Monday, 7 June 2010

(Apparently) The US is letting Israel down ...

Via Friday-Lunch-Club

NY POST/ here
God bless his heart that Bolton ... befittingly, in the

"... more seriously, a potential fourth example of Obama's increasingly anti-Israeli policy now arises: the administration's strongly negative position on Israel's Gaza blockade. Although so far expressed largely in private, with only nuanced statements being leaked publicly, the White House is plainly leaning heavily on Israel to weaken the blockade in potentially fatal ways. Indeed, on Friday, a White House press person said the "current arrangements" were "unsustain- able," a very poorly disguised threat to Israel.
Israel itself is prepared to make some cosmetic changes, so open differences between Tel Aviv and Washington are not currently visible publicly. Beneath the surface, however, the diplomacy is intense.
Ironically, Obama is expending more energy pressuring Israel than he did in the Security Council, the Human Rights Council or the nuclear-review conference to protect US and Israeli equities. This pattern also typifies Obama and his key advisers: They find it is far easier to bend their friends into submission than to stand up to America's determined adversaries (whoa!).
America's Western European allies, by and large, already are happy to agree that the Gaza blockade violates "international law." This view in part explains why even Britain and France failed to join the US in the Human Rights Council, and negotiated too closely with Turkey in its efforts to slam Israel in the Security Council.
Third World radicals will doubtless build on Europe's position in their ongoing, decades-long efforts to delegitimize Israel entirely. There is equally little doubt that Obama himself is susceptible to these kinds of foreign pressures, especially when withstanding them might cause his own international image to suffer. Here, Israel is merely collateral damage in guarding the cult of our first post-American president.
The harm caused by US weakness on the Gaza blockade issue will reach far beyond the Middle East. Worldwide, America's friends and allies increasingly realize that President Obama won't stand with them in controversial circumstances (as Did Bolton's old boss, W Bush with the Cedar-Closet Revolution, May 7, 2008' ... in the streets of Beirut!). Accordingly, those closest to us will calibrate their own interests more carefully to hedge against US weakness, step by step distancing themselves from us...."

Posted by G, Z, or B at 2:17 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Livni to Netanyahu: You Destroyed Israel's Stance in World

Almanar

07/06/2010 Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni on Monday submitted a motion of no-confidence motion in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government regarding the Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla last week, saying that Israel could have avoided the international isolation which it now faced.

In presenting the motion, the Kadima chairwoman accused the government of destroying Israel's stance in the world and in effect, its security in the Middle East.

"We have full faith in the State of Israel, in its values and in its citizens. But the current government of Israel is not representing the state to the world," Livni claimed. "This government needs to understand… either a Palestinian state on our conditions, or a Hamastan that results from inaction and failure."

"Israel is facing a difficult time right now, perhaps the most difficult in our history," Livni said. "This is not just a temporary event that will pass. This is a continuous process under which Israel is becoming isolated from the world."

"International isolation carried with it difficult implications on Israel's stance in the region, this difficult neighborhood in which we live."

"It is possible to recruit the world to Israel's interests," Livni declared. "Our strategy of diplomacy and security is based on two things," she said. "One: our relationship with the US that directly impacts Israel's stance in the world; and two: the process to end the [Middle East] conflict and reach an arrangement that ensures Israel's defense."

"This way to do it is this: We must isolate Hamas, which is not a partner to peace or to an arrangement with a legitimate Palestinian government."

"We have full faith in the Israeli forces," Livni added. "But we have no faith in a government hat brings Israel into the difficult position of isolation that prevents the army from acting when needed."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

DEAD RACIST RABBI, advocated GENOCIDE AGAINST PALESTINIANS

6/07/2010 07:38:00 PM Posted by Editor Publisher Hiyam Noir


From Khalid Amayreh

7 June, 2010

Mordechai Elyahu, one of Israel’s most racist and fascist-minded rabbis, died Monday, at the age of 81, Israeli sources reported.

A former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Elyahu was a chief mentor for the Gush Emunim settler movement.

However, Elyahu was especially notorious for advocating ethnic cleansing and murdering non-combatants including children if the crimes are politically expedient for Israel.

In 2007, he urged the Israeli army to employ “Nazi methods” against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.

“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand. And if they don’t stop after we kill 1000, then we must kill 10,000. If they don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop,” Shumel Elyhau, the rabbi’s son, quoted his father as saying.

He petitioned the Israeli government to carry out a series of carpet bombing of Palestinian population centers in the Gaza Strip, arguing that a ground invasion of the heavily populated enclave would endanger the lives of Israeli soldiers.

Widely viewed as one of the most knowledgeable Talmudic sages in Israel, Elyahu ruled that it was forbidden to risk the lives of Jews for fear of killing or injuring non-Jews whom he viewed as “of lesser value in comparison to Jews.”

