That the unlawful appropriation of Palestinian land for Israeli settlements and “bypass” roads connecting the settlements, and of crucial resources such as water, has had a devastating impact on the local Palestinian population.

That the settlements are funded by the Israeli government, and by American taxpayers; that colonists who choose to live there are given housing subsidies.

But what does it matter to NPR? After all, we got a supposedly “objective” report, and that’s the important thing. Hmm.
16:17
Petraeus & Me (a non-story)
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Normal.dotm
0
0
1
324
1848
harvard
15
3
2269
12.0

0
false
18 pt
18 pt
0
0
false
false
false

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last
week, U.S. CentCom commander General David Petraeus made the obvious
point that the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a strategic
problem for the United States. Among
other things, he said "the conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a
perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian
question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments
and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the
Arab world."

Numerous scholarly studies and government panels-including
the 9/11 Commission and the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Public
Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World-have reached similar conclusions. It doesn’t mean the U.S. should sever
its ties with Israel, of course, and Petraeus never suggested that it did. But that didn’t stop Abe Foxman, reality-denying head of
the Anti-Defamation League, from misrepresenting and denouncing Petraeus’
remarks, without offering a shred of evidence to show that Petraeus was wrong.

Meanwhile, a few bloggers have discovered that I was a
member of the committee that supervised Petraeus’ 1987 doctoral dissertation on
the U.S. army and counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Before anyone tries to concoct a Glenn Beck style guilt-by-assocation
theory linking Petraeus and me, here’s the skinny:

I knew Petraeus when he was a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and I
was a young Assistant Professor there. His original dissertation
committee members were Professors Richard Ullman and Barry Posen, but Posen left Princeton for MIT before the
thesis was completed and I was asked to step in and serve as second
reader. Petraeus and I had a
number of conversations about his work as he wrapped it up and I hope I gave
him good advice, but that was the extent of my involvement in his education.

I’ve had no contact with General Petraeus in over twenty years. He did visit the Kennedy School last
April, but I was unable to attend his talk. In any case, he hardly needed my help to reach the
conclusions he offered the Armed Services Committee. All you need for that is an open mind.
3:53
Israel’s Concession to Obama on Settlements: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)
In a rather strange and striking parallel, the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl, writing on behalf of the Netanyahu government, has inadvertently likened settlement building to the “love that dare not speak its name” (homosexuality). Both apparently bring shame in certain quarters.

Diehl reports that Bibi Netanyahu, cognizant of his missteps with the Obama administration over the past week or so, has thrown a few sops to the angry Americans. Among them is this one which would make me laugh my head off if it wasn’t so friggin’ sad:

Coupled to that would be an Israeli pledge to avoid publicizing further construction decisions in Jerusalem. The result would not be a freeze, but something like a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for settlements.

As in “what you don’t know won’t hurt you?” But the problem is that Obama will know because there are Israeli NGOs like Peace Now and Ir Amin that record every planning approval and housing start for new settlements. This is a piece of garbage that should insult Obama. What do the Israelis take Obama for? Do they think American opposition to settlements is something cosmetic that can be papered over with such narischkeit?? Even Diehl has the good sense to write:

It’s not clear whether Obama will accept such a fudge

“Fudge” indeed. I can think of other more colorful words for it. But the fact that a Jewish fundamentalist government (remember homosexuality is banned in the Bible) is likening settlements to being gay without even realizing it is doing so tickles me. If I was gay I’d be angry beyond belief to have my sexual orientation yoked to such a nasty habit (settlement building, that is).

The other sad thing about this charade is that Bibi actually has the gall to call this proposal a “confidence building measure.” He really believes attempting to build settlements in secret will improve U.S.-Israel relations. One of my readers, Shirin, likes to call such Israeli attitudes narcissistic in the extreme. I agree with her. Israeli leaders only think about how they can manipulate American presidents into getting what they want. Don’t ask, don’t tell in a settlement context is pure manipulation.

Related posts:
1. Obama Tightens Noose Around Settlements Helene Cooper writes another extraordinary report about the Obama administration’s…
2. Israel, in Concession to Goldstone, Disciplines 2 Senior IDF Officers for ‘Endangering Human Life’ I don’t know whether this is a case of throwing…
3. Bibi to Hosni: ‘I’ve Got Settlements to Build’ Bibi Netanyahu is in Egypt meeting with Hosni Mubarak. There…
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
March 18, 2010
19:56
Goldstone report is Banquo’s ghost of international law conference
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

The American Society of International Law is featuring just one Goldstone panel during a conference filled with discussion of “International Law in a Time of Change,” a clear reference to the Goldstone effect. Goldstone’s sure to come up, even in State Department official Anne Marie Slaughter’s appearance at the lead …
14:35
Do doctors oppose health care reform?
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Conservative opponents to health reform have been pushing a recent poll ostenibly conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine which claims that doctors are indeed opposed to health reform. This even got play on Fox News by Bill O’Reilly a couple days ago:

This seems to contradict an earlier poll by NEJM that found that doctors actually did support health care reform, including both public and private options, by an overwhelming majority of 69%. In fact, that NEJM poll found that support dropped to only 27% when the public option was removedn and only private options remained.

So what’s the deal with this new NEJM poll? Well, as it turns out, it wasn’t actually by NEJM – but rather by a physician recruitment firm, The Medicus Firm, and published in Recruiting Physicians Today, a free advertiser newsletter dedicated to physician employment headhunting. NEJM strongly distanced itself from any affiliation with this poll:

Media Matters for America contacted the New England Journal of Medicine, which confirmed it neither conducted nor published the “survey.”

NEJM spokesperson Jennifer Zeis told Media Matters that the study had “nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine’s original research.” She also made clear that the study “was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine,” and said that “we are taking steps to clarify the source of the survey.”

The survey – published on The Medicus Firm’s website – was not a conducted using rigorous polling methodology, but instead on email from a marketing database:

“The survey sample was randomly selected from a physician database of thousands. The database has been built over the past eight years by The Medicus Firm (formerly Medicus Partners and The MD Firm) from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, public directories, purchased lists, practice inquiries, training programs, and direct mail responses. The survey was conducted via emails sent directly to physicians.”

In addition to the statement given to Media Matters by NEJM, they have also posted this on their own website to emphasize that they had nothing to do with this survey:

Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society… The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here.

The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.

So, in summary: NEJM actually scientifically polled doctors via mail and found support for reform. A marketing firm involved in physician recruiting, did an email survey using a (totally unscientific) marketing database that found a lack of support. But even in that survey, Medicus notes:

It’s probably not likely that nearly half of the nation’s physicians will suddenly quit practicing at once… Skeptics may suspect that physicians exaggerate their intent to leave medicine due to health reform. Some experts point to the malpractice crisis of years ago, when many doctors also expressed a desire to leave medicine. Some did quit; many did not.

(…) Do physicians feel that health reform is necessary? The survey indicates that doctors do want change. Only a very small portion of respondents – about four percent – feel that no reform is needed.

Yes, there probably are a lot of physicians that are nervous about reform – especially if those physicians are misinformed about what it will entail. But reliable polling of physicians still shows broad support for reform, because it’s the doctors on the front lines who see the damage done every day by the unsustainable course we are on. This is why the American medical Association continues to support reform this time around, despite its past opposition.

Incidentally, this is a perfect example of how Fox News misinforms its readers. Will Fox run a corretion? Doubtful. Meanwhile, NPR covered the authentic NEJM poll – so which news source gives you “fair and balanced” news? You decide.

Related: From DailyKos, here’s a video that sums up the episode:

Read this post »
13:31
Sloggers slogged?
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)
Back in December, when a strange new quasi-news outfit called “IraqSlogger” emerged, I blogged my concerns about the organization here and here.

Now it turns out that Eason Jordan and Robert Young Pelton the two ethically challenged adventurers behind that short-lived project moved on from there to the world of intelligence gathering on contract to the U.S military in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Back in December ‘06, I wrote,
Boy, did I call that one. (It wasn’t hard. Those guys were pathetic amateurs.)
12:32
Text of Senate resolution honoring Nowruz
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Earlier, the House passe a resolution honoring the Iranian new year holiday of Nowruz. A similar resolution, cosponsored by Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) will be introduced to the Senate today. Here’s the pending text of that resolution, courtesy of NIAC:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Nowruz, expressing appreciation to Iranian-Americans for their contributions to society, and wishing Iranian- Americans and the people of Iran a prosperous new year.

Whereas Nowruz marks the traditional Iranian New Year, which originated in ancient Persia, and dates back more than 3,000 years;

Whereas Nowruz, meaning a ”New Day”, occurs on the vernal equinox and celebrates the arrival of spring;

Whereas Nowruz symbolizes a time of renewal and community, harkens the departure from the trials and tribulations of the previous year, and brings hope for the New Year;

Whereas Nowruz is celebrated by nearly 300,000,000 Iranians and other peoples all over the world, including in the United States, Iran, and other countries in Central Asia, South Asia, Caucasus, Crimea, and the Balkan regions;

Whereas Nowruz is celebrated by more than 1,000,000 Iranian-Americans of all backgrounds, including those with Baha’i, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, and nonreligious backgrounds;

Whereas the people of Iran have a long history of celebrating Nowruz and are congratulated for their bringing in of the New Year;

Whereas Nowruz embodies the tradition that each individual’s thinking, speaking, and conduct should always be virtuous and the ideal of compassion for our fellow human beings regardless of ethnicity or religion, and symbolizes a time of renewal and community;

Whereas the United States is a melting pot of ethnicities and religion and Nowruz contributes to the richness of American culture and is consistent with our founding principles of peace and prosperity for all;

Whereas in 539 B.C., Cyrus the Great established one of the earliest charters on human rights, which abolished slavery and allowed for freedom of religion, and this marker in Iranian history has had significant impact on the respect for human rights that Iranian-Americans carry

today;

Whereas Nowruz serves to remind the people of the United States of the many noteworthy and lasting contributions of Iranian-Americans to the social and economic fabric of

society in the United States;

Whereas Iranian-Americans continue to make contributions in all sectors of public life in the United States, including as government, military, and law enforcement officials working to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect all people in the United States;

Whereas Iranian-Americans are vibrant, peaceful, and lawabiding citizens, many of whom are of the Baha’i, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Zoroastrian faiths; and

Whereas the Iranian-American community continues to enrich the tapestry of the diversity in the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate

(1) recognizes the cultural and historical significance of Nowruz;

(2) expresses its appreciation for the contributions of Iranian-Americans to society in the United States in observance of Nowruz; and

(3) wishes Iranian-Americans and the people of Iran and all those who observe this holiday a prosperous new year.