Elyahu was closely affiliated with Merkaz H’arav, a Talmudic college in West Jerusalem, widely considered to be the theological nerve center of religious messianic Zionism


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

"...Outre-mer was finally overrun by Muslim armies. But Israel will be destroyed from within"

Via Friday-Lunch-Club


Hate to say that I mostly agree with neoconish Douthat in the NYTimes/ here

"... The first reason was geographic: the Holy Land is easier to conquer than defend, because its topograpy and regional position leave it perpetually vulnerable to invasion. The second was diplomatic: the Crusaders were perpetually falling out with their major neighbors, from Byzantium to Egypt, and the support they enjoyed from Western Europe was too limited to save them from extinction. The third was demographic: the ruling class of Outremer, primarily Frankish knights and their retainers, was a minority in a territory whose inhabitants were largely Eastern Orthodox and Muslim, and they had difficulty achieving the kind of integration that long-term stability required.
A decade ago, before the collapse of the peace process, the Israelis seemed to be faring better than Outremer on all three fronts. Their potent armed forces and nuclear deterrent more than offset the weakness of their geographic position. After decades of isolation, they had forged reasonably stable relationships with many regional powers — including Turkey, Jordan and Egypt — and an enduring bond with the world’s superpower, the United States.....
Ten years later, though, only the military advantage endures. Diplomatically and demographically, Israel increasingly faces the same problems that bedeviled the 12th-century kings of Jerusalem.
In the wake of the Gaza and Lebanon wars, and now the blockade-running fiasco, the Jewish state is as isolated on the world stage as it’s been since the dark Zionism-is-racism years of the 1970s. Meanwhile, its relationship with its Arab citizens is increasingly strained, the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank seems destined to continue indefinitely, and both Arab populations are growing so swiftly that Jews could soon be a minority west of the Jordan River.
Israel can probably live with diplomatic isolation so long as the American public remains staunchly on its side. But it will have a harder time surviving the demographic transformation of its territory. If the Jewish state can’t extricate itself from the West Bank, it may be forced to choose between the quasi-apartheid of a permanent occupation, and the dissolution that would likely follow from giving Palestinians a significant voice in Israel’s politics.
Israel’s critics often make this extrication sound easy. In reality, it promises to involve enormous sacrifices, of land and everyday security alike — whether in the form of extraordinary concessions to a divided Palestinian leadership, or a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank that would be more wrenching than the 2005 retreat from Gaza.
What’s more, either approach would almost certainly invite stepped-up violence from the irreconcilable Palestinian factions and their Iranian and Syrian backers, who will see any retreat as a cue to escalate the struggle...."

Posted by G, Z, or B at 1:07 PM

Veteran peace activist: Israel trying to get Gaza people to overthrow Hamas

Haaretz

Benjamin Netanyahu is lying when he says the Gaza blockade exists in order to prevent the transfer of weapons to Gaza, Uri Avnery tells Haaretz.

By Mazal Mualem
Journalist and former Knesset member Uri Avnery is one of the most prominent political activists identified with the Israeli peace camp. As has been the 86-year-old's habit for decades, he did not miss the leftist demonstration in Tel Aviv, on Saturday night - this one protesting the government's handling of the Gaza-bound flotilla incident last week.

All told, only 6,000 people took part in the demonstration. Is the Israeli peace camp in fact just a negligible minority?

That number is wrong. There were at least twice as many demonstrators, and that is a huge amount when you take into account the unprecedented brainwashing the country experienced during the week, when a a near-totalitarian propaganda machine repeated a single picture and a single story, and prevented citizens from seeing or hearing anything else. We hardly saw anything except for a few minutes shot and edited by the Israel Defense Forces spokesman's office, which confiscated the films shot by journalists. The question may be asked: Why? What are they afraid of?

The photos published by the IDF and the Turkish media clearly show Israeli naval commandos being attacked, thrown from the deck and bleeding. Are you saying those photos were fabricated?

The gap is created when you see only two minutes [of footage]; you don't see what came before or after, and so it is possible to get the impression that the Turks attacked a Jewish ship. Imagine if Jews were in distress, attacked on the high seas, with dead and wounded - just imagine the uproar. Not only the Turks see this as an Israeli attack, but the whole world does.

Are you convinced this was an aid flotilla?

There is no doubt. The intention of the Israeli government is to create a crisis that is so terrible that the people of Gaza will overthrow Hamas. Meanwhile, four years have passed and Hamas is stronger than it was. What is the siege for? Who is it good for? If the Israeli government hadn't sent the poor soldiers to attack the ship, just as the cabinet secretary [Zvi Hauser] suggested, all of this could have been prevented. They could have stopped [the ships], examined them and let them go on. It seems we have to protect IDF soldiers from [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak and [Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu.

When Netanyahu calls it a flotilla of hate, is he lying?

Not only Netanyahu, the ministers, too, in addition to a few people in uniform: the army chief of staff and the commander of the navy. In any well-run country, the head of the navy would have resigned that same night. The operation itself reflected an astounding and disastrous lack of military capability. What is the nature of an army whose admiral personally commands such a stupid undertaking? I was a soldier and I don't remember any of my commanders ever putting me in such an idiotic situation. A person who can give such an order cannot command our soldiers.

And the mounting evidence that the flotilla was a provocation by terrorists fails to convince you?

The story begins with the fact that Israel attacked a Turkish ship because it was bringing aid. The ship was attacked and [the forces] did what they did. After all, we experienced this ourselves with the Exodus, when British soldiers attacked and the illegal immigrants defended themselves any way they could. Three immigrants were killed and dozens were injured. That was the beginning of the end of the British Mandate just eight months later.

Continuing this parallel that you are making, what does this say about us?

Parallel? Then there was a British government minister named Ernest Bevin who was stupid and coarse, and now we have a defense minister who is stupid and coarse. We are led by a gang of idiots. After last week a big change has taken place en route to ending the occupation and the siege on Gaza, which is a siege based on lies and wrapped in stupidity.

Benjamin Netanyahu said the siege exists in order to prevent the transfer of weapons to Gaza. This is a lie. He prevents the entrance of noodles, fruit, children's toys and paper for books. The damage caused to Israel's standing this week is greater than that caused by Operation Cast Lead [in Gaza, in December 2008-January 2009]. I am receiving messages from liberal Jews [abroad] and they see this as a disaster. We are moving forward with the blindness of the people of Sodom - struck blind and going on, increasing the wave of hatred against Israel.
Is it possible that something good can come from this low point, as it did with the Exodus incident?

In Goethe's "Faust," Satan appears and says: I am the power that always wants evil, but causes good. It might happen that, paradoxically, something good comes out of the bad.
Who will lead? After all, the peace camp has no political leadership.

All of the disasters in Israel began with Ehud Barak declaring himself the head of the peace camp. He went to Camp David unprepared and failed. When he returned he did not say that the negotiations would continue. Instead he said: I have turned over every stone on the way to peace; we haven't got a partner. These words caused a disaster we haven't yet recovered from.

But perhaps now, because of this incident, people who have been standing on the sidelines will understand that we have an existential problem. I see the demonstration [Saturday night] as a new awakening. We have a long way to go. We are in a situation in which the political system is split wide open. Last week in the Knesset we saw that Kadima is not a different version of the Likud; it is even worse. I was a Knesset member for 10 years and I don't remember any disgrace that came even close to this: physical attacks [on Arab MKs] by nearly all the Jewish members accompanied by the shouting of racist and sexist remarks.

And the Arab MKs did not take part in the uproar?

There is polarization on both sides. Actions create reactions. There's a vicious cycle here when the parliament descends to such a nadir. I am looking for the right word: parliamentary rabble. It terrifies me anew. It is a death blow to parliamentary democracy.
Did [Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan incite the region?

That is part of the stupidity. We have had one very important friend in the Middle East for decades: the Turkish army. Turkish politics has been changing over the last two years; Turkey wants to position itself as a Middle East superpower, and wanted to mediate between Israel and the Moslem world. And let's assume we didn't like the fact that Turkey moved closer to Iran. What did we do? We united all of Turkey in hatred for Israel. Was it worth it?

Related Zio-Propaganda From Haaretz

Netanyahu: Gazans want to overthrow Hamas
Fatah: Hamas is Harming Sick Gazans for Propaganda
Fatah Snipes at Hamas: 'Using Women and Sick as Smugglers'

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Erdogan to Assad: Israel Will Pay for Freedom Flotilla Crime

Erdogan to Assad: Israel Will Pay for Freedom Flotilla Crime

07/06/2010 A week after the Israeli massacre against a Gaza-bound Turkish ship, which left nine people martyred, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan assured Syrian President Bachar Assad that the Israeli enemy will pay for its massacre.

At a joint press conference in Istanbul with Assad, Erdogan said that his government was prepared to supply the Gaza Strip with "everything it needs," adding that Israel's blockade of the Gaza strip must end immediately.

"What happened on the flotilla is a crime against humanity," Erdogan said, referring to the Israel Navy raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship last week that left nine Turkish nationals dead. "Palestine and Gaza are a giant prison and this situation cannot continue," he said. "We can no longer remain silent and we will not be silent anymore regarding anything having to do with Gaza.

Assad said in turn that the Israeli raid was not just another crime, but a crime that exposes Israel's true face. "We came to Istanbul to condemn Israel's crime," Assad said. "We are not just people who talk and issue declarations of condemnation. We are in favor of actions, and we declare that we will support every decision and every step that Turkey requests in order to break the blockade, including support of an international inquiry."

"It is clear to the world that the peace activists arrived with a goal of peace," Assad added. "The whole world, including Israel, knew in advance that it was a Turkish boat, sailing under a Turkish flag. Israel always commits crime, but it has always accused those it killed of terrorism. This time, Israel cannot accuse its victims of terror."

Earlier Monday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said the normalization of Turkish-Israeli relations - severely strained after the deadly raid – would depend upon Tel Aviv's acceptance of an international inquiry into the event. "If Israel gives the green light to the formation of an international committee and is ready to answer questions of the committee, Turkish-Israeli relations will have a different course. Otherwise, Turkish-Israeli relations cannot be normalized,"

Davutoglu told a press conference in Istanbul. "If Israel thinks it has protected its national interests and rights, it should declare that it accepts formation of an international committee. Otherwise, it means that they are hiding some facts," he added, speaking on the sidelines of a summit of a 20-member Eurasian security group, where Turkey was seeking to condemn Israel.
Turkey to close down an Israeli intelligence station near Iranian border?

Turkey to close down an Israeli intelligence station near Iranian border?