Read this post »
6:51
A Day at the Corrie Trial
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Outside the Courtroom in Haifa with Craig and Cindy Corrie

On Tuesday this week, exactly seven years ago, Rachel Corrie, an ideallistic young woman and human rights activist from Olympia, Washington, was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of Dr. Nasrallah, a pharmacist, and his family in Rafah, Gaza, from demolition. Yesterday, I spent the morning in a small courtroom in the District Court in Haifa, sitting next to the Corrie family, Cindy and Craig, Rachel’s parents, and her sister, Susan, in the hearing of their civil suit against the State of Israel. First, we listened to the cross-examination by the State’s lawyers of one of Rachel’s fellow activists, who was with her on that day. Following this, Husein Abu Husein, the Corrie’s lawyer, cross-examined Elad (a pseudonym to protect his identity), an Israeli man, one of the three people who conducted the Israeli military investigation into Rachel’s death. What emerged from this cross-examination was shocking. It was a window into the whole process of Israeli military investigations which has been so fiercely debated over the past year in response to the Goldstone report.

Elad, currently a student at Bar Ilan University, was assigned to the military investigation unit during his regular army service and as a result he was asssigned to the military investigation into Rachel’s death. He described his training as an investigator as a one or two month course followed by a one to two-week “advanced course” in investigations. His experience included some 30-40 investigations.

Elad hadn’t prepared for his testimony, he had not read the file of the investigation and repeatedly said he didn’t remember. His lack of preparation indicated the lack of importance he ascribed to his appearance in court and to the proceedings.

Husein abu Husein, the Corrie’s lawyer, started with the issue of the autopsy. Elad initially signed the request of the military to a court for an autopsy as he had heard that the family had objected to the autopsy. After establishing that he had no documentation to prove that the family had objected to the autopsy, the lawyer produced a fax from the Corries sent a day or two after her death indicating that they would agree to an autopsy on condition that it was performed by a civilian doctor and that a representative of the American embassy was present. A representative of the American embassy was not present. He pressed Elad as to why he hadn’t ensured the order of the court was fulfilled.

I felt a lot of sadness and anger sitting there next to Rachel’s parents as we hear that their wishes in regard to their daughter’s body were violated. Their daughter’s body and the investigation of her death were being manipulated by the Israeli military that had every reason to hide or even distort the findings. Cindy told me that it was only recently that she found out that an American representative was not present at the autopsy. Despite the fact that the Corrie’s request for the presence of a representative of the American government were included as part of the court order, not only didn’t the military make sure that these conditions were fulfilled, the court didn’t either. The court order specified that a copy of the autopsy report was to be sent to the court and this condition was also violated. In testimony last week the doctor who performed the autopsy, testified that he didn’t agree to the presence of a representative of the American embassy and he also for the first time revealed that he had kept samples of her body, a fact never shared with the Corries. The samples have since been discarded.

The lawyer then proceeded to other issues relating to the investigation all of which pointed to an investigation that lacks any credibility. The lawyer asked Elad if he thought as an investigator it was important to visit the site where the death occurred Elad if he had done so in this case. He said he hadn’t and he didn’t think that other two investigators did either. When pressed as to why they didn’t visit the site, Elad retreated to the cover of “security” to which the lawyer asked whether they could not have gone in an armoured military vehicle.

This type of questioning about obvious steps an investigator would take that were not done continued for the rest of the hearing. Some of the questions asked were:

Why the bulldozer and the military vehicles that were on the site were moved.

Why he never sat in the bulldozer to examine the sight lines.

Why despite the fact that the bulldozer regulations state that D9’s (the type of bulldozer) should not be operated in the proximity of civilians, he failed to question the bulldozer driver about these regulations or make them part of the military police investigation file.

The judge got angry with the lawyer for pressing Elad for reasons as to why he hadn’t taken on various tasks as a military investigator. Elad was a soldier in regular army service who worked in the military investigations unit. He was not in charge and didn’t make the decisions. He restricted the lawyer only to ask questions about documents Elad himself wrote or signed like the request for an autopsy. What the judge didn’t take into account is that the Husein Abu Husein is at a huge disadvantage as the State has seen everything related to the event knows all the parties and the military response. Husein doesn’t know the parties and only has access to a small portion of the documentation. This was one opportunity he had to question someone involved in the investigation and I thought he did a superb job. Moreover why did the army assign just a regular soldier with very limited training as an investigator to such an important case involving the death of a human being? How much authority is given to soldiers in regular service in military investigations? And, why shouldn’t the lawyer question Elad seeing that it is the prosecution that brought him as a witness?

There was a lot of tension in the room. Here was a Palestinian Israeli lawyer cross-examining an Israeli soldier, demonstrating the lack of seriousness of the military investigation for which he along with two others, was responsible. And this clash was being played out in front of a group of “zarim” foreigners, including the parents of the person whose death was being discussed. In this little courtroom we were watching the enactment of the complex relationships between Americans and Israel, Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and people of other faiths.

The lawyer continued to produce more evidence that the investigation was not credible. After getting Elad to affirm that military investigations are independent and should not be subject to outside influence he produced a document that was in the file of talking points that they should use in the controversy about Rachel’s death. There was a note on the top of the page to the military investigation unit telling them that this was a very sensitive issue, so sensitive that the President of the United States had raised it with the Israeli Prime Minister! The note urged them to review the document carefully and to be careful in this matter.

I left the courtroom after the most effective lesson I could imagine on military investigations. All the problems one would imagine could be part of a military investigation of an incident in which it is involved were so obvious in that courtroom. When the military investigates itself – in any country – it has a vested interest in the outcome and the investigation will always be suspect. In this case it had overwhelming interest in making sure the outcome didn’t point to any responsibility on the part of the I.D.F. Rachel was an American young person who was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer as she was trying to protect the human rights of a family. Her death could have an impact on relations between America and Israel and could affect the way Americans see Israel. This is the reason there was a hasbara document in the file.

It has taken the Corrie family seven years to get into a courtroom where hopefully some of the truths about their daughter’s death can be uncovered. I admire their profound commitment to their daughter, to the values she upheld, and to pursuing the truth about her death. One could argue that there are more pressing current issues but at the heart of this hearing is the critical issue of accountability. Jewish tradition teaches that every human life is of infinite value demands accountability for every life. Israel has refused to be held accountable in this instance, as it has in many other egregious violations of human life, including the deaths of other foreigners and of many Palestinians. Yesterday’s hearing was a powerful lesson that there must be independent non-military investigation into such violations. I wish those who have argued so vociferously over the past year that there is no need for an independent public investigation into what happened during Operation Cast Lead had been there yesterday. We will not know the truth and there will be no accountability until there is an impartial credible investigation into Rachel Corrie’s death and all other allegations about human rights violations and deaths caused by the I.D.F.

The Corries will be meeting with the American ambassador tonight. Following this meeting, they will be participating in a conference call sponsored by Jewish fast for Gaza. I invite you to join us. If you are unable to join us, check our website next week for an audio recording of the call.

May the memory of Rachel Corrie, a principled and ideallistic young woman inspire us always to pursue justice, human rights and peace. May her memory be a blessing.
March 17, 2010
21:51
The State of the ‘Lobby’
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

The State of the ‘Lobby’
18:12
So much for freedom of speech: Nakba Law passes first Knesset vote
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

(Back to Israel, and to blogging as usual)

The Knesset voted yesterday in favor of Israel Beitenu’s “Nakba Bill”, which authorizes the finance minister to hold funds from institutions or groups who question the nature of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, or who mark the Palestinian Nakba on Israel’s Independence Day.

The goal of this bill – as stated by MK Alex Miller, who initiated it – is to prevent Palestinians from commemorating the national disaster they suffered in 1948, when most of the Arabs in (then) Palestine were expelled or fled from their homes. The original version of MK Miller’s bill made marking the Nakba a criminal offense, liable to up to three years in prison. Political pressure from Labor forced him to introduce the” softer” version, which was approved yesterday.

The bill still needs to pass two votes in the parliament for it to become a state law.

I hope all those praising “The only democracy in the middle East” pay close attention to what’s going on in Israel right now, and most notably to this law. This is no less than an organized attack – and a very successful one – on freedom of speech in this country, just like the effort to ban movies and books which are considered unpatriotic. The new bill’s mandate is so broad, that it actually gives the government authority to withdrawal funds and ultimately close universities and colleges who would teach what might be viewed as “anti-Zionist” classes.

From a morale point of view, this law is even more despicable: not only that Israel refuses to recognize its part in the national catastrophe that the Palestinian people suffered – this is not new – now it doesn’t even allow them to mention it. If an Arab school teaches Palestinian history to its kids, it risks being closed. In the tradition of totalitarian regimes across the globe, instead of making minorities part of our broad national narrative, we try to erase their history and than demand they celebrate on our Independence Day.

I wonder what Allan Dershowitz, who still views himself as a liberal and a defender of freedom of speech, would have to say about this law.

———————————-

And this also happened this week: the office of the minister of education forbade distributing a booklet for kids about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it didn’t like two articles in the declaration, as well as some of the illustration in the booklet.
18:09
[ePalestine] Book Review: Zionism’s Invented State (By Sam Bahour)
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Book Review
Zionism’s Invented State
By Sam Bahour
Israeli Exceptionalism : The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism by M. Shahid Alam Palgrave Macmillan, 272 pp., £55.00
Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism arrived in the mail shortly after I completed sending a thank you note to two other authors and friends, Kathleen and Bill Christison. The Christison’s had just released their newest title, Palestine in Pieces: Graphic Perspectives on the Israeli Occupation (Pluto Press) and I felt that they deserved a huge thank you for encapsulating their eyewitness report of Israeli military dispossession and occupation in the warped ideological framework of Zionism. I felt such a framing depicted a high sense of rarely found political maturity on behalf of American analysts. Israeli Exceptionalism was a natural next read for it peeled the onion of Zionism to reveal how deeply flawed this ideology was and is and how it has become a destabilizing factor which puts people of the region—and arguably beyond—in serious jeopardy.
Israeli Exceptionalism is not only a must read, it is a must think about book. To add intellectual spice, every chapter starts with a few quotes of prominent individuals related to the topic at hand. Reading these quotes alone speak volumes of the human tragedy, in thought and lives, that Zionism evoked.
Author M. Shahid Alam, a non-Arab, professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston does a fascinating job of creating a repository of references on Zionism by way of narrative and footnotes. Although I think of myself as well-read on the topic, I attest that I learned much from Israeli Exceptionalism, not only in terms of identifying new references, but also in terms of analysis and context.
It was not the first time I have read the word “exceptionalism” in relation to Israel. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen recently wrote that Israel “lives in a perpetual state of exceptionalism.” (New York Times, Oct. 16, 2009). However, Professor Alam explored this Israeli phenomenon on a deeper level of its underlying ideology to shed light on why this abnormal state seems to be unable to come to terms with modern day realities. The book addresses three principal forms of Israeli exceptionalism: 1) the “divine right” of Jews, 2) “Israeli achievements,” which at first glance seem impressive, and 3) the Jews’ “uniquely tragic history.” Alam explains that, “In order to secure itself against these “unique” threats to its existence, Israel claims exemption from the demands of international laws.” Sadly, so long as Israel resists permitting international law to be its reference point, despite the fact that Israel’s own birth is owed to the same body of law, the only alternative Israel allows for is the age-old Law of the Jungle—the law of might is right.
Throughout the book the author uses a new term, “Islamicate,” which this writer, a secular Palestinian, found a sober source of food for thought, especially given the state of global and regional affairs today. As a foil for his historical review of the development of Zionism, its trials and tribulations, and the existence of Israel, the author gives us the Islmicate—the Muslim world, or the “Islamic heartland”—which forces the reader to see the larger context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given the events of 9/11 and all that proceeded it, including the shift from a Cold War paradigm to a War on Terror one, this backdrop is a key framing for the analysis. However, the author speaks at some length of the Arab nationalist movement which unsuccessfully attempted to face off with Israel, but skips the depth of the secular Palestinian national movement that broke away from official Arab nationalism leadership and kept the Palestinian struggle for freedom and impendence alive all these years, albeit under threat today from an Islamist trend in the region. That noted, Alam is correct when he ended the book by saying, “The Islamicate world today is not what it was during World War I. It is noticeably less inclined to let foreigners draw their maps for them.”
The thesis of the book is that “The Zionist movement in Palestine has generated endemic violence between Jewish settlers and Palestinians. Since 1948, this violence has repeatedly pitted Israel against the Palestinians and its neighbors. It has dragged Western societies, especially the United States, into ever widening and deepening conflicts with the Islamicate.” Professor Alam argues that “the history of these ever-expanding circles of conflict and instability was contained in the Zionist idea itself.”
This approach to understanding Zionism and Israel —the notion that an all-encompassing plan has and is guiding Israel—is a constant source of debate between myself and many Israeli friends. I argue that a macro plan, one that has a guiding thrust to force the realization of the original Zionist myth that Palestine was a “land with no people for a people with no land” is in place and motivating many on the Israeli side. Many Israelis argue that this notion gives too much credit to their society and leadership and contend that minimal planning, chance, luck, and near total haphazardness have brought them to their precarious state of affairs. After a careful reading of Israeli Exceptionalism I tend to believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like the founders of Zionism, Israel’s current leadership is too politically savvy to try and micromanage the future. Instead it provides an overall framework and lets its constantly adapting organizations—the World Zionist Organization, then Israel—deal with the required, real-time maneuvering based on the ever-changing realities and interests of the moment.
Professor Alam carefully follows the intertwining interrelationships among many seemingly disparate movements that have, collectively, driven the State of Israel—the exclusionist ideology of Zionism, interests of shifting global powers, anti-Semitism, Christian Zionism, Jewish Diaspora, the Israeli lobby, and the clout ascertained by serving the short term political interests of individual western leaders. Although the text is heavily footnoted, the author’s many insights prompt the reader to want to learn more and corroborate some of the information provided: particularly in the chapter devoted to “Jewish Factors in Zionist Success,” for example, where the author’s historical portrayal of Jewish influence in the service of Zionism/Israel around the world suggests much more of a monolithic dynamic among these communities than I tend to find plausible. For example, and Alam also makes mention of this aspect of Jewish Diaspora: “Jews of 19th century Germany founded the Reform movement, rejecting the idea of a Jewish nation …The Reform movement of those days was a compromise between total apostasy (assimilation) and orthodoxy.” (Ami Isseroff, Opposition of Reform Judaism to Zionism – A History, August 12, 2005). Given such strong trends within world Jewry that opposed Zionism for considerable periods in the movement’s history, Alam’s monolithic view seems tendentious. I would claim that superior organization and dynamic leadership among committed Zionists is what led to the “success” of Zionism, more so than any natural Jewish leaning toward a desire for an exclusionist state, with all that that means for others. A significant minority of Jews alive today in fact continue to oppose Zionism on the grounds that it is very “un-Jewish.”
Meantime, the book chronicles the emergence of an influential trend of Jewish-only exceptionalism long before the horrific misery of Jews after WWII, and as a matter of fact, even before the recognized founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, wrote The Jewish State (a book I re-read annually.) However, Alam correctly notes that “Israel’s creation and survival are anomalies” and that, after nearly 100 years of Zionist/Israeli exclusionism evinced in a policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, “It would appear that Israel’s demographic constraints are binding: and these constraints may well determine the ultimate destiny of this exclusionary colonialism.” “The tragedy of Zionism,” proclaims Alam, “is written into its design; its end is contained in its beginning.” That may be true for many –isms of this world, some which have already collapsed of their own weight.
A Zionist friend and writer, Bernard Avishai, recently wrote in his latest book, “Israel is a society where institutional discrimination against individuals for an accident of birth or a profession of faith has been so routine it is hardly noticed—not, at least, by Jews.” (The Hebrew Republic, Harcourt, pg. 25). Another Zionist, albeit of a completely different school of thought, Israel’s current Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, was quoted earlier this month as saying "If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic … If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state." These words coming from across the Zionist spectrum should not be taken lightly. Remember: apartheid is a crime against humanity!
Professor Alam states that “at first, Zionists did not seek to conceal the colonial character of their movement…concealment was not necessary in the age of high imperialism and triumphant racism.” The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The resolution was revoked by Resolution 46/86 on December 16, 1991. In the history of the UN, this is the only resolution that has ever been revoked. As a Palestinian experiencing the real-time impact of the racialist policies of a Zionist-motivated Israeli state, I believe that revoking this resolution was a mistake because it only postponed the inevitable day of reckoning when Israel would have to look at itself in the mirror and accept what it found there as real. Reading Israeli Exceptionalism can help us to understand how such historical oddities evolve.
Another Israeli friend, Deb Reich, a non-Zionist but someone who has lived—sometimes painfully—the Zionist reality, expressed it rather succinctly when I asked her about Zionism. She said, “I have come to believe that lecturing people about their badness is the last thing on earth that can solve our problems and will rarely change their behavior one iota; in fact, it can make them more stubborn. I know that we have no choice but to try to hold people accountable for their actions in terms of both the intended and unintended consequences for others, because without accountability there is chaos; but at the same time, if we want positive change, then we MUST open a window for people on how they can redeem themselves, and redeem the situation. That endeavor is what leadership is supposed to be about.”
Understanding history is one thing, but being able to come to terms with it and survive it is something materially different:, just ask Palestinians living today. Is turning back the clock of history doable or even desirable today? Left to the tools of our day—international law, compensation, and hopefully reconciliation—will history correct itself in the future with the emergence of smarter generations of Israelis and Palestinians? Can we Palestinians survive as a people to see that day? These are questions we ponder daily while under the influence of Israeli occupation and dispossession.
Professor Alam believes that the tide of Zionism will begin to turn when the banana republics of the Middle East begin to fall and are “replaced by Islamist governments” at which time “it may become difficult for the United States to maintain its presence in the region.” I beg for the international community to uphold their obligations under international law and resolve this conflict before that day.
The writer is a Palestinian-American living in the Palestinian City of Al-Bireh in the West Bank. He is co-author of HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and may be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.
Note: An edited version of this review was published in Arab News on March 17, 2010 and may be found at: [arabnews.com]

———————————————————————–
ePalestine Blog: [www.epalestine.com]
———————————————————————–
Everything about this list: [lists.riseup.net]
To unsubscribe, send mail to: epalestine-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net
To subscribe, send mail to: epalestine-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
13:35
Biden visit exposed Israeli settler truthsThis week the US saw Netanyahu’s government in all its glorious stubborness – providing a clarity the peace process badly needs
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

There was a moment of rare clarity this week for America's efforts to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace. The US vice-president Joe Biden was on a visit, ostensibly a charm offensive to an Israel that has been heretofore neglected by the Obama administration's most senior echelons, and an opportunity to discuss broad regional issues, notably Iran. By coincidence, Biden's trip coincided with special Middle East envoy George Mitchell's launching of indirect, or proximity, talks, between the Israelis and Palestinians. Perhaps less coincidental, Biden's presence was greeted by announcements of dramatic new plans for Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem. A crisis in the relaunched Israeli-Palestinian peace talks had apparently arrived a little earlier than expected – day zero to be precise. Not that those resumed negotiations were being greeted by much more than scepticism anyway. For most observers and even participants, the customary and polite suspension of disbelief that normally accompanies a new round of peace talks was barely on display.