I remember when the most important 'listening post' was in the Shah's Iran!
"... Israel has rejected much of the criticism of Operation Sky Winds, but the Israeli defence establishment, long friendly with the Turkish military, is extremely worried. Turkey’s government, itself religiously based, has aligned itself with public anger. Reports to the Israeli defence ministry indicated that it might close down an Israeli intelligence station based on Turkish soil, not far from the Iranian border.
“If that happens,” said a well-informed Israeli source, “Israel will lose its ears and nose, which watch and sniff the Iranians’ back garden.”
It would mean that Israel’s botched Gaza blockade had weakened its defences against the much graver threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Posted by G, Z, or B at 11:42 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel's attack on Flotilla violates international law



Jinan Bastaki, The Electronic Intifada, 7 June 2010

In the aftermath of Israel's 31 May attack on the Freedom Flotilla that left nine dead and scores wounded, each side claimed their actions were protected under international law. While the Israelis cited self-defense, and the Flotilla passengers reiterated that they were peace activists on a humanitarian mission that were attacked in international waters where neither Israel (nor any other state) has any claim. This has caused some confusion, especially in light of the extensive airtime given to Israeli officials by most mainstream media outlets. However, it must be known that under established rules of international law, Israel had no right to attack a peaceful convoy on international waters; and indeed such an attack constitutes an international crime or even an act of war.

The Israeli argument is predicated on the assumption that the blockade of Gaza is justified, that "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," and therefore, as Israel is at war with Hamas, intercepting the Flotilla was justified. What is cited is the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, which under Section II states that a blockade is a legitimate method of warfare. In an Al-Jazeera interview, Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stated that "Israel is at war with Hamas." Based on a very selective reading of the San Remo Manual, Israel considered the Flotilla to be breaching the blockade, and under Article 98 is therefore entitled to seize the ships. But is it really as clear-cut?

To know that, we must ascertain whether the blockade was indeed a legitimate means, as Israel states, to defend itself against Hamas. Under Article 102 of the San Remo Manual, it states that a blockade is prohibited if the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage. A 2009 report by the UN Human Rights Council showed that Israel's restrictions of both imports to and exports from Gaza were unclear and often inconsistent, denying the civilian population adequate nutrition. Such arbitrary items that were barred include sage, cardamom, ginger, jam, fresh meat, fishing rods, among other items. Although there is much aid available, Israel was not allowing a sufficient amount to enter Gaza. This amounts to a breach of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits collective punishment. Nothing could be clearer than Israel's Security Cabinet's declaration in 2007 that as it viewed the whole of Gaza as "hostile territory," they would restrict the flow of people and goods, effectively harming the livelihoods of ordinary civilians. In March 2009, 65 percent of the population was living under the poverty line, with 37 percent living in extreme poverty. The UN report states that "In so far as it constitutes collective punishment of all persons in Gaza, including the civilian population, the blockade is itself a violation of international humanitarian law."

Considering that the blockade itself is illegal, and indeed the UN has asked Israel to lift the blockade, the San Remo Manual is not applicable since it only applies to legal blockades. Only if a blockade is legal does Article 103 of the Manual become effective, which states that if the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided for, the blockading party must allow free passage of foodstuffs and essential goods, but has a right to inspect them. The reality of the matter is that Israeli is imposing the insufferable conditions.

In actual fact, since Israel is exercising "effective control" over Gaza, it is still the occupying power. Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" and this imposes on Israel several responsibilities towards the civilian population, which as we have seen above, have not been fulfilled. Article 55 of the Geneva Conventions specifically provides that the occupying power must provide food and medical supplies at an adequate level, and reports by both the UN and several human rights organizations have shown this not to be the case. Grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Conventions are war crimes. Under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions each state "shall bring such persons [who committed grave breaches of the convention], regardless of their nationality, before its own courts." Thus, those responsible in the Israeli government are liable to be tried for war crimes in any state.

Israel invoked the right to self-defense against what it said was attacks by passengers of the ships. However, it was Israel that intercepted the ship on the high seas. Under Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are open to all states and have certain freedoms, including the freedom of navigation. By intercepting the ship, Israel has breached this freedom. A war ship may only intercept a merchant vessel on the high seas if that vessel is engaged in piracy, the slave trade or is the same nationality as the warship (under the Law of the Sea as well as the Geneva High Seas Convention). In this case, there was no reasonable basis for this suspicion, and Israel did not claim any of these exceptions.

Furthermore, under the Law of the Sea, the flag state is to enforce its municipal laws as well as international law on its ship. That is, the ship is an extension of the flag state's territory. In the case of the Turkish ship, in which Israeli forces forcefully entered, killed and wounded civilians, those Israelis are subject to Turkish law and are liable to be tried in a Turkish court for their actions. The civilians on the boat were entitled to self-defense limited by the principle of proportionality. As has been reported, the Israelis boarded the ship with firearms bearing live ammunition as well as anti-riot weapons and ordinance, while the civilians used sharp objects and sticks. What we know from the eye-witness accounts on board the Mavi Marmara was that a passenger was shot first.

The case would be simpler had it been Israeli civilians, or at least an unauthorized attack by Israeli military personnel. In actual fact, the matter is more complicated because this was an authorized action by the Israeli military, thus rendering it an act of war on Turkey. Even in a situation of war, civilians are not to be attacked. The Flotilla was clearly carrying civilians who were not carrying weapons (and this was confirmed before the ships left port and after the cargo was inspected by Israel) from the ages of one year old to 89 years old. Under Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials, murder or any other inhumane act against a civilian population is tantamount to crimes against humanity.