Both sides seemed ready to settle down to a predictable and protracted game of placing blame for failure at the other's door. Then, on the day of Biden's arrival, Israel announced plans to market 112 new housing units in the West Bank and bettered that 24 hours later (shortly after the Biden-Netanyahu confab) when a district committee gave planning authorisation to 1,600 new units in East Jerusalem.

What provided this episode with refreshing clarity was the way in which it exposed the deeper dynamics that are driving contemporary Israeli realities.

Netanyahu seems to have been genuinely blindsided by this development. Israel's settlement addiction proved stronger even than the prime minister's desire to spend a few days going settlement cold turkey. Israel's leadership scrambled to summon their best explanations and apologies – the decision was insensitive, ill-timed, a local initiative, and a mere technical planning detail. If only the decision had been taken two days or two weeks earlier or later everything would have been OK. And so in one fell swoop the naked Israeli settler reality was exposed in all of its absurdity.

For the rest of the world, East Jerusalem, just like the West Bank, is occupied territory; all settlements over the Green Line are illegal (even if not everyone always uses that word). For Israel's leaders, the timing may have been unfortunate, but the impulse to settle Palestinian land is fundamentally sound. Palestinian land is claimed as state land or confiscated, plans are authorised, tenders are issued, construction begins, and settlers move in. After more than 40 years, and endless seemingly trivial and mundane bureaucratic decisions, over 500,000 Israelis now reside beyond the Green Line (for a detailed analysis of this process, read East Jerusalem settlement experts Daniel Seidemann and Lara Friedman here). The settlers and their sympathisers are entrenched in every relevant nook and cranny of Israel's bureaucracy and security establishment. The momentum that they can now generate (especially but not only when their sympathisers hold senior government office), is stronger than Israel's demographic concerns, is stronger than fear of Israel acquiring an international pariah status, and as was proven this week, is stronger than the needs of the US-Israel relationship. America's vice-president has just seen this dynamic first hand and up close.

Mainstream Israeli commentators were apparently shocked to discover the power of the settler momentum. Pundits such as Ari Shavit, known for their staunch nationalism and vilification of human rights groups working in the territories, had a rude awakening. In Ha'aretz he described "the settlements in the West Bank that serve the centrifuges in Natanz [Iran]. If sane Israel does not wake up, it will be defeated by the metastasising of the occupation and the lack of the central government's ability to stop it."

And that, in a nutshell, is why Benjamin Netanyahu may be our last, best chance for a two-state peace deal.

The extremism and excesses of his government may finally open enough eyes and lead to enough local and international action to roll back this settler behemoth. More moderate Israeli governments, even those perhaps sincerely committed to a variation on the de-occupation, two-state solution theme, have definitively failed to halt the settlements march. When Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were negotiating on paper potential Israeli withdrawals, the settlements and the occupation were being expanded and entrenched on the ground. Even when Ariel Sharon was removing 7,500 settlers from Gaza, he was adding a greater number to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But under Netanyahu, what you see is what you get.

And perhaps this clarity and this exaggeration is exactly what is needed. Everything else, all the relevant actors, were stuck in an ugly paralysis. The Palestinians remain divided and devoid of strategy. For 20 years the Fatah-led PLO had been waiting for the US to deliver Israel for an equitable two-state outcome. The only alternative to negotiations to gain any traction had been indiscriminate and unjustifiable violence. The Arab states had produced a breakthrough peace initiative in 2002 but it never translated into a programme for public diplomacy or even pressure to be brought to bear on Israel, America, or the Quartet. The US and EU continue to place their faith in confidence-building measures and unmediated negotiations between the parties, hoping against hope that a formula which had failed for over a decade would produce a breakthrough and that rational argument might prevail.

Not surprisingly, none of this was going anywhere. It has taken a Netanyahu-led extreme right, religious government in Israel (the defunct Labor party of Ehud Barak can be justly ignored as window dressing) to send a signal strong enough to perhaps pierce this paralysis. Israelis and Palestinians, it is clear, are in an adversarial relationship, talk of partnership is premature, talk of confidence-building is naive. Transparently run Palestinian institutions and well-groomed Palestinian security forces will not remove the settler-occupation complex. And neither will gentle persuasion. The naked extremity of the Netanyahu government is producing new international initiatives and new coalitions.

In Jewish diaspora communities, there is a determination to reclaim a more moderate and progressive vision of what it means to be pro-Israel and to apply Jewish ethics and Jewish values, that helped guide civil rights struggles in the past, to contemporary Israeli reality. Such efforts are gaining ground – notably the emergence of J Street in America. Inside Israel, a new progressive discourse, still lacking real parliamentary representation, is struggling to make its voice heard in civil society—notably in weekly demonstrations at Sheikh Jarrah. On the Palestinian side, alternative strategies to the negotiation dependency or violence that dominated the past are gaining ground – especially in non-violent resistance to land confiscations and the separation barrier. Prime Minister Fayyad's plan for statehood by mid-2011 could become a significant hook if it develops some teeth.

European actors have been toying with initiatives of their own in adapting to this new reality. All 27 member states achieved a remarkable consensus in endorsing the most powerful and comprehensive statement of EU policy last December. Lady Ashton, at least declaratively, has gotten off to an impressive start and will be visiting the region next week, and crucially Gaza will be on her itinerary. Britain is taking the lead in imposing labelling on settlement products, and the French and Spanish governments are exploring options for advancing Palestinian statehood even in the face of peace process stalemate.

None of this would likely have happened if the government in Israel was nice-sounding and well-intentioned, but ultimately hapless in the face of the settler-occupation complex. Nothing is also likely to really come to fruition without the US assuming leadership. These new developments may serve to create an environment in which there is more political space for the US to operate in.

US administrations have helped generate moments of decision for Israel in the past and not only in the Egyptian peace deal and full evacuation of the Sinai brokered by President Carter. President Bush confronted Yitzhak Shamir with the withholding of loan guarantee monies, leading to the election of Yitzhak Rabin in 1992 in a campaign in which settlements and opposition to them featured prominently. Benjamin Netanyahu's first term in office ended abruptly when President Clinton challenged him to sign, and then implement, the Wye River Memorandum of 1998, something his coalition could not sustain and which led to the election of Ehud Barak, ushering in at the time a moment of great hope.

The realities today are no longer the same. The Israeli inability to confront its own settler-occupation demon is more deeply entrenched. Israel will have to be presented with clear choices, clear answers to its legitimate security and other concerns, and clear consequences for nay-saying. A successful effort will also have to be more comprehensive and more regional in its scope, almost certainly involving Syria and bringing Hamas into the equation. No one should expect this to be easy. But if one person can generate American will to lead such an effort and an international alliance to see it through, then surely that person is the Israeli leader who we saw on display in all his glorious stubbornness this week.
13:21
Johan Hari has a must-read article about…
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Johan Hari has a must-read article about forced kidnap, mutilation and rape of women in Ethiopia, as practiced for generations – and changing now.

This post: “Johan Hari has a must-read article about…” was originally posted at Talk Islam – a crescent waxing eloquent. The RSS feed may not be used at other sites without permission.

You can subscribe to this RSS feed for Talk Islam at [talkislam.info]
1:08
Balkan Beat Box Performing Tomorrow in Seattle
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Arabic follows the Hebrew…

More information about the show here.

Boycot shmoycot, be there or be square…
March 16, 2010
21:47
Mourning Jay (and Gene)
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

This afternoon my beloved friend Jay Worrall died. Jay was a shining, Light-filled elder of our Quaker meeting here in Charlottesville who in an earlier era played a pioneering role in the racial desegregation movement here in town and founded the important, statewide prisoner-aid organization Offender Aid and Restoration.

I am still crying. I happened to be the only non-family member who was present in the hospital room as he passed away. Shortly before he passed, the 15 or so family people in the room, the respiratory therapist, and I all stood in silent worship together with Jay, as he lay on his bed. I had a profound sense of the Divine Spirit/Light bursting out in great pulses from Jay.

When I joined the Charlottesville Friends Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), back in 1997, the meeting (congregation) had several really amazing, inspiring older members. Among them, Chic Moran, who had been a conscientious objector during World War II and had done some really important reconstruction work in Europe right after the war… Elaine Bell, who had worked with her husband Colin for many years for various Quaker service organizations in different places around the world… and Jay Worrall and his luminous wife Carolyn. They all meant so much to me. Chic died three or four years ago. Elaine died about 18 months ago. Now Jay, too, has passed. (Carolyn was at his bedside today, but she is in not in good shape.)

Jay Worrall was, I think, 96 years old. He had served in the U.S. military for many years in the 1940s and 1950s, including doing something in Ethiopia/Eritrea that always meant a lot to him afterwards. Then, fresh out of the military, he and Carolyn brought their five children to Charlottesville, where he got a job heading a pioneering organization called the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) that worked to extend social-support services to all in the area, regardless of race… That, at a time of continued racial segregation in Virginia and much of the rest of the American south.

In 1956, Harry F. Byrd, Sr., a member of the U.S. Senate from Virginia, announced a policy of “massive resistance” to the federal court’s 1954 order that all the country’s school systems should end racial segregation. His followers in the Virginia General Assembly then enacted a series of laws forbidding any race-integrated schools from receiving state funds, establishing a board to determine which school each pupil should attend (based on her or his race, when this was in question), and offering tuition grants to pupils attending white-only schools.

The federal government ordered a number of school systems in the state, including the one here in Charlottesville, to desegregate their classrooms. Rather than do that, the state Governor ordered the closing of several key schools, including the high school and the premier elementary school here in Charlottesville.

There are still many older African-Americans here in town whose educations were grossly disrupted by the tensions of those years.

This was the racial cauldron in which Jay Worrall and his longtime African-American friend and collaborator Drewary Brown chose to work, building MACAA up into a powerful force for good in the community.

Jay carried on working on racial equality and racial healing issues throughout his life. He also did a lot of work on criminal justice reform and was a stalwart participant in all antiwar efforts. In the early 2000s, when I was participating in the weekly antiwar vigils here in town, he would quite frequently come by– though his legs were a little shaky and he found it hard to walk. And he’d stand with us for most of the hour, to give his public witness.

He was always keenly interested in the Middle East. As recently as last Sunday he was an active member of a group in the Quaker meeting who were discussing what campaigns can be mounted to address the current crisis in Jerusalem.

Oh, and did I mention that along the way there, Jay Worrall researched and wrote a compendious, beautifully written 630-page history of the Quakers in Virginia, an area where there has been a Quaker presence since almost the dawn of Quakerism in the mid-17th century.

So, Friend Jay Worrall has passed from our midst. Last night he had a fall, and he never recovered. I shall miss him so. My warmest sympathies go to Carolyn, their five children, and their many grandchildren.

… Last night, I was planning to write something to mark the recent passing of another man, someone whom I never knew in person, but who was another amazing force for good in our country. Gene Stoltzfuz was a member of another of the historic “peace churches”, the Mennonite church. He was the founding director of the Christian Peacemaker Teams from 1988 until 2004.

After Gene retired he started writing a blog called Peace Probe. His last post there is this quiet but profound reflection on torture and violence.
14:48
A New Study Abroad Program in Aleppo – CET
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

A New Study Abroad Program in Aleppo
By Kala Carruthers Azar

CET Academic Programs, in conjunction with American University, is proud to announce the launch of their new program in Aleppo, Syria. Based at the University of Aleppo, the program will offer intensive Arabic language instruction over the summer term and Arabic plus content courses taught in English and Arabic during the fall and spring terms. The first summer program will be offered during the summer 2010 term. The first semester program will be offered in spring 2011.

I just returned from Aleppo where I was working to get the details of our summer program arranged. We are in the final push for applicants as our summer application deadline is April 1st. A direct link to the program details is here: The summer program fee ($4800).

Best, Kala
Syria Program Manager
1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-349-0676, 800-225-4262, ext. 7383
Fax: 202-342-0317
E-mail: kazar@academic-travel.com
Web: www.cetacademicprograms.com

Kala writes:

Like every American I’ve met who has studied in Syria, I too had an incredible experience. I stretched my student Fulbright money to complete the Arabic program at the University of Damascus and then IFPO’s Arabic program. I went back to Damascus for CASA in the Spring of 2008. Thus, I am very excited to have accepted a position with CET Academic Programs to manage their brand new Arabic study abroad program in Aleppo.

Students from all institutions are welcome to apply for the summer 2010 term. Intermediate, advanced intermediate and advanced Arabic language levels will be offered during the eight-week term. Students will take eight hours/week of Modern Standard Arabic, eight hours/week of Levantine Arabic, and four hours/week of Media Arabic for a total of 140 hours of class time. They will also have the opportunity to participate in homestays, excursions, and service learning projects. Further details about the program are available at [www.cetacademicprograms.com.]
14:47
Islam Online goes offline
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

This is a guest post by Dilshad D. Ali.

Yesterday, marking that it was the 15th of March, I recalled the Shakespearean play “Julius Caesar” and posted on my Facebook wall, “Beware the Ides of March.” Little did I know it would foreshadow what would be happening to me in the U.S. and numerous other courageous and intelligent journalists in Cairo, Egypt. The rumblings came again, first, on Facebook, when I read the status of colleague Lamia El-Sadak’s that she was praying for Al-Aqsa and for Islam-Online. What was happening in at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem (an Israeli crackdown) I knew. But what was going on at IslamOnline.net, the Muslim news website where I have been employed for the past three months?

I quickly learned that Islam Online was facing immense pressure from a new board of directors based in Qatar, who were moving to fire most of the 330 editors and journalists based in the Cairo office and turn the tone of the diverse moderate Muslim news and information website into one with a conservative, Wahhabi/Salafi tone. Editors in Cairo said there were long-standing tensions between the newsroom and the Qatar directors.

The site was founded in 1997 under the guidance of Egyptian cleric Yousef el-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar. It has numerous sections-news, arts & culture, youth, health & science, politics in-depth, reading Islam (for new Muslims) and others. In my experience of freelancing there for 10 years and working exclusively as their U.S. correspondent/editor since January, I’ve come to known Islam Online as a site that covers topics other Muslim sites don’t dare to address: marital issues, homosexuality, and child abuse. This, in addition to offering news from the Muslim world and fascinating arts reporting. When I came on board, the site was on an initiative to increase its coverage of Muslim-Americans, for which I was heavily involved.

To hear the abrupt and commanding way the Qatar board of directors swiftly locked down Islam Online’s servers and changed the passwords to prevent the Cairo editors from doing their work was a shock. The editors quickly used their skills and took their protest to Twitter and live streaming to rally support around the world. A Facebook support group quickly sprung up.

But the damage has already been done. My friend and colleague, Rasha Mohammed, the arts & culture editor who was visiting Islam Online’s fledgling Washington D.C. office for four months, was alternately defeated, hopeful, and angry in her talks with me. “I can’t believe they’re doing this. For more than ten years we’ve done this work. What we did meant something. People learned about Islam. We reported important news. And all of a sudden, this?”

Articles and sections are already being taken down from the site. Islam Online editors are telling each other (as Rasha told me) to print out their articles and take screenshots of their work before it’s gone. The contract between Qatar and the Cairo newsroom will be dissolved at the end of the month, I’ve been told. I’ve also heard that there are already editors hired and working in Qatar who is removing content from the site and putting up new content. Some of my editor colleagues at IOL have told me that the Qatari government probably had a hand in this – wanting to bring all control back to Qatar, as it has done with Al Jazeera.

In an article on Al Masryaloum, one striker stated that if the Qatari board of directors wanted a conservative website, they should’ve made a new one. “Don’t take over Islam Online and try and change it.”

I agree. Islam Online’s mission statement says that it aims to “present a unified and lively nature of Islam that is keeping up with modern times in all areas.” Changing it to reflect a Salafi/Wahhabi tone will no longer do this. Of course the mission statement will change, and that’s a shame.

At the end of the day, the Qatar board of directors pulled a Marc Antony on the Cairo newsroom of Islam Online (and those of us here in the States) by stabbing them in the back and putting them out on the street without fare warning or negotiations. Hundreds of talented journalists and editors are suddenly out of work. Beyond the job loss, they and I are ticked off that the work we’ve tried to do – present Muslim news, dispel misconceptions, end stereotypes, and expose important issues, is taken from us.

It’s a damn shame that an immensely important, moderate voice in the Muslim media has been abruptly silenced. As news editor Ayman Qenawi said to me in an email today: “The loss is huge. [Islam Online] was my first, not third, child. But we cannot say anything except alhamdolillah.”

In addition to her work at Islam Online, Dilshad D. Ali is a writer and former editor for Beliefnet.com.

Read this post »
12:38
Who are Israel’s true friends? (Hint: it’s not AIPAC)
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

I’ve been fighting the temptation to weigh in on the current
"crisis" between the United States and Israel — Lord knows I’ve already said a
lot on this issue over the past few years — but a few comments are in order.

As one would expect, hard-line groups in the Israel lobby like AIPAC,
the Conference of
Presidents, JINSA and WINEP are
now trying to pin the blame for the rift on the Obama administration. They want to portray Obama as insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state, in
order to force him to back off the same way he did during last summer’s
confrontation with Netanyahu over a settlement freeze.

This view has it exactly backwards. Whatever you might
think of its strategy or its tactics, the Obama administration has been
genuinely committed to achieving a two-state solution before it is too
late. This polichy is not an act of hostility toward Israel; on the
contrary, it is an act of extraordinary friendship for Obama to keep this
difficult item on an already overcrowded agenda. As former prime minister
Ehud Olmert and current defense minister Ehud Barak have warned: If the
two-state solution fails, the Palestinians will be occupied forever and Israel
will become an apartheid
state. Instead of helping Israel drive itself off a cliff — as
George W. Bush did — the Obama administration is trying to prevent that
disastrous outcome. And because Obama’s team understands that the
relentless expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements is making a two-state
solution increasingly difficult to realize, they believe that a halt to
settlement building is a key part of a successful peace process. That
includes East Jerusalem, by the way, whose annexation by Israel in 1967 is
regarded as illegal by the rest of the world, including the United States.