Israel not only has to answer to Turkey for attacking its vessel, but as Israel is Party to the 1988 International Maritime Organization's Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, it has breached Article 3 which prohibits seizing a ship by force or any other form of intimidation, or to commit any acts of violence against the people on the ship.

What can be concluded is that Israel's reliance on the Articles in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea to defend its actions against the Flotilla are invalidated by the fact that the blockade itself is illegal. In that case, Israel's use of force against the Turkish vessel, the murder of civilians and its seizure of the other vessels constitute breaches of several Conventions to which Israel is a party to, a possible act of war against Turkey as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes, to which Israel must be held accountable.

Jinan Bastaki is a Law graduate of the London School of Economics. She has been active in the LSESU Palestine Society and is now residing in the United Arab Emirates. She is currently an LLM candidate at the University of California, Berkeley.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

After 4 Years Siege: Amr Mousa to visit Gaza within days


[ 07/06/2010 - 10:55 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Arab League secretary general Amr Mousa is to visit the Gaza Strip within the few coming days to get acquainted with the worsening conditions in the besieged enclave.

Thaer Al-Nunu, the Palestinian government's spokesman in Gaza, said on Monday that Mousa informed the government of his intention to visit the Strip within days but did not specify a date yet.

For his part, Dr. Ismail Radwan, a Hamas leader, welcomed Mousa's visit, adding that it should practically break the siege on Gaza.

He hoped that the visit would lead to the permanent opening of the Rafah crossing and accelerate the reconstruction of Gaza after getting acquainted with the vast destruction inflicted on it by the Israeli aggression and oppressive siege.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Arab parliamentarians: Our visit a step towards breaking Gaza siege

PIC

[ 07/06/2010 - 09:24 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- Delegates of the Arab parliament stated Sunday that their visit to the besieged Gaza Strip is considered a step towards breaking the Israeli siege and supporting the steadfastness of its people.

Head of the parliament Huda Bin Amer during her meeting with Palestinian officials at the headquarters of the Palestinian legislative council (PLC) said that all Arab parliaments support the Palestinian people and their just cause in the face of the Israeli occupation.

Bin Amer urged in her speech the Arab parliaments to organize such visits to Gaza and see closely the deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by the blockade.

She also deplored Israel for its brutal attack on Freedom Flotilla aid convoy, saying that this attack violated human values and the international law and unveiled further the true face of the occupation.

For his part, Dr. Ahmed Bahar, the first deputy speaker of the PLC, expressed his thanks to the parliamentary delegates and emphasized that this visit is very important and contributes to breaking the political and economic siege on Gaza.

Dr. Bahar invited speakers of Arab parliaments, and heads of the Arab League and the organizations of the Islamic conference to visit Gaza during the coming days to check the size of destruction caused by the Israeli war and the impacts of the blockade on all aspects of life in the Strip.

The delegation of the Arab parliament arrived Gaza Sunday afternoon through the Rafah border crossing on a short visit.

The delegation was received by Dr. Bahar, Palestinian lawmakers and officials from the government. This is the second Arab parliamentary visit since the siege was imposed on Gaza in 2007.

The delegation also met with Palestinian premier Ismail Haneyya and participated in laying the foundation stone of the freedom lighthouse in Gaza port and the opening of a memorial to the nine Turkish martyrs who were killed by the Israeli navy last Monday.

During the opening ceremony, Haneyya and the visiting parliamentary delegation laid a wreath at the memorial engraved with the names of the nine martyrs.

Haneyya described the martyrs as "kings" and said they courageously faced Israel's arrogance at sea.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Australian Shot in Israel’s Gaza Flotilla Raid Says Was Left to Bleed


Almanar

07/06/2010 An Australian man shot when Israeli commandos stormed an aid flotilla heading for Gaza said Monday he had been left to bleed on the ship after being hit twice in the leg. Ahmed Luqman said he was onboard the flagship Mavi Marmara last week when an Israeli bullet ripped through his leg, cutting into his femoral artery, and another smashed into his knee causing blood to form a pool on the floor beside him.

"I've just been left there to lay down on the ground and just frigging bleed, and I can't believe it," he told national broadcaster ABC from his hospital bed in Istanbul. "Many of the soldiers that came up, picked up my passport because it was a different color, looked at it, chucked it on the ground next to me and said, 'Ah, you're Australian'."

Luqman, 20, said that after the raid the Israelis made him "climb all the stairs on my own without any assistance, and I passed out like three or four times just getting up the stairs on my own". Nine activists died during the Israeli naval operation against the flotilla, which was attempting to break a blockade on Gaza.

Luqman, whose nursing student wife was with him at the time and gave him immediate medical attention, said he was trying to seek cover when he was hit. "I was just trying to get into the cabin and (was) just shot, like most of the other people who were just shot for nothing," he said. The Australian said he did not regret his actions and would "go again". "We don't care and if they take me, if they kill me in the process, I'm ready for that," Luqman said.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

43 years on: the 1967 war-revisited

May be I should have waited part 2 before commenting.

However, with full respect to Brother Khalid, I would add that, King Hussein was on the CIA payroll, in 1973 he flied to Tel-Aviv to warn the Israelis. Fortunaitly they don't believe that Syrai and Egypt would attack.