Achieving a two-state solution is obviously in America’s
strategic interest as well, because it would remove one of the major sources of
anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world. The vast majority of
Muslims reject al Qaeda and its murderous methods, for example, but they share
its harsh views about U.S. policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. A two-state solution won’t solve all of our problems in the
region, of course, but it would make a lot of them easier to address. It’s clear that the U.S. military, which now has a lot of experience in the
region, thinks so too. As Centcom commander General David Petraeus told
the Armed Services Committee earlier
today:

The enduring hostilities between Israel
and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance
our interests in the AOR [area of operational responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed
confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a
perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian
question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments
and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the
Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to
mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world
through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."

A two state solution is also the best guarantee of Israel’s
long-term future. By showing real backbone this time and explaining to
the American people why his approach is right, Obama could be a true friend to
the Jewish state.

Netanyahu, AIPAC and the rest of the "status quo" lobby
don’t get that, and neither do narrow-minded politicians like Joe Lieberman or John
McCain. They seem to think it is okay for Israel to keep expanding
its control over Palestinian lands and that the United States should back
Israel’s actions no matter what it does. When disputes arise they should
be handled privately, because, as Lieberman put it, the U.S. and Israel are
"family." Not true, of course: the United States and Israel are separate countries
whose interests are not always identical, and sometimes it makes sense to air
those differences in public. The "Christian Zionists" are even worse: They think Israel should control these lands forever in order to fulfill their
wacky interpretation of Old Testament prophecy and bring the "end-times"
closer. Never mind what happens to Israel itself in the process.

In fact, these people are false friends of Israel, because
their recommended course of action will keep it on its current dangerous
path. So when you hear them defend the special relationship, or when they
accuse Obama or Mitchell or Biden or Clinton of putting unwarranted pressure on
Israel, ask them what their long-term solution is. Do they think
Israel should control all the territory that once was Mandate Palestine? If so, do they favor a one-party democracy in which Jews and Arabs get equal
voting rights, or an apartheid state in which Jews rule over stateless
Palestinians? Or are they in favor of ethnic cleansing, the same way that
former House Speaker Dick Armey was? Or perhaps they support Netanyahu’s bizarre version
of "two-states," where Israel keeps all of Jerusalem and confines the
Palestinians to a handful of dismembered Bantustans under Israeli
control? Those are the only alternatives to a viable two-state
solution, and if you don’t like them, then you should give Obama credit for his
efforts and hope that he holds his ground this time. Because time really
is running out.
7:04
Gaza Australian Speaking Tour : Sameh Habeeb
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Australian Speaking Tour : Sameh Habeeb

World, March 16, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) -
Socialist Alternative is very proud to announce a speaking tour of Australia by Gaza photo-journalist and founder-editor of the Palestine Telegraph, Sameh Habeeb.

Sameh covered the brutal Israeli assault of Gaza in January 2009 which killed 1,400 Palestinians and will be reporting on the atrocities that he witnessed and the international campaign to lift the Israeli siege of his homeland.

All supporters of Palestine are welcome to any of these meetings which will be accompanied by pictorial displays of relevant material. There will be an opportunity for questions and discussion at every meeting.

Tuesday 23 March at 6.30pm: ‘Eyewitness from Gaza’

Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point campus, O Block, Room 520 (Brisbane).

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=294206434631#!/event.php?eid=10150114742070145

Thursday 25 March at 1pm: ‘Gaza: The Reality of Israeli Apartheid Today’

University of Western Sydney, Bankstown campus, BA 1.1.090 (LR16)

Monday 29 March at 1pm: ‘Gaza: The Reality of Israeli Apartheid Today’

University of New South Wales, Matthews Building room 310

Tuesday 30 March at 1pm: ‘Gaza: The Reality of Israeli Apartheid Today’

Macquarie University, Drysdale Room, Level 3 U@MQ Building (Sydney)

Tuesday 30 March at 7pm: ‘Eyewitness from Palestine’

Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, King Street, Newtown (opposite Newtown station) (Sydney)

Wednesday 31 March at 3pm: ‘Gaza: The Reality of Israeli Apartheid Today’

University of Sydney, New Law Lecture Theatre 106 (tbc: please contact the number below closer to the date)

Friday 2 April at 4pm: ‘Imperialism and the struggle for a free Palestine’

Sameh Habeeb will be speaking as part of the Marxism 2010 conference, University of Melbourne Student Union.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=368287823966&ref=mf

All university campus meetings in Sydney are endorsed by Students for Palestine, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (University of Sydney), Socialist Alternative and Stop the War Coalition (Sydney). Facebook site: [www.facebook.com]

Entry will be by donation on the door, except for the Marxism 2010 conference where registration and a ticket is necessary. For more information, check out www.marxism2010.com.

For more information on this tour, please contact Patrick on 0422 028113
0:10
Will Israel Flex Its Muscle Further?
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Syria’s position in the Middle East continues to strengthen as Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the US seek to engage it in an effort to win Syrian support for their policies in Iraq and the region as a whole. Despite Assad’s recent summit with Ahmadinejad, during which he stated that Syria would not distance itself from Iran, Western leaders continue to believe that strengthening ties with Syria is a good thing. Saudi Arabia is discussing extending development loans to Syria. Europe’s top diplomat arrived in Damascus late Monday as part of a regional tour to win more clout on the world’s diplomatic stage and to encourage Syria to sign the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement. The US military remains keen on developing security agreements with Syria.

At the same time that the West is relatively bullish on Syria, Israel’s stock seems to have hit a bear market. The Biden face slap delivered by Netanyahu this weekend has caused a crises that the White House seems to be taking seriously. Its two-state policy as a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is in a shambles. Everyone recognized that it was toothless once Obama climbed down from his “no-settlement” policy. But Netanyahu’s empty promise to freeze settlement expansion served as a useful fig leaf for Obama. It allowed him to pretend that the two-state policy remained viable. With Israel’s announcement of 1,600 new units to be build, the fig leaf has been pulled away.

The Palestinians are now backing away from the the proximity talks that the US was counting on. Saudi Arabia has all but abandoned its cozy relationship with Israel. Obama’s failure to rally world opinion behind his Iran policy had already made him look weak and directionless in the Middle East. But with America’s closest ally making a mockery of its policies, the fat has hit the fire. AIPAC issued a sharp warning to Obama today not to make an issue of the settlement construction. If past is any precedent, Obama will find a way to turn down the rhetoric and avoid conflict with Israel. This spat is likely to be a flash in the pan. Israel will continue to settle the West Bank and the Golan Heights and spurn meaningful peace with the Arab world. Some analysts believe that the US military may be braver in taking on Israel than elected officials have been. I am not so sanguine. When it comes to Israel, Washington’s policies so often have few teeth.

All the same, with Hillary Clinton serving as the keynote speaker at the AIPAC meeting this Sunday, there is intense speculation about the impact on the conference of the crisis that Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, reportedly called the worst in 35 years. James Besser at Jewish Week writes:

[Netanyahu] will will find many congressional Republicans eager to embrace him – and to use the perception of a U.S. overreaction to score political points against the hated Obama administration. Will Netanyahu focus on generating congressional back pressure against the administration, or will he emphasize mending fences with the White House?

Republican lawmakers are already admonishing the White House for taking back to Israel.
“The administration’s decision to escalate its rhetoric following Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel is not merely irresponsible, it is an affront to the values and foundation of our long-term relationship with a close friend and ally,” read a statement by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH. Similar statements have been issued by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS, Rep.Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, and others…”

My guess is that Obama will be cautious, as is his want. AIPAC will most likely choose caution as well. It has nothing to win by trying to break Obama or humiliating him further. Steve Clemons of the Washington Note writes that:

To gain his global standing, Obama will have to turn this worsening crisis with Israel and Netanyahu into a pivotal moment for US foreign policy

But he doubts that Obama will have “the vision and strategic capability to pull off something that leaves Israel, the US, and the Middle East in a better place.” Israelis are pitching this as a fight over who owns Jerusalem. That is a fight that Obama will not want to take on. Congress has been voting for years to recognize all of Jerusalem, including those expanded parts that Israel unilaterally annexed after 1967, as Israeli. Of course, this has huge implications for the two-state solution and largely puts paid to the notion of a viable Palestinian state. The wind has been going out of that notion since the failure of the Oslo process. Increasingly, policy makers recognize this but continue to maintain the two-state solution on life support, fearing what happens when they pull its tubes out. When they do admit that it is no longer a viable option, they must accept the terrible implications – that the Palestinians will be forever condemned to Israeli over-lordship. The US will then have only two choices: distance itself from Israel, or assisting Israel in controlling Palestinians and limiting the damage they and their sympathizers can do Israel or US interests in the region. The obvious choice for the US is the later option. It is the option Washington has flirted with since Truman decided to back the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia plans aid to Syria as ties improve
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Mon Mar 15, 2010
* Differences linger, but agreement on Lebanon
* Saudi investor appetite for Syria recovers

DAMASCUS, March 15 (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia is discussing extending development loans to Syria as ties between the two countries improve but there will not be direct cash assistance, the Saudi central bank governor said on Monday.

Diplomatic activity between Damascus and Riyadh picked up in the last months after they agreed to set aside their political differences and lower tension between their allies in Lebanon, which is a recipient of large Saudi cash injections.