Again I would remind my readers, that year  1958 was the peak of the Arab Nationalist Movement, the birth years of:
1- United Arab Repuplic
2- Iraqi revolution (July 14, 1958)
And the birth years of FATEH calling for "Palistinian Independent Decission" A HUGE QUESTION MARK??

Read my Comments here, and here and here

"On July 14, 1958, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a military coup. The new government was led by General Abdul Karim Qasim who withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, opened diplomatic relations with Soviet Union and adopted a non-aligned stance; Iraq quit the organization shortly thereafter. The organization dropped the Baghdad Pact moniker in favor of CENTO at that time."
"The toppling of a pro-Western government in the Iraq 14 July Revolution, along with the internal instability, caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance."  And the British hurried to Jordan to Protect their last Hashimate asset.

Moreover, I don't like his justifying Muslim Brotherhood's alliance with King Hussein, and other reactionary, Arab regime against Nasir and Syria. Like they did in Jordan in 1950's, Moslim Brothers Supported Arafat, against Palestinian Nationalist and Leftist Resistance. Is it a coincidance that both Arafat and Supported SADDAM invading Kuwait??

Once upon a time I asked the Kuwaiti Ambassador in Beirut: Fateh was formed in Kuwait, with Petro-Dollar, the Gulf stated Crowned Arafat as the King of Palestine, or Father Palestine using the words of ALAN HART.

How come he out of sudden he tuned his back to you and supported Saddam???.
He stupidly replied: Its the philosophy of Hijacking, those who hijak a plane would hijack a country.

I believe, Arafat was not the Man of the Gulf states, he and Hussein were Usrael Assets and their mission was driving Saddam to hell, and they did it well.

Devide to Rule:

The West Used Nationalism (led by Sharif Hussien) to destroy the Ottoman Empire, then used Political Islam (Muslim Brothers despite of intentions)  to destroy both Arab Nationalism (seperation of syria, 1967 War) and Communism (Afghani war against USSR).
However, its History now, and both Arab nationalist and Muslim Brother (mainly Hamas then Egypt Muslim Bothers) learned the history lessons. Hamas is Based in secular Syria, not in Jordan.  

43 years on: the 1967 war-revisited
[ 06/06/2010 - 10:57 PM ]

By Khalid Amayreh

Part I
Under the Jordanian rule, the most important concern for the Jordanian authorities was loyalty to the King and his Hashemite family.

The King was nearly ‘God on earth’ and the entire country, including the media, the security forces and the people orbited around his figure. Hence, the claim often made that Jordan was a king with a country, rather than a country with a king.

Connections to the King and the Mukhabarat (or the intelligence apparatus) would automatically put one in a preferential position. Shouting “Ya'ish Jalalat al Malik” (Long Live the King), would give one an automatic certificate of good conduct. No wonder, by today’s standards, it was a despotic regime based on sycophancy, favouritism and nepotism.

The Jordanian regime never really made genuine efforts to push back recurrent Israeli incursions, forays and raids on Palestinian population centres in the West Bank, let alone liberate occupied Palestine. Indeed, the Commander-in-Chief of the Jordanian army in the late 1940s, when Israel was created, and up until March 1, 1956, was a British officer by the name of John Baggot Glubb who came to be known among Palestinians and East Bank Jordanians as Glubb Pasha, an honorary title. So, who in his right mind would have expected a British officer to fight the Jews on behalf of the Arabs?

This is not to say though that the Jordanian army didn’t perform well during the 1948-war. It did. For example, Field Marshall Habes al Majali decimated Jewish forces at Bab el Wad west of Jerusalem, prompting his British superiors to warn him to “stop it or else.”

Comment:

(I heard the story of Bab Alwad battle from my father who, among many of the Palestinian Police, participated in it under the leadership of Jordanian General Sari. After the Battle, General Sari who led the Jordan Army in the battle was removed, and Palestinian Police members were tried by the British. )

Jordanians and Palestinians took pride in having an Arab officer who would finally teach Jews a lesson and restore a modicum of Arab dignity lost in earlier battles. In Karak, the Jordanian city from which al Majali hailed, Bedouins would sing in their traditional Dehyyeh (traditional folk song chanted in rhythems) “Sariyeh Qayedha Habes, Teheshel Akhdar welyabes” a platoon led by Habes, would ravage the green and hard, meaning an army led by Habes would defeat all adversaries.

None the less, the main Jordanian strategy was as it has always been to secure the survival and continuity of the regime.

As far as Palestinians were concerned, the most immediate priority for the regime was to make sure that they and other Jordanians didn’t pose a threat to the survival, security and stability of the Hashemite monarchy. A Palestinian would get a six-month prison term if a bullet cartridge was found in his possession.

And as the Israelis would do later, the Jordanians enlisted the ‘Makhatir’ (clan chiefs) to inform on every gesture of opposition to or dissatisfaction with the Hashemite rule within their respective clans and areas. This in turn created a kind of police-state atmosphere all over the country.

Those free-minded Palestinians who insisted on voicing their conscience were persecuted and dumped into the notorious El-Jafr prison in eastern Jordan where they were often tortured savagely, even to death. I know of some people in my town who was tortured to death for their affiliation with the Communist Party.

Torture is still practiced in Jordan with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of the United States and Britain. Some of the so-called ‘terror suspects’ held by the CIA were secretly flown to Jordan in order to be ‘softened up’ by Jordanian interrogators.

In the mid 1950s, the Jordanian security forces on several occasions shot and killed demonstrators who were protesting the pro-Western policies of the government and the regime’s failure and inability to stop recurrent Israeli attacks. Some of these demonstrators were affiliated with or instigated by the Ba’ath party and the Communists (And the Arab Nationalists) who openly called for overthrowing the monarchy.

As a counterbalance to the leftists, who were quite active especially in the West Bank, King Hussein allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to operate relatively freely. It was a kind of divide-and-rule policy. The leftists would accuse the Brotherhood of being British agents and the Brotherhood would retort by accentuating the atheism of the Communists and Ba’athists. Hussein’s relations with the Brotherhood remained relatively stable until the final years of his life when he introduced the one-man-one-vote law, aimed primarily at reducing to the minimum the number of parliament seats the well-organized Islamists could win. Notwithstanding, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Islamic Action Front, remains Jordan’s largest opposition party, despite repeated government harassment.

The Muslim Brothers were not British agents or agents of any power. They wanted to create an Islamic state in accordance with the Sharia, or Islamic Law. In other words, their strategy and goals were diametrically incompatible with those of the Communists and the Ba’athists. Hence, the mutual sullen hostility.

However, to be honest, the Jordanian regime, especially with regard to how the state treated its citizens, was not as bad as other Arab regimes. In non-political and non-security matters, the rule of law was generally observed and applied. In general, an individual’s dignity was upheld as long as he or she didn’t criticize the regime or undermine the ‘security of the kingdom.’

More to the point, King Hussein was truly an astute leader. Far from behaving with vindictiveness and vengefulness toward his political opponents, even those who sought to assassinate him and overthrow his regime, The King nearly always pardoned them, showing magnanimity and gallantry unmatched in modern Arab history.

Despite its authoritarianism and despotism, the Jordanian regime never persecuted us in any way even remotely comparable to what the Nazi-like Israelis have been doing since 1967. The Jordanians never demolished our homes or bulldozed our farms or arrested our people for years without charge or trial as Israel has been doing to us. Yes, ‘wrongdoers’ were arrested and tried and often tortured, but their families wouldn’t be detained, their homes wouldn’t be bulldozed and their farms, orchards and olive groves wouldn’t be decimated as the Israelis routinely do. Jordan actually granted us full citizenship until the late King Hussein severed legal and administrative ties with the West Bank in 1988.

An outstanding exception occurred in 1970, during the so-called Black September events, when the Jordanian army battled PLO guerrillas who the King claimed were planning to take over Jordan and end the monarchy. Some atrocities were committed during these confrontations and many people, Palestinians and Jordanians, were killed. Nonetheless, the ‘September events’ should be considered as a kind of painful anomaly or sad chapter in The King’s relations with the Palestinians.

In general, one can safely contend that there is no comparison between the Nazi-like Israeli occupation rule and the Jordanian era. The Jordanians were not really occupiers, they never behaved as occupiers. In many ways, The King was our king and the Kingdom was our kingdom. Yes, the regime was authoritarian and generally repressive, but, in all honesty, it cannot be compared with the Israelis whose barbarianism and savagery transcend reality.

Nonetheless, Jordan was (and still is) a weak kingdom, economically, politically and especially militarily. The Israeli army routinely carried out cross-border forays into the West Bank prior to 1967, murdering innocent Palestinian villagers, and the Jordanian army was too weak and two unequipped to drive back the Israeli incursions.

King Hussein must have calculated that maintaining a peaceable or even friendly modus vivendi with Israel, especially in secret, was the best insurance policy for retaining his kingdom and the rule of his Hashemite dynasty. I think he was wrong in thinking this way. His non-hostility towards Israel didn’t prevent the Jewish state from pursuing its aggressive policies, which culminated in the occupation of the West Bank in 1967.

King Hussein did make a lot of contacts with Israel even before 1967. For example, on September 24, 1963 the director-general of the Israeli prime minister’s office, Yaacov Herzog, met The King in the London clinic of the King’s Jewish physician, Dr. Emmanuel Herbert.

Another meeting took place in Paris in 1965 and Israel was represented by Golda Meir, who was accompanied by Chaim Herzog.

It is also believed that Hussein had lots of contacts with the Israeli state through the alumni offices of Boston University.

The Occupation

Even before 1967, the Israeli army had been carrying out routine incursions into the West Bank, destroying poor people’s homes and killing innocent civilians, very much like what Israel has been doing in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Lebanon in recent years.

I still vividly remember how the Israeli army, including tanks and warplanes, attacked the small nearby town of Sammou ’, 25 kilometres south-west of Dura, in November 1966, destroying the town, virtually completely and killing many civilians.

In June 1967, I was ten years old. I remember how we were told to raise the white flag when the Israeli army surrounded our small village, Khorsa, 15 kilometres south-west of Hebron. We were told we would be shot and killed if we didn't raise a white flag aloft. The Jordanian soldiers left in disgrace and headed eastward, a few donned traditional women’s clothing in order to disguise themselves, while King Hussein urged us via Amman Radio to fight the Israelis “with our fingernails, with our teeth.” Well, how could we possibly fend off the mighty Israeli army with our teeth and fingernails?