Ties deteriorated after the 2005 assassination of Rafik al-Hariri, a Saudi-backed Lebanese member of parliament and former prime minister, resulting in the waning of Saudi investment appetite and aid to Syria.

“Syria is one of the most important Arab economies. It’s a promising market to whoever has money to invest,” Muhammad al-Jasser, head of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, said after attending a banking conference in the Syrian capital.

“The Saudi finance minister was in Damascus and talked about this and what the Saudi Fund for Development is doing along with other Saudi government institutions,” he added.

Syria needs billions of dollars in investment to overhaul its infrastructure, resuscitate its drought hit east, lower unemployment and deal with a 2.5 percent annual population growth.

Most of the investment has been by amongst others Syrian expatriates and from the Gulf into banking and real estate. Economic growth fell to 3 percent last year compared with 5.2 percent in 2008, according to the World Bank.

Asked whether Saudi Arabia could deposit cash directly into the Syrian central bank, as it did with Lebanon, Jasser said such a move “will not be considered”.

But he said that the Saudi Fund for Development signed a memorandum of understanding with the Syrian finance ministry last week to lend $140 million to raise output at a power station in Syria.

INVESTOR MOOD

If extended, the loan will be the first since the Hariri assassination, which Saudi-backed politicians in Lebanon blame on Syria. Damascus denied any involvement.

Syria, which is under U.S. sanctions for its support of militant groups, has opened several sectors of the economy to private investment, especially banking and insurance, since President Bashar al-Assad succeeded his late father, Hafez al-Assad, in 2000.

The ruling Baath Party, which Bashar controls, nationalised large parts of the economy and enacted bans on private enterprise when it took power in 1963. It also imposed emergency law which is still in force and banned any opposition.

In a sign of changing investor mood, Saleh Kamel, a leading Saudi businessmen, addressed an investment forum in Damascus this month.

He said Syria was underperforming compared to Lebanon, its much smaller neighbour, because of what he described as antiquated laws, corruption and a lack of pro-investment culture.

Syria supports the Lebanese opposition led by the armed Shi’ite movement Hezbollah, which is also backed by Iran. Saudi Arabia is the political patron of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, son of the late Rafik al-Hariri.

© Thomson Reuters 2010. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

EU Renews Push for Mideast Peace Talks
George Bagdadi for CBS

The European Union’s top diplomat arrived in Damascus late Monday for talks with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, as part of a regional tour to try to give the EU more clout on the world’s diplomatic stage…. Baroness Ashton’s ambitious visit — her first big international test of the “quiet diplomacy” that she promised would deliver results for Europe — will also take her over the course of the week to Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories to meet with political leaders and civil society representatives, before heading to Moscow on Friday for a meeting of the international quartet on the Middle East. The Middle East Quartet comprises Russia, the United Nations, the United States and the EU.

Ashton was scheduled to meet with Assad and foreign minister Walid Mouallem Tuesday morning before holding a press conference.

A major economic deal between Syria and the EU (known as the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement) has been on hold for the last six years, and is on top of the agenda. The two sides came close in October to sealing the pact, which centers on economic and legal reforms as well as respect for human rights and democratic values.

The agreement would qualify Syria for more aid from the European Union, beyond the €500 million ($748.6 million) it has received since 1979.

Netanyahu Offers Apology, but No Shift in Policy
BY: ISABEL KERSHNER | THE NEW YORK TIMES

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told his cabinet on Sunday that the ill-timed announcement of new housing plans for a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem during a visit by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week had been “regrettable” and “hurtful. … But he did not indicate that the building project would be canceled …

Obama’s Turn Against Israel
MARCH 15, 2010, Wall Street Journal, Editorials
The U.S. makes a diplomatic crisis out of a blunder.

In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has endorsed “healthy relations” between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the U.S. of “colonialism,” and publicly apologized to Moammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for “a jihad” against Switzerland.

When it comes to Israel, however, the Administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation. On a visit to Israel last week, Vice President Joe Biden condemned an announcement by a mid-level Israeli official that the government had approved a planning stage—the fourth out of seven required—for …

AIPAC CALLS RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT “A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN”
URGES OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO WORK TO IMMEDIATELY DIFFUSE THE TENSION WITH ISRAEL

The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests.

The escalated rhetoric of recent days only serves as a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done to with regard to the urgent issue of Iran’s rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

We strongly urge the Administration to work closely and privately with our partner Israel, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two governments.

As Vice President Biden said last week in Israel, “Progress in the Middle East occurs when there is no daylight between the United States and Israel.”

Haaretz via FLC

In Oren’s Saturday conference call with the Israeli consuls general, he said that the current crisis was the most serious with the Americans since a confrontation between Henry Kissinger and Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 over an American demand for a partial withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. …..Four consuls discussed the conference call with Haaretz. Some noted that in previous conference calls with Oren, the ambassador took pains to make clear that relations with the United States were excellent. This time, however, Oren sounded extremely tense and pessimistic. Oren was quoted as saying that “the crisis was very serious and we are facing a very difficult period in relations [between the two countries].” ….. Oren told participants in the conference call of a meeting he was summoned to on Friday with Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg for a reprimand. Oren spoke of his surprise at being summoned after believing that the crisis had ended on Thursday. ..”

MEET THE PRESS 3/14/10

…..MR. BROKAW: Why didn’t the president pick up the phone and call “Bibi” Netanyahu on…
MR. AXELROD: Well, the vice president was right there to convey the president’s view. The secretary of State conveyed that view. The ambassador was called to the State Department and our views were made clear to them. And I know the prime minister spoke to this this morning after his Cabinet meeting. I think the message was received.

TOM FRIEDMAN:
MR. BROKAW: All right. Let’s talk about something else that was in the news this week and almost got overwhelmed by the healthcare reform except for the audacity of what it was. Vice President Biden goes to Israel to have a high-level meeting with the prime minister to talk about trying to get the peace process started again. While he is there, the Israeli government announces that they’re going to build 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem. Tom, you had something to say about that. The secretary of State had something to say about it. We’re going to begin by sharing her interview with Andrea Mitchell. Here is Hillary Clinton.
(Videotape, Friday)

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Here you are with the Middle East just beginning to approach negotiations, and Israel announces an expansion of settlements. It was really a slap in the face to the visiting vice president.

SEC’Y HILLARY CLINTON: It was, Andrea. And I’ve expressed that directly to the prime minister. It was not just an unfortunate incident of timing, but the substance was, you know, something that is not needed as we are attempting to move toward the resumption of negotiations. … It was insulting. And it was insulting not just to the vice president, who certainly didn’t deserve that. He was there with a very clear message of commitment to the peace process, solidarity with the Israeli people. But it was an insult to the United States.
(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: And that’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Today, in The New York Times, Tom Friedman, who really began his career or certainly commanded all of our attention by writing from the Middle East, has written this. “Biden should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: `Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And right now, you’re driving drunk. You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world to satisfy some domestic political need with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious. We need to focus on building our country.’” Has it ever been more serious between the United States and Israel in recent years than this?

MR. TOM FRIEDMAN: No, this is a serious crisis, Tom. But I, I put it in–first of all, I think the president, the vice president, secretary of State did exactly the right thing for American interests and for Israel, by, by the way. I think we got to put this in a, in a broad context, all right? I think what Hillary–Hillary’s reaction and Biden’s reaction, first of all, they were speaking for many secretaries of State, many presidents in the past who have had Israeli settlements shoved in their face before, during, and after a visit by Israel saying, “Look, you guys do what you do, but we need to take care of our politics.” So there’s a lot of backstory here, this isn’t just about that trip.

Second, I think we need to keep the following in mind. What have we been–we, the United States–been doing for Israel rightly, I believe? We didn’t, we didn’t fight the Iraq war for Israel, but the fact is, in taking out Saddam Hussein, we took out a guy who had scud-missiled Israel and was giving $25,000 to any Palestinian who committed suicide against Israel. We have fought against the–what I think was the tendentious Goldstone Report on, on the Gaza war on the world stage. We’ve helped Israel protect it from that. We’ve been trying to organize a global coalition against Iran. And we give Israel, in the FY 2011 budget, $3 billion in military aid, the most advanced equipment. So let’s put that context on.

Then let’s look at the moment we’re in. We have an Israeli prime minister from the right who actually could deliver the right. He’s done actually a lot of good things on the ground in the West Bank. You have to give him credit for that. We have the best Palestinian leadership we’ve had in a long time. And we have a Sunni Arab world obsessed with Iran, ready to work with Israel more than ever. You’d think in that context Israel could say to the United States, you know, “You’re doing all this for us, we’re just going to stop settlements in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, not temporarily, not moratorium. We’re going to give you a chance to actually test the other side whether they’re for real. We’ve got enough settlements, we’ve go enough housing. Barack Obama, this Bud’s for you. We’re going to do this for the American people.” Is that anti-Semitism, is that anti-Israelism, to ask that of an Israeli government, to ask, act first in its own interest and then in America’s interest? I don’t think so.

The State Department released its annual country reports on human rights, which described deteriorating conditions across the Middle East. The country reports for the Middle East and North Africa region included several recurring themes such as judicial misconduct, fraudulent or rigged electoral systems, a disregard for basic human freedoms, and general malfeasance by public officials. You can find a detailed summary of the reports for particular MENA countries of concern on the POMED blog.

Ali Gharib writes at Lobelog:

In the March 11 London Review of Books, (behind a fire-wall, unfortunately,) Yonaton Mendel has a short primer on recent “hasbara” campaigns — essentially Israeli propaganda. In it, he summarizes instructions that would be given to diplomatic conscripts (to include all Israelis and other Jews): ‘Stick to your personal stories,’ they were told, ‘do not be drawn into political discussions. There will be people who irritate you and say that you are occupiers … do not go there.’

Nasrallah announces Jumblatt’s visit to Syria in Daily Star

Jumblatt apologises to al-Assad
14 March 2010, Al Jazeera English

Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese MP and leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, has made a public apology for “indecent comments” he made in the past against Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president. Jumblatt, who was part of the anti-Syria March 14 movement, had described al-Assad in 2007 as “Damascus’ dictator”, “a savage” and “an Israeli product”. Participating in Hiwar Maftouh (Open Dialogue), an Al Jazeera Arabic talk show, Jumblatt said his comments were made out of anger, amid stressful atmosphere and at a time the sectarian and ethnic split in Lebanon was at its peak.

He said: andldquo;My remarks were indecent, out of context and go beyond the political manners.” Jumblatt expressed his willingness to open a new chapter with Syria, the country that many in Lebanon hold responsible for the murder of his politician father, Kamal Jumblatt in 1977. Damascus has also been blamed by many for the 2005 assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister.

Asked whether he was willing to visit Damascus, he said his visit to Syria depended on Syrians’ willingness to move on. He said: “I call on the Syrian leadership; for the sake of nation’s (Arab nation) interest, regional interests, Arab objective dialogue, objective Syrian-Lebanese relations and the ties between the two neighbouring countries, can he (President al-Assad) rise above this issue? I simply ask for this.” “Yes, I want to turn the page,” he stressed.

After joining the March 14 movement, Jumblatt had pressed for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon following al-Hariri’s murder. Under intense pressure, Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon in April 2005, ending three decades of military presence in its smaller neighbour. Jumblatt has since split from the March 14 movement.
March 15, 2010
17:00
Reut Institute report author lies about Naomi Klein
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Let’s review shall we?

Reporters questioned the Reut Institute about their use of the terms “sabotage” and “attack” in a set of recommendations for how the Israeli government should respond to human rights group who said things they consider a threat. In response, Reut didn’t say, “We were misunderstood and we reject violence of any kind.” But they did suggest that what they mostly meant was sabotage and digging campaigns against individuals who work for human rights organizations- nasty work pioneered by NGO Monitor. (Which may be why one acquaintance at a human rights group that does work in Palestine said that the director sent an email to staff suggesting they come forward now with any personal information that could be used against them. Sad days indeed.)

Reut Institute’s Eran Shayshon got a chance to explain the report on The Current, Canada’s flagship radio morning program : CBC Listen here.

It’s interesting that out of the 92-page report (download it all here), Naomi Klein isn’t mentioned once. Yet Shayshon confidently says that Klein, and her opposition to “Israel’s right to exist”, is one of the main reasons that Toronto is considered a hub of delegitimacy. Only problem? Klein has never been opposed to Israel’s right to exist.

(Another problem? My guess is that there’s a second report or database somewhere that is full of names of people like Klein and specific organizations conspicuously missing from the published report. They knew issuing a list of enemies of the state would cause more of a firestorm, but it’s the obvious next step when you’re fighting a war. And it works in Israel and Palestine, why not the rest of the world?)

The report also says “there was an attempt to boycott the Toronto Film Festival because it thematically spotlighted Tel Aviv”. That’s a lie too. The Toronto Declaration explicitly did not call for a boycott of the festival. It opposed showing films under a celebratory spotlight on Tel Aviv.

Mondoweiss has Naomi Klein’s response: What Shayshon says about me is a flat out lie. I have made a personal choice not to advocate any particular political outcome in Israel-Palestine. He can search all my writing and public statements, he won’t find anything. What I do advocate, and what the BDS campaign advocates, is for Israel to abide by all applicable international laws. Any political outcome — whether one state, two state or more — must abide by these universal non-discriminatory principles. Though I do have personal preferences, I have no secret agenda and would support any outcome that conformed to these principles. Shayshon’s other big lie is his claim that I oppose “Israel’s right to exist”; indeed that I “have stated it out[right].” Once again, I challenge him to find one single example in anything I have said or written that would in any way support this claim. He won’t find it. This lie could just be slander, and attempt to inflict more “shame” on BDS advocates, as the leaked internal document explained to all of us recently. But I suspect that if challenged, Shayshon would simply claim that to support BDS is to oppose Israel’s existence, a claim I have heard before. This is interesting. Since the unequivocal goal of BDS is to force Israel to abide by international law, what Shayshon seems to be saying by implication is that Israel cannot exist within the confines of international law. I would never make such an argument but it does explain the recent aggressive “lawfare” campaign taking aim at the very existence of these laws. One last point: if supporting boycotts against a place means supporting its annihilation (the claim being made here and elsewhere), what precisely are we to make of the Gaza seige, infinitely more brutal than anything BDS advocates? Does that mean Israel is denying the right of Gaza to exist?
13:05
Achinoam ‘Proud to add my voice to OneVoice’
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)

Following OneVoice Israel’s activities in Tel Aviv at Vice President Joe Biden’s public address singer AchiNoam says that she is proud to add her voice to OneVoice.
[noa-the-singer.blogspot.com]
4:39
IDF Violates Israeli Supreme Court Constraints on Targeted Assassinations
» ‎ Israel Palestine Blogs (palestine)
NOTE: Yesterday, I published a post about an Israeli journalist secretly detained and placed under house arrest by the Shin Bet for allegedly leaking top-secret IDF memos detailing planned targeted assassinations against specific Palestinian militants. The memos made clear that the IDF was flouting a Supreme Court ruling which permitted such attacks, but only under a limited set of conditions.

I have changed the status of this post to private, thus removing it from public access out of respect for Israeli peace activists who inform me that the alleged leaker is negotiating with the authorities over a plea deal and that publication of the details of the case could jeopardize this process. I have grave concerns about whether I did the right thing, since it appears to me that silence only furthers the interests of the intelligence agencies prosecuting her and the IDF, which wishes the whole embarrassing episode would just go away.

To thwart this goal, I’d like here to review the original Haaretz story (English translation here–a cursory reading indicates to me the original is much more comprehensive and damning than the translation) which utilized the leaks about targeted assassinations. First, let’s go back to 2006 when the Israeli Supreme Court refused to outlaw this tactic, which Israeli human rights NGOs argued persuasively was a violation of international law. As a compromise, the Supreme Court said it would continue to allow such extrajudicial killings as long as they observed certain criteria. First, the victim had to be a ticking-bomb, that is someone imminently planning a terror attack. Second, he or she could only be killed if there was no other way of apprehending them short of death. Third, there could be no danger of killing innocent civilians in such an attack.

The leaked IDF memos proved that the IDF, after the Supreme Court ruling, had liquidated terrorists included on the list, but had publicly released information on their killing which made it appear as if they had been killed during a normal military operation in which they posed a threat to IDF soldiers. In reality, they were killed in cold blood.

In the memo, the army senior staff explicitly permit killing the victims even if civilians might be killed. It also made no provision for capturing the wanted person alive. The mission’s goal was death. In another memo, the chief of staff specifically postpones a killing timed for the visit of a U.S. secretary of state. In other words, the victim was not a “ticking bomb” and postponement of his death was a matter of political expediency as it would embarrass the government for it to happen during a U.S. diplomatic visit.

Haaretz published its story in 2008 thus embarrassing the IDF. But as far as I know, the Supreme Court was not embarrassed enough to take any remedial action to ensure its ruling was respected. Further, another part of the ruling directed the establishment of a committee to review these assassination and ensure they comply with the Supreme Court directive. To this day, such a committee has not been established.

As late as 2009, the IDF announced it had killed wanted militants on the West Bank. The army claimed they were armed and thus posed a threat, but even it admitted they had not fired a shot. Palestinian witnesses claimed they were executed in cold blood. As far as the Israeli military is concerned, impunity–but not the truth–goes marching on.

The Israeli who leaked these documents did a great service to Israeli democracy, even if she potentially violated a law. What was worse–the IDF treating the highest court in the land with impunity while engaging in acts of savagery violating international law? Or a young person who saw an evil and attempted to expose it?

Someone please tell me what kind of democracy allows its intelligence and military to run roughshod over the rule of law. What kind of country allows its domestic intelligence service to arrest a journalist secretly and maintain her in detention secretly. In what kind of country does a journalist simply disappear with other journalists and news outlets having no recourse to publish about it? China? Cuba? Vietnam? Iran? North Korea? Is that what Israel is aiming for? To be no better than countries ruled by despots?

I say to the Shin Bet and IDF: remove the gag order. Allow your allegedly free press to report this story. Don’t treat someone doing their duty as a citizen as an enemy of the state. I look forward to the time when I can make my original post accessible once again.

There are several Hebrew sources which have reported on this story. Here is a wonderful fable about an imaginary place called Shoo-Shoo land which disappears a journalist without a trace. The ejournal of the Israel Democracy Institute, The Seventh Eye, has also written a tough critique of this incident, It Can’t Happen Here. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing about this in English yet.

Related posts:
1. UN Report Finds Evidence of Israeli, Palestinian War Crimes, Seeks International Criminal Court Referral The respected South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, just released his…
2. Israel to PA: Rescind Appeal to Criminal Court or Else If you’re old enough you’ll remember Yaakov Smirnoff, a Russian…
3. Federal Court Overturns Ruling Barring Ramadan from U.S. The ACLU and Tariq Ramadan won a major legal victory…
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

← Palestine Blogs Aggregator !!! →

GV Menace » Israel Palestine Blogs

Feeds

Israel Palestine Blogs (24 unread)