Frankly, the Arab armies didn’t really put up any real fight against the Israelis. These armies reflected the utter political, moral and ideological decadence and bankruptcy of most contemporary Arab regimes. Indeed, maintaining the regime’s survival was the most paramount priority and strategy for the ruling elites and juntas of that time. Fighting Israel and liberating Palestine were not a real priority for these regimes, despite all the rhetoric.

Interestingly, this state of affairs remains unchanged even today, 40 years after the greatest Arab defeat in modern times.

For many years, Israel and its allies claimed that it was Israel that was attacked by the Arabs in 1967 and that all that Israel did was fight back for its very survival, which was at stake.

This is, of course, a big lie, as Israeli leaders themselves came to admit many years later.

The former Israeli President Ezer Weizmann (who was also a former commander of the Israeli air force) admitted in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 1972 that “there was no threat of destruction…but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies.”

Similarly, the former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, a notorious hawk, was quoted in Noam Chomsky’s book ‘The Fateful Triangle’ as saying that “in 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army’s concentrations in the Sinai desert didn’t prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Yitzhak Rabin, another former Israeli Premier, had this to say about the so-called Egyptian threat to Israel.

“I don’t think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai wouldn’t have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

This is not to say though that the Arabs, particularly the Egyptian and Syrian regimes didn’t do a lot of sabre rattling, threatening to destroy Israel. However, the Israeli leadership of that time and the Johnson Administration, as well as the British and Soviet (Russian) intelligence knew quite well that Nasser was only indulging in bellicose rhetoric and nothing more than that.

But, Israel, nevertheless, decided to attack with the central purpose being territorial expansion.

Needless to say, territorial expansion had always been a central goal of the Israeli strategy.

For example, Chomsky quoted the first Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion as saying the following:

“The acceptance of partition (by Israel ) doesn’t commit us to renounce Transjordan; one doesn’t demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.”

Part 2
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Knesset members celebrate after a ’successful’ anti-Zoabi vote


Israeli Occupation Archive

Posted by admin on Jun 7th, 2010
YouTube – 7 June 2010
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaABjimur4o&feature=player_embedded
Knesset members toasting for the Israeli navy commandos (“Shayetet 13″) and for their parliamentary success, after a committee voted in favor of recommending the removal of MK Zoabi’s Knesset privileges in response to her participation in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

IOA Editor: If the scene depicted in video strikes you as a cruel anti-Semitic joke, rest assured you’re not the only one. Except that it is neither a joke nor is it funny.  And, yes, it’s plenty anti-Semitic – in that it is entirely, pointedly, and directly anti-Arab.

MORE on Jewish Orthodox racism – Jerry Haber: Where We Orthodox Jews Have Gone Wrong – And How We Can Make Amends











The complete IOA coverage of the Gaza Flotilla


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

'Another' source of worry for Israel: Turkey's Intelligence Chief...

Via Friday-Lunch-Club
Haaretz/ here

"... In meetings between Mossad officials and others in the local political-security establishment, it was noted that Fidan has close ties with Erdogan's Islamist party, and that during the past year he was deputy director of the prime minister's office and played a central role in tightening Turkish ties with Iran, especially on the nuclear issue.
Fidan's appointment at MIT will help strengthen Erdogan's control over certain civilian elements in the Turkish intelligence community, both in terms of determining foreign and defense policy, and also vis-a-vis members of the senior military echelons, who are considered to be a central threat to the Islamist party's power.
To date intelligence ties between Israel and Turkey have been good, in parallel to the good relations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Turkish military, and their respective intelligence services.......
Fidan completed a B.A. at the University of Maryland, and he completed his master's and doctorate in Ankara. His dissertation was a comparative analysis of the structure of U.S., British and Turkish intelligence organizations. After his military service, Fidan served in the Turkish embassy in Australia, and last year he represented Ankara in the International Atomic Energy Agency, where he defended Iran's right to carry on with its nuclear program for "peaceful purposes." With Davutoglu, Fidan formulated last month's uranium transfer deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran....
In Israel there is concern Fidan's appointment will have a two-pronged effect: on one hand, that exchange of intelligence between the two countries will be harmed, and on the other, that Israel will have to limit the transfer of information to Turkey, out of a concern that it may be passed on to enemy organizations or states.

Posted by G, Z, or B at 6:30 AM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

“US Warns Lebanon of Limiting Military Aid if it Votes Against Iran Sanctions”



07/06/2010 The Obama administration has reportedly informed Lebanese Premier Saad Hariri that it "will not tolerate any transfer of Scud missiles to Hizbullah" and advised Lebanon not to vote against U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran.

As Safir daily said Monday “Defense Secretary Robert Gates informed Hariri during his visit to Washington that President Barack Obama's priority was Iran and Lebanon's voting at the Security Council which would impact U.S. military assistance to the country.”

A high-ranking US source said Hariri told officials in Washington that he was "in a difficult political situation," adding that voting in favor of new sanctions against Iran was a "political suicide that would impact his premiership."

Asked by As Safir what stance the U.S. would take if Lebanon voted against the sanctions, the official said Washington would submit the draft law to the Security Council on June 11, adding "we have sent the message but it would be satisfactory to us if (Lebanon) abstains" from voting. However, he advised Lebanon not to vote against the new sanctions over Iran's nuclear program.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian