Russia, France, EU up Pressure on Israel to Halt E. J'lem Building

Russia, France, EU up Pressure on Israel to Halt E. J'lem Building
Hanan Awarekeh

21/07/2009 It seems that the diplomatic pressure on Israel is growing day after day over its building project in the annexed Arab quarter of occupied east Jerusalem, yet the Zionist entity continues to defy the international calls and go on building its illegal settlements at the expense of the Palestinian people and their right to live in their own land and homes.

One day after the United States demanded that Israel stop building projects in occupied east Jerusalem, Russia joined the call, urging the Zionist entity to immediately halt construction in the area, and saying that a failure to do so would be a violation of the so-called “road map peace agreement”.

The US, Russia have demanded that Israel suspend a planned housing project on the grounds of the hotel in occupied east Jerusalem. "The settlement should be stopped immediately in line with the road map," AFP quoted Russian foreign ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko as saying, in reference to a plan to build 20 housing units in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in occupied east Jerusalem, near Mount Scopus and the National Police headquarters.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was also quoted by the news agency as saying on Tuesday that France summoned the Israeli ambassador in Paris to demand a halt to the building in occupied east Jerusalem.

Earlier Tuesday, Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor expressed, for the first time, a formal government endorsement of the "road map" formula for Palestinian statehood. In addition, he noted that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had committed Israel to honoring all previous international agreements, and stressed that the “road map” was one of those agreements binding on the government.

Moreover, the Swedish presidency of the European Union said that Israel should avoid provocative actions in occupied east Jerusalem. "The Presidency of the European Union urges Israel to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions, as stated also by the Quartet 26 June 2009," said the statement. "Such actions are illegal under international law," it added.

“The Middle East quartet” - the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States - called on Israel to halt West Bank settlements at a meeting in the Italian city of Trieste last month.

The EU was concerned at the latest in a series of eviction orders issued to families in occupied East Jerusalem, the statement continued. "We have raised our concerns with the Israeli government and call on Israel to suspend these eviction notices immediately..." it added.

On Monday, US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed that a new housing development in occupied east Jerusalem had been a topic of conversation last week during a meeting between senior US diplomats and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

Crowley said US opposition to construction in occupied east Jerusalem and settlements in the West Bank had not changed.

Crowley added that "we are concerned that unilateral actions taken by the Israelis or the Palestinians cannot prejudge the outcome of these negotiations."

Israel has repeatedly resisted pressure from the United States and other major powers over its settlement program on the occupied West Bank, one of the main obstacles to the “Middle East peace process” with the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Israel rejected calls from the United States, the European Union and Russia to freeze its settlements.

On Sunday, responding to the reports that Washington had asked Israel not to build the 20 housing units, Netanyahu declared that Israel would not bar Jews from buying apartments in occupied east Jerusalem.

Netanyahu: Jerusalem not included in debate over settlement activity

[ 21/07/2009 - 08:29 AM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed surprise at the US request for an end to construction works in Sheikh Jarrah suburb in occupied Jerusalem.

Netanyahu told a closed consultative council session for his cabinet that he explained to US president Barack Obama during a recent meeting in Washington that Israel considers Jerusalem as not included in the debate over settlement activity.

He said that Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem could buy apartments in any place in the holy city.

For her part, American secretary of state Hillary Clinton said that the American administration was seeking an agreement with Israel over the settlement construction and expansion issue.

Israel Presses on with Settlement Paln

Omar Karmi, Foreign Correspondent

Last Updated: July 20. 2009 1:12AM UAE / July 19. 2009

JERUSALEM // Israel yesterday refused to halt a settlement project in East Jerusalem, rejecting US pressure to include such construction in the eastern part of the city as part of a general freeze on settlement building in occupied territory.

Washington’s public challenge to Israel on settlement construction in East Jerusalem has set the two sides firmly at opposite poles, and analysts describe the issue as a crucial test of the Obama administration’s intentions vis-à-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The US state department took the unusual step over the weekend of summoning Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the US, to tell him that Washington does not want the housing project – 20 units in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood being developed by American Jewish millionaire Irving Moskowitz – to go ahead.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, yesterday rejected the American request out of hand, saying Israeli rule over East Jerusalem was not negotiable.

“We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem,” Mr Netanyahu said, referring to the city as the “united capital” of Israel.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, dismissed Mr Netanyahu’s comments and said the Israeli prime minister understands that a peace agreement is only possible with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and that settlements and negotiations “cannot go together”.

Israel annexed the eastern part of Jerusalem after capturing it in the 1967 war. The annexation has not been recognised internationally and Israel’s claim to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem violates international law, which forbids states from acquiring territory in war.

The idea of a unified Jerusalem has broad popular appeal in Israel, and there is cross-party consensus on maintaining Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, making the issue one of the thorniest in peace negotiations with the Palestinians, who see East Jerusalem as part of the occupied West Bank and the future capital of any Palestinian state.

The US has traditionally toed the international line on Jerusalem by not recognising Israel’s annexation. At the same time, Washington has turned a blind eye to Israeli settlement building in East Jerusalem, some of which, like the Sheikh Jarrah project now in question, is financed by US investors.

In fact, the US Congress, in which there is overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel including for its claim to an undivided Jerusalem, has for years tried to pressure successive administrations to move the US Embassy in West Jerusalem to East Jerusalem. Such a move would clearly signal US acceptance of Israel’s claim to sovereignty over the whole city, and every year presidents have to sign a waiver postponing any decision on the embassy move.

Thus, the latest move by the Obama administration seems to signal an abrupt departure from Washington’s normally hands-off approach to East Jerusalem. As such, say analysts, it is a significant development.

“This is the first time in 20 years that we have a US administration willing to go public with its disputes with Israel,” said George Giacaman, a Palestinian commentator, who teaches at Birzeit University in Ramallah.

The question, said Mr Giacaman, given the Israeli government’s vehement rejection of ending its settlement construction in East Jerusalem, is how far Washington is prepared to go to pressure Israel.

“It is an important test for the Obama administration, to see if it can bring about enough pressure to stop settlement building in East Jerusalem. I think the US will have to take some concrete action, and the extreme right-wing Israeli coalition will find it very hard to yield to any pressure on Jerusalem,” he added.

Mr Giacaman suggested that there is a “wide range” of areas the US could look at to put pressure on Israel, from refraining from vetoing UN Security Council resolutions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to downgrading some aspects of US-Israel relations.

The mere fact, however, that the Obama administration was willing to publicly challenge Israel on settlement building in Jerusalem suggested that the US had already prepared further steps to pressure Israel, said Hillel Schenker, an Israeli journalist.

“I believe that the US is going to make a very serious effort to move this process forward,” said Mr Schenker, referring to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. In order to do that, he said, the US and the international community would have to be “forceful” with Israel and he expected that other international actors would now feel more “assertive” in light of the US position.

“I think this administration is resolved to pursue a very different approach [than] former administrations and I think it has a level of determination and sophistication that we haven’t seen before in dealing with domestic opposition from Congress and pro-Israel groups in the US,” Mr Schenker said.

By taking the public step of summoning the Israeli ambassador, the US administration would have been aware of the kind of opposition it would likely meet, both in Israel and domestically. This may signal that the White House is confident it can successfully pressure Israel on the issue of settlements, which also divides American supporters of Israel, and may expect the Israeli ruling coalition to either yield to US pressure or break apart.

One potential problem for the US strategy is that Israel’s biggest party, Kadima, which leads the Israeli opposition and which might step into a new governing coalition should the current one fall, is also opposed to linking the issue of East Jerusalem with occupied territory in general and would therefore also likely resist any attempt to halt settlement construction there.

Certainly Ehud Olmert, the former head of Kadima, was particularly active in sanctioning settlement construction in East Jerusalem, both in his tenure as prime minister and when he was mayor of Jerusalem.

Another problem is that with Israel firmly opposed to halting its settlement construction in East Jerusalem, Washington’s latest effort may only have the effect of instead spurring further construction as an act of defiance, thus forcing Washington to show its hand.

Should the Obama administration consider taking any practical steps to increase its pressure on Israel, it will be headed for a serious confrontation not only with Israel, but with the US Congress and the powerful and vocal pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington.

Source: The National
okarmi@thenational.ae

July 20, 2009 Posted by Elias

• Abu Mujahid: Jerusalem part of Islamic creed
• Sabri issues edict prohibiting alternative homeland, exchange of lands
• Palestinian gov’t: Judaizing the names of places cannot hide the occupation
• Islamic-Christian front calls for urgent emergency plan to support Jerusalemites

Hezbollah to French Ambassador: UNIFIL Crossed Red Lines

Hezbollah to French Ambassador: UNIFIL Crossed Red Lines

21/07/2009 For the second time in less than one month, French Ambassador to Beirut Andre Parant paid a visit to the southern suburb of Beirut where he held a meeting with Hezbollah international relations official Ammar Moussawi in another sign of the French openness to talks with Hezbollah.

The latest incident that took place in the southern town of Kherbet Selm between its residents and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) constituted the main topic raised during the meeting where the two men stressed on the necessity to commit by the international resolution 1701 that manages the UNIFIL's mission in South Lebanon.

The French ambassador told the Hezbollah official that France was sticking to the commitment of all sides to implement the UN resolution 1701 and to coordinate with the UNIFIL to achieve this ultimate goal. He told his host that his country denounces all violations of the international resolution regardless of the identity of the side behind them.

Following the meeting, the French ambassador told reporters that he was very concerned over the latest incidents in the South, urging all concerned side to have self-control and self-restrain to contain the situation. He recalled that France was abiding by the necessity of implementing the resolution 1701 in coordination with the UNIFIL forces.

For his part, Moussawi informed his guest that Hezbollah believes that the UNIFIL forces went beyond its responsibilities and the limits of its mission. He said that what happened constituted a provocation to the Kherbet Selm residents, stressing that their reaction was spontaneous and natural.

The Hezbollah official reiterated his party's commitment to the international resolution 1701, expressing full readiness to cooperate with all concerned parties to guarantee its full implementation.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in turn received Parant in Ain al-Tineh and discussed with him the situation in South Lebanon and the new cabinet formation.

Following the meeting, Parant expressed deep concern, which he told reporters was shared with the UN, over what happened in South Lebanon. The ambassador also called for all parties to respect UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and to fully coordinate with the peacekeeping forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to implement the resolution.

Parant told reporters that he and Berri agreed that it is important to refrain from acts that lead to tension, saying that France and the speaker "hope that the cabinet will be formed as soon as possible."

Meanwhile, Hezbollah security chief Wafiq Safa discussed with UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams recent events in the village of Khirbet Selm and Israel's repeated violations of Lebanon's sovereignty.

Syria: Assad's meeting with Sadr

Link

Muqtada al Sadr made a surprise visit to Damascus for talks with President Bashar Al Assad, the details of which were undisclosed. We can only guess at the nature of their discussion, but I imagine it was to convey some sort of message from Tehran concerning the latest concerted effort being made against Iran. Sadr is reported to have been residing in Qom for some time and the observant will note that around the time the riots began in Iran, regular bomb attacks against Sadr's areas have been taking place, timed with the US withdrawal from the major cities.

In Iran, the Rafsanjani, Mousavi, Khatami triumvirate is still trying to muscle Ahmedinejad in a struggle which now threatens Khamenei himself. Naturally, Damascus and Hezbullah HQ will be anxious for a direct update on what is happening, especially with all the Israeli posturing that has been taking place recently. Although the Republic is distracted, I think it is still business as usual for its foreign operations. In Afghanistan Western forces are still losing men to IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) and the two British hostages are still a card that has not been played in spite of the release of the five Iranian diplomats. It is not confirmed that Iran is behind this, but it would not be difficult to imagine some involvement, Helmand is extremely close to the Iranian border; IED's were a major gripe the occupation forces had with Iran in 2007, blaming the Revolutionary Guards with supplying the expertise and equipment necessary to construct sophisticated traps, especially in the south of Iraq. Previous to that Bush in 2007 had warned those who opposed his troops in Iraq to "bring it on", and if you remember the American casualty rate soared after that, only to be lowered once a deal was cut with the Iranians. Then it was covered by the silly American "Surge". Anyhow, that was then.

I am not sure what will happen, something has to be done about the agitators in Iran and soon otherwise the situation will get out of hand, but what would happen once that is concluded is anybody's guess. The British and the Europeans seem to have a hand in this though the United States is distant yet sympathetic, probably worried about the backlash it could face in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq alone has 135,000 soldiers (probably less now) but an American "Dien Bien Phu" (with thousands of American soldiers killed or in POW camps) is the last thing that Obama would need and could poison his term in office. It looks like Israel could be unleashed if the triumvirate fail to shift Ahmedinejad, but what should really be on everybody's mind is what would happen should Ahmedinejad and Khatemi survive this. And I believe they will...

Posted by Maysaloon at 5:01 PM

Labels: Iran, Iraq, Syria

How Israel torpedoed its ceasefire with Hamas

Link

By David Morrison • Jul 21st, 2009 at 8:32 • Category: Analysis, Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Hasbara Deconstruction Site, Israel, Newswire, Palestine, Resistance, War, Zionism

WRITTEN BY DAVID MORRISON

“Success is freeing the civilian population of southern Israel from the fear of an incoming amas rocket.” [1]

Those were the words of Israeli spokesman, Mark Regev, in an interview with David Fuller on More4 News on 9 January 2009, two weeks into Israel’s assault on Gaza.

By 9 January, Israeli forces had killed nearly a thousand Palestinians, ostensibly to achieve this success, but rockets were still being fired out of Gaza into Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian groups – and continued to be fired after Israel halted the assault ten days later.

In fact, Israel had achieved the success of “freeing the civilian population of southern Israel from the fear of an incoming Hamas rocket” months earlier. It did so, not by taking military action against Hamas, but by negotiating a ceasefire agreement with it in June 2008.

Under the agreement, brokered by Egypt, in exchange for Hamas and other Palestinian groups stopping the firing of rockets and mortars out of Gaza, Israel undertook to lift its economic blockade of Gaza and cease military incursions into Gaza. The ceasefire was to be for six months initially, but, if successful, it was to be renewed and to apply to the West Bank as well.

What is more, Hamas stuck rigidly to the ceasefire agreement, and fired no rockets or mortars out of Gaza into Israel from 19 June, when the ceasefire came into operation, until 4 November. Other Palestinian groups fired a small number, despite being restrained by Hamas. As a partner for peace, Hamas could not be faulted – it made a deal with Israel and stuck to it.

Mark Regev confirmed the ceasefire’s “success” on More4 News on 9 January. When David Fuller put to him that “there were no Hamas rockets during the ceasefire before November the 4th, there were no Hamas rockets for 4 months”, Regev replied: “That’s correct”.

How did the success evaporate?

So, how did the success of “freeing the civilian population of southern Israel from the fear of an incoming Hamas rocket” from June to November evaporate? Answer: on 4 November 2008, Israel took action that caused it to evaporate. Israel broke the terms of the ceasefire agreement by making a military incursion into Gaza and killing 7 members of Hamas. This was the first military incursion into Gaza since the ceasefire began on 19 June.

Israel had now breached both of its obligations under the ceasefire agreement, having already failed to lift the economic blockade of Gaza as promised. In retaliation, Hamas resumed rocket and mortar fire out of Gaza into Israel.

There is no doubt that the Israeli government knew (a) that the military incursion into Gaza on 4 November would mean that the civilian population of southern Israel would no longer be free from Hamas rockets, and (b) that, if it continued to refrain from military incursions into Gaza, as it had done from 19 June, the civilian population of southern Israel would be free from Hamas rockets indefinitely. In other words, it chose course (a) in the full knowledge that civilians in southern Israel would be less safe.

Providing justification

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Israel made this choice, because it wanted a justification that could be sold to the world for launching the military assault on Gaza that began on 27 December. The assault could not have been launched before 4 November, when the civilian population of southern Israel were free from Hamas rockets. To justify a ferocious military assault in the name of “freeing the civilian population of southern Israel from the fear of an incoming Hamas rocket”, there had to be some. Is there any doubt that Israel chose course (a) in order to provide some?

David Fuller put it to Mark Regev that “the civilians of southern Israel are less safe now than before you started operations”. Regev replied:

“The civilians of southern Israel fully support this operation and you know why: because they’ve been living under the threat of incoming Hamas rockets, not for days, not for weeks, but for months, but for years. We’re trying to create a new security environment in which they no longer have to live in constant fear of an incoming Hamas rocket.”

That omits the very important fact that, for four and a half months from June to November 2008, the civilians of southern Israel were NOT living under the threat of incoming Hamas rockets, and that, if Israel had refrained from making a military incursion into Gaza on 4 November, they would have continued to be free from the threat of incoming Hamas rockets.

Tzipi Livni’s big lie

The Israeli town of Sderot, situated about a kilometre from the north-east corner of Gaza, has been the target for many of the rockets fired out of Gaza. The Israeli authorities brought many visitors, including Barack Obama, the future US President, to Sderot to see the damage done by these rockets and to bolster their case for taking military action to counter them.

On 31 December 2008, a few days after Israel launched its military assault on Gaza, Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, went to Sderot and declared:

“Last Saturday [27 December] at 11:30, Israel started its military operation in the Gaza Strip – there was no other alternative. For eight years now, Israel has been under attack from the Gaza Strip and it has become worse. Hamas, which is an extreme Islamic organization, a terrorist organization, … has been targeting Israel on a daily basis.” [2]

Tzipi Livni was telling a big lie, when she said “there was no other alternative”. There was an alternative, which worked well from 19 June to 4 November, as the following account of life in Sderot in October illustrates:-

Israeli town celebrates end to daily rocket

TheStar.com - Columnist - Israeli town celebrates end to daily rocket fireBesieged residents of Sderot relieved at quiet start to

Yom Kippur, thanks to the ceasefire with Hamas.

Toronto Star, October 09, 2008 [3]
Oakland Ross
MIDDLE EAST BUREAU

SDEROT, Israel–Young boys horsed around on their bicycles, families hurried to make last-minute purchases at the downtown supermarket, and food stands did a steady business in shawarma and beer.

Meanwhile, the October sun sparkled down from a blue and rocket-free sky.

If this seems like an unremarkable description of any Israeli town about to mark the holy day of Yom Kippur, it almost could be – except for that part about rockets.

Just a kilometre from the Gaza Strip, this southern Israeli town has been struck by an average of three missiles a day for each of the past seven years – and that is a long way from what most people would consider normal.

Lately, however, the cloudless firmament over Sderot has been mostly free of deadly ordnance, and the community is doing its best to resemble what for a long time it has singularly failed to be – a halfway normal town.

For seven years, local residents barely went out at all. But, late last June, under Egyptian mediation, the Israeli government reached a ceasefire agreement with the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Since then, with only a few violations, the rocket salvoes from Gaza have stopped.

So have the punitive Israeli military incursions into the neighbouring strip – attacks that had been a frequent and deadly feature of Palestinian existence prior to the laying down of arms in June.

Less than a month later, on 4 November, Israel broke the ceasefire and, as a result, the near rocket-free days that Sderot had enjoyed since 19 June ended.

Key facts indisputable

The key facts about the ceasefire are indisputable. They are confirmed in reports by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [ITIC], reports that are publicly available on the Center’s website [4] and are used extensively by the Israeli Government.

For example, a report entitled The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement [5], written on 17 December 2008, just before the 6-month ceasefire agreement was due to expire, summarises its effect as follows:

“The lull arrangement brought relative quiet to the western Negev population and the Gaza Strip, especially during its first months, but it did not completely end the rocket and mortar shell attacks.” (paragraph 3)

The report makes no attempt to hide the fact that the ceasefire worked well up to 4 November 2008 and that it was Israel’s military incursion into Gaza on that date which brought it to an end in all but name. Here’s what it says:

“An analysis of the situation on the ground indicates two distinct periods:

i) A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4: As of June 19, there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire. The IDF refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip, taking only routine defensive security measures along the border fence. Between June 19 and November 4, 20 rockets (three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) and 18 mortar shells (five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) were fired at Israel.

ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets.” (paragraph 4)

So, the ITIC confirms that from 19 June to 4 November “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire” and that the relatively small number of ceasefire violations were “carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters)”.

The ITIC also confirms that Israeli forces entered Gaza on 4 November and killed 7 members of Hamas and that the subsequent rocket fire by Hamas and other groups was “in retaliation”. Clearly, if Israeli forces hadn’t entered Gaza, there would have been no retaliation – and the population of the Western Negev would have continued to be free from Hamas rocket fire.

Another ITIC report, Escalation in the Gaza Strip [6] justifies the Israeli incursion into Gaza by saying that the purpose of the tunnel was to abduct Israeli soldiers. One doesn’t have to be a military genius to know that, once the tunnel was discovered, there was no need to enter Gaza to prevent the abduction of soldiers on the Israeli side of the fence.

Decline of rocket and mortar firing

The rate of rocket and mortar firing declined dramatically from 19 June onwards, when the ceasefire came into force. The following bar chart from the ITIC report, Escalation in the Gaza Strip, illustrates the decline:

please write to author for this bar chart!!! It is not copying at the moment on the site (editors will try to insert again, but success is not guaranteed!)

According to the bar chart, 1,199 rockets were fired out of Gaza in the five and a half months in 2008 up to 19 June, that is, on average, more than 200 a month. By comparison, in the four and half months of the ceasefire from 19 June until 4 November, only 20 rockets in all were fired, that is, on average, less than 5 a month. In fact, the rate of firing fell by 98%.

(The equivalent decline for mortar shells is 1,072 to 17, that is, on average, 180 a month to around 4 a month. Again, the rate of firing also fell by 98%).

Note also that the number of violations of the ceasefire declined as time went on – only one rocket and three mortars were fired in September, and two rockets and no mortars in October.

Clearly, up until 4 November, the ceasefire arrangements had been very successful in reducing the threat to Israeli civilians.

Return of near daily rockets

Hamas and other Palestinian groups continued firing rockets and mortars out of Gaza throughout Israel’s military assault on Gaza and afterwards. Here is a picture of life in Sderot in mid-March:-

Israeli town copes with return of near daily rockets

In Sderot, Purim holiday fun masks stresses of rocket attacks from Gaza militants.

By Ilene R. Prusher Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 14, 2009 edition [7]

SDEROT, ISRAEL

The very hour Chana Melul returned to Sderot with her three young boys, whom she'd taken on vacation up north to escape the front lines, the rockets were back.

Minutes after they set down their suitcases, a Qassam rocket launched from nearby Gaza landed about 50 yards from their apartment building. It crashed into a storage shed and blew apart the sidewalk that leads to the community center around the corner. The center includes a rocket-resistant theater, recently built to give kids and grownups living here a little stress-free entertainment.

But for Ms. Melul, a single mother, the disquiet never really goes away. …

Nearly two months after Israel and Hamas each declared unilateral cease-fires, they have yet to come to an official truce. …

In the meantime, the violent volleys continue. Several times a week, Israel strikes at smuggling tunnels and the Palestinian militants in Gaza it says are responsible for launching rockets. Hamas and other groups such as Islamic Jihad send several rockets and short-range missiles into Israel on an almost daily basis. …

Geographically, her closest neighbors are in northern Gaza, where houses have suffered destruction in the recent war that simply can't be compared to the damages done here by Qassam rockets.

Clearly, the near rocket-free conditions, which Sderot enjoyed prior to Israel breaking the ceasefire on 4 November, were not restored by Israel’s assault on Gaza. Israel killed more than 1,400 Palestinians (including over 400 women and children) in the assault and 13 Israelis, including 3 civilians, also died, but the end result was that Sderot was a less safe place than before Israel broke the ceasefire.

ITIC reports show that in the 2 months after 18 January, when Israel ceased major military operations, 95 rockets were fired out of Gaza. In other words, the rate of rocket firing was nearly 50 a month, which is over 10 times the rate during the four and a half months of the ceasefire [8].

Understandably, Israel didn’t complain very loudly about this continued firing, since doing so would have drawn attention to the fact that its military action had failed to suppress the capability of Hamas and other groups to fire rockets out of Gaza.

Tzipi Livni’s big lie

Israel claimed to be acting in self-defence when it launched its assault on Gaza on 27 December 2008. In the words of Tzipi Livni, there was “no other alternative” to combat attacks out of Gaza. That was a big lie: there was an alternative – the ceasefire, which from 19 June to 4 November had been very successful in reducing the threat to Israeli citizens, even though Israel didn’t lift its economic blockade of Gaza.

Clearly, from the point of view of keeping Israeli citizens safe, Israel’s assault on Gaza beginning on December 27 was totally unnecessary. All Israel had to do to maintain the relative calm of last September and October was to stick to the terms of the ceasefire agreement. It chose not to do so.

David Morrison

20 July 2009

www.david-morrison.org.uk

References:

[1] www.uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM

[2] www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/FM_Livni_press_conference_IDF_operation_Gaza_31-Dec-2008.htm

[3] www.thestar.com/World/Columnist/article/514498

[4] www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/home/default.asp

[5] www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e017.pdf

[6] www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ct_e011.htm

[7] www.csmonitor.com/2009/0314/p25s07-wome.html

[8] www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e039.pdf

www.david-morrison.org.uk

david.morrison1@ntlworld.com

Tagged as: gaza, Hamas, Israel, Livni, Operation Cast Lead, Palestine, Qassam Rockets, Regev, Sderot

David Morrison is is a writer on international affairs (see http://www.david-morrison.org.uk) and the political officer of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Email this author All posts by David Morrison

Barhoum doubts seriousness of American pressures on Israel and Settlers Grow and Advance

link

[ 21/07/2009 - 10:17 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)-- The Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, has doubted the seriousness of the US reported pressures on Israel to halt settlement activity in the West Bank.

He told Al-Alam TV network on Monday that many factors affect the American-Israeli relations.
The spokesman said that he did not believe that the American administration was on a collision course with the Israeli occupation authority (IOA) despite owning all necessary pressure tools to force the IOA to respect the international resolutions and the Palestinian people's rights.

An Israeli financial newspaper had earlier Monday said that the US might reduce by one billion dollars the value of American treasury's banking credits to the IOA.

Calcalist newspaper said that the American Congress had allocated nine billion dollars worth of banking credits to Israel allowing it to obtain loans with preferential conditions in the American money markets.

Settlers Grow and Advance
By Mel Frykberg

RAMALLAH, Jul 20 (IPS) - A little village nestled in a valley between several hills in the Bethlehem governorate is today fighting for survival.

All around Wadi Fuqin village on the outskirts of Bethlehem in the southern West Bank is the expanding and illegal Israeli settlement Beitar Illit, home to 35,000 settlers. The settlement is situated on a hill overlooking the little Palestinian village of 2,500.

Next to the settlement several mushrooming settler outposts together with Beitar form a semi-circle around Wadi Fuqin, closing in on it.

While settlement construction booms and the number of settlers in Beitar and its outposts continues to swell, Palestinians in Wadi Fuqin are forbidden by the Israeli authorities from building new homes, or enlarging current ones to accommodate new generations.

IPS accompanied Palestinian Authority (PA) agricultural ministry officials on a tour of Bethlehem and surrounding villages to assess first-hand the shrinking land available to Palestinians as settlement expansion in the West Bank accelerates.

"We are facing a disaster," says PA Agriculture Minister Dr Ismail Da'iq. "We are losing land at an unprecedented rate due to Israeli settlement expansion and its closed military zones.

"In order to combat this continual land theft we have launched a project which aims to plant five million trees on land in the Bethlehem governorate over the next five years," Da'iq told IPS. "We hope this will make it harder for Israel to expropriate our land, but this is not a guarantee."

Indeed, on way from Ramallah to Bethlehem this IPS correspondent saw several dozen Palestinian trees that had been sawed off just above ground level by the Israeli authorities.

Under the 1993 Oslo accords, 66 percent of the Bethlehem governorate was designated as part of Area C of the West Bank, which falls under complete Israeli jurisdiction in regard to planning and construction.

"The PA made a mistake by agreeing to this during Oslo, but it is one we hope to rectify. We are determined that there will be no resumption of peace talks until Israel freezes all settlement activity in the West Bank," Da'iq told IPS.

According to a report last month from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), after four decades of Israeli occupation only 13 percent of the governorate, much of it fragmented, remains for Palestinian use.

"Today, there are approximately 86,000 Israelis living in 19 settlements in the Bethlehem governorate and in 16 settlement outposts," says the OCHA report. "The Palestinian population constitutes approximately 175,000."

If construction of the separation barrier, which separates Israel proper from the West Bank, continues along its present route, Palestinian access to land, grazing and water resources will be further limited.

The current barrier route deviates significantly into Palestinian territory from the internationally recognised Green Line, swallowing large swathes of territory along the way.

An estimated 21,000 Palestinian residents of Bethlehem governorate will as a result face additional restrictions to accessing markets, health services and higher education in Bethlehem's urban areas. Bethlehem's potential for residential and industrial expansion has already been reduced.

Most Bethlehem residents are also cut off from Palestinian East Jerusalem, as only a limited number are given the requisite Israeli security permits to enter the city.

Those lucky enough to secure the permits, mostly for employment, wait on average an hour and ten minutes crossing the security barrier, according to a UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) report released at the beginning of the year.

East Jerusalem has significant cultural, educational, religious, business and family ties for West Bankers.

The Jerusalem municipality has also redrawn the city's municipal boundaries to incorporate large chunks of the Bethlehem area including the large Israeli settlements of Har Homa and Gilo.

Israel accelerated appropriation of Palestinian land in 1950 under the Absentee Property Law. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had either fled, many only temporarily, or were driven off their land during the 1948 war which saw the birth of the Jewish state.

The village Nahalin, near Bethlehem, now has only 10,000 dunams (a dunam is 0.1 hectare) of land. Before 1948 it had 17,000 dunams.

"My grandfather had 100 dunams of land in 1948 on which he used to grow olives and grapes," Dib Najaja, a father of five told IPS. "Today my family has only two dunams left. I could make an extra 700 dollars a month farming if I still had access to that land.

"But I'm fortunate in that I have a full-time job as a municipal council member. Other people who depend entirely on farming to make a living are destitute."

Wadi Fuqin which lies right near the Green Line is in a precarious position because half the village relies on agriculture for survival.

Prior to 1948, when all the villagers either fled or were driven out, the village had 14,000 dunams of land. Today it has 6,000 dunams.

"Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war when Israel occupied the West Bank, we started leaving Deheishe refugee camp and surreptitiously creeping back at night until a sizeable number of us had returned," Muhammad Shaker, 80, one of the original refugees who lives in a nearby cave, told IPS.

The future of Wadi Fuqin lies in the balance and at the mercy of international pressure on Israel.
"We need help with rehabilitating the land to make it once again agriculturally viable," Awni Al-Manassra, a village committee member, told IPS. "We also need financial assistance to fight Israeli court cases over land confiscation and pending home demolitions for the homes built without Israeli permits."

The Israeli rights group Peace Now has reported that the Israeli authorities have approved a further 790 housing units in Beitar Illit. There are also plans for the construction of 2,500 housing units in Gi'vat Eitam, an extension of the Efrat settlement near Bethlehem.

(END/2009)

Activists respond to cellular phone campaign

link

Posted on: July 21, 2009

Anat Shalev YNet News

21 July 2009

Palestinians protestors and left-wing activists came up with an original response to a television ad for a local cellular phone company that angered and offended many in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

At television commercial by Cellcom showed Israelis soldiers playing soccer with unseen Palestinians over the separation wall. Critics claimed that the ad reflected Israel’s total disregard for harsh reality in West Bank.

Last Friday, during their weekly demonstration in Bilin, the protestors passed soccer balls to the soldiers, in an attempt to reenact the highly controversial ad. However, instead of getting the balls back, the soldiers responded with tear gas and high-pressure water hoses.

One of the activists, Abdullah told Ynet: “We wanted to show everyone how the soldiers really behave, contrary to what was shown in the ad. This is a message from the protestors on what really goes on at the separation fence – this is what we get from the soldiers, tear gas.”

Hagai Matar, an Israeli activist, said that the violent atmosphere near the fence was far from resembling the pastoral, pleasant atmosphere reflected in the Cellcom advert.

“While the people of Bilin suffer from frequent and repeated harassments by the army, while the residents are subjected to nightly arrests, violence and tear gas, not only during rallies but also in their yards, the people of Bilin continue to use amusing and creative ways to protest the separation fence,” he said.

Updated on July 21, 2009
Posted under: In the Media
Tags: Apartheid Wall, Bil'in, demonstrations, Video

Islam, Post-modernity and Freedom by Muqtedar Khan

Link

By Gilad Atzmon • Jul 20th, 2009 at 12:33 • Category: Analysis, Culture and Heritage, Gilad Atzmon, Gilad's Choice, Ideas and Projects, Newswire, Our Authors, Religion

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

In the light of the rise of Islam and Islamic resistance to Western colonialism and Israeli barbarism, I become more and more interested in the philosophy of Islam and the answers provided by contemporary Muslim scholars to questions having to do with Being.

It had become clear to me recently that most of the West’s so-called ‘progressive minds’ (the ‘enlightened’ leftist, the proponent of what is ‘secular’ and ‘rational’) are in the dark when it comes to Islam: the faith, the politics, the philosophy and the value system. It had become clear to me that as much as the West tends to praise itself for its ‘enlightened’ discourse of ‘Modernity’ and ‘Rationalism’, Islamic scholarship actually presents a coherent valuable and valid counter argument to the above. It offers a dynamic hermeneutic body of thought that transforms the notion of ‘post-modernism’ from being an empty intellectual rant (on the verge of self-indulgence) into vivid existential resistance.

I would maintain that in order to say anything valuable about Islam and the Muslim world we better start to grasp what Islam is, what it stands for and what it can offer. I would also argue that if we in the West want to learn about Islam there is no source more appropriate than that which can be found in Islamic scholarship. As things stand we left that discourse for too long in the hands of the so-called ‘progressive minds’ who seemingly have very little to offer on this very subject because they are more than likely to be alien to spiritual hermeneutic thinking and largely blind to the religious discourse in general.

The following is a set of answers offered by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D on issues concerning modernity and post-modernity in the light of Islam. Khan (born 1966) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. Regardless of Khan’s political views which can be debated somewhere else or even here, the man is an Islamic philosopher of the highest possible caliber. Khan can assist us in extending the critical discourse of Western supremacy. He manages to point out that the core of the conflict between the West and the Near East is in spirit, in philosophy; it is epistemological and metaphysical. To a certain extent Khan manages to redeem us of the banal materialist discourse that evidently failed to bring liberation to the region nor has it managed to offer any meaningful argument.

“Islam,” says Khan, “has survived the experiment called modernity and will survive the bonfire (postmodernity) that is threatening to burn down the lab along with the experiment.” I would argue that our relevance in the Palestinian and anti-colonial discourse would be defined by our seriousness and respectful approach towards Islam, the faith, the politics, the resistance, the value system, in short, the very many things that are included in the notion of Islam.

Islam, Postmodernity and Freedom

Answers to Questions posed by Discourse Magazine (October 2002).

Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.

(1) What is post-modernism? Does it have a universal definition?

A question asking for any definition that is universal implies the existence of an essential quality that transcends local context. This would according to the postmodern dogma constitute an unforgivable sin. The primary moral agenda behind postmodern attempts to destabilize the foundations of modern knowledge and modern ethics is to challenge essential theorizing claiming universal applicability. The postmodern thinker seeks to privilege the now and the here – the local over the global.

Postmodernist discourses come in various forms. They include and are not limited to postcolonial narratives, literary theory and its criticism, poststructuralist analysis, postmodern feminism, deconstruction, genealogies, archaeologies of history and often simple cultural relativist arguments that reject rationality and rationalism. Because of their diversity it is difficult to describe what postmodern discourses really are. But it is easy to infer what they are not. They are not grand narratives which claim justification on the basis of some transcendent ethic or infallible reason and boast of validity across time and space. Postmodern narratives take pride in their cultural and historically specific character.

Postmodernism, I believe, may not have a universally applicable definition, Lyotard’s famous claim “postmodernism is an expression of incredulity at grand narratives” not withstanding; but it is most certainly is a universal phenomenon. I think that postmodernism as a reaction and even a rejection of the constitutive elements of post-enlightenment modernity, it is a widespread collection of phenomena. In a postindustrial society, like that of Western Europe, postmodernism manifests as a rejection of modern institutions such as marriage, traditional family structure, gender roles and even nationalism. In the Muslim World postmodernism manifests in the form of religious resurgence which rejects modernist institutions such as secularism and nationalism and instead advocates a different moral/political ethic and a different political unit (Ummah).

(2) How did post modernism evolve from modernist views?

This is a very complex question and begs a long and historical narrative. Nevertheless in the interest of brevity let’s assume that there is indeed a human impulse for freedom. It is this impulse for freedom which discovered that modernity had become a tradition. In a curious way being a modern society, under the benevolent protection of a nation state, worshipping reason and science, meant living in a traditional society. Postmodernism in that sense is the exasperated, and to some extent, an irrational response to the stifling quality of modern institutions.

The culture of centrist liberalism with its politically correct discourse that dominates advanced societies is in many ways emaciating the human spirit rather than emancipating it. Postmodernism is a violent reaction to this form of modern political culture.

Let me make a bold claim here. The most spectacular postmodern manifestation is the contemporary explosion of terrorism. Notice how terrorism is seen as an enemy by the most powerful of all modern institutions – the nation state. Terrorism defies all the ethics anchored around the principle of sovereignty. Today terrorists and nation states are locked in a global struggle. Notice how terrorist see themselves as freedom fighters and states fighting terrorists claim that they are protecting freedom. This is about freedom. Postmodernism is about rediscovering freedom.

The postmodern challenge to modernity manifests itself in two separate but equally devastating, forms. One is cultural and the other is philosophical (epistemological). On the cultural front, postmodern manifestations in the form of new social movements whether in art forms, politics or lifestyles, are joyously disrupting the neat order of things that reason had established in the heyday of modernity. On the epistemological front, postmodern incursions are subverting not only the foundations of truth, but also the possibility of ever establishing any truth claims.

If the cultural assault of postmodernism is devastating, than its epistemological assault cannot be described as anything but as "writing the epitaph of modernity". While modernity decenterred God and in its place crowned reason as the sovereign authority that alone determined the legitimacy of truth claims, postmodernity has chosen to dethrone not only reason but the very notion of authority and the very idea of Truth with a capital T.

How then in the postmodern vision will the project of civilization survive or progress? The answer is more than startling. All projects are illegitimate because they undermine competing projects and because it is power, not any intrinsic worth, that determines which project becomes the civilizational project. Progress is a myth. Without God, without reason, without a worldview, how do we live? The postmodern answer is let life itself find the way. So just live, "just do it" and life will lead you to life.

The prophets of postmodernity and their cohort have little to offer. Foucault says power is god. Derrida says dance to the sound as human civilization is deconstructed — god by god and idea by idea. Rorty says let life be guided by success, it does not matter if there is no intrinsic good in life or success.

Because modernity in an attempt to institutionalize freedom (oxymoron?) has created and proliferated regimes of discipline, the human spirit is rebelling in the form of postmodern moments of insanity.

(3) Is the phenomenon of globalization a product of post modern thinking?

There is no such phenomenon as globalization. We however are experiencing a phenomenon that can be described more accurately as glocalization (hence my website http://www.glocaleye.org). Structural processes and discourses of identity and difference are tearing the modern era apart. We live in a strange world. We are at the peak of scientific achievements; the gnome project has been completed, we are on the verge of cloning human beings, simulations and artificial intelligence are paying dividends and yet the Talibans and Hindutvavadis in the East and Jerry Springers and Jerry Falwells in the West enjoy supporters in millions.

Glocalization therefore is a crucial site where the forces of modernity and Postmodernity are waging an unlimited war. If the modernists win the nation state, and along with it reason and science will reassert sovereignty over the human subject. If the terrorists, the cultural crazies, the environmental junkies, the religious fanatics win, then contingency and not reason, locality and not globality, anarchy and not sovereignty will prevail.

(4) Do you see any possibility for the co-existence of religious/ fundamentalist thinking and post modernist philosophy?

Yes I do. In fact I believe that the contemporary resurgence of religion is a postmodern phenomenon. Both postmodern philosophy and Religious theology reject the modernist claim in the infallibility of reason.

For over three hundred years, Islam has faced the challenge of European enlightenment and modernity. While compared to other religions, Islam has performed formidably and by far. While the significance of nearly all religions has receded to the private domain or even into vestigial customs and occasional rituals, Islam has experienced a major resurgence in the twentieth century. The scars of modernity, however, are easy to see on the face on the Muslim World. Secularism and Nationalism, two of modernity’s worst diseases, are now well entrenched in many parts of the Muslim World. Ideologies emerging from the conditions of modernity such as Marxism and liberalism continue to compete with Islam in trying to shape Muslim societies. Even Muslim intellectuals who are seeking authenticity are compelled to succumb to modernist discourses, thereby furthering the agenda of modernity at the expense of Islam.

Islam and modernity, one must remember are not necessarily antithetical. Indeed one could argue that the genesis of enlightenment and modernity can be found in thriving medieval Islamic civilization. However modernity has taken many wrong turns in the last century by corrupting its own foundational principles. The value of freedom, understood by Kant as freedom to do good is now understood as freedom to do anything. Reason has been displaced by instrumental reason. Knowledge has become the servant of power. Wisdom has been replaced by public opinion. Even as Muslims enjoy the fruits of modernity, Islam continues to struggle against the dark side of modernity.

As a contemporary Islamic philosopher, living in the dusk of modernity and in the heart of the West, deeply nostalgic for a divinely ordained order of things which is consistent with reason and justice, full of compassion and mercy, I am fascinated by the systematic deconstruction of modernity by the very forces it engendered and unleashed upon itself. The normative structure of boundless freedom and a culture of irreverence that modernity has deliberately fostered to subvert God has now turned upon its creator.

Skepticism based on the assumed infallibility and universal sovereignty of reason was the constitutive character of modernity. It was designed to eliminate faith and re-channel Man’s inherent compulsion to submit and worship. New Gods and new traditions were invented, new prophets were proclaimed and new heavens were imagined. But religion has not only survived the five hundred year assault on God and his messages, but has returned with an increased fervor that baffles the postmodern being.

The postmodern being, whose heart without faith is empty and mind without reason is immature, can destroy the fragile foundations of modernity, ridicule the memories of tradition but can neither comprehend and nor deal with the postmodern resurgence of faith.

Those waging a losing battle for Modernity against Postmodernity reject the resurgence of faith as a return to backward premodernity. Their shortsightedness precludes them from imagining the resurgence of faith not as a return but as a leap forward.

For those who were always with God and comfortable with reason, in the tradition of Al Ghazali, Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Rushd, the resurgence of religion is merely the continuation of the divine way. Islam never succumbed either to modernity nor is losing out to postmodernity. Islam’s decline was geopolitical and economic, never epistemological. The entire musical chairs of authority, God, Reason, Conventions, Text, and Nothing, is Western and limited to those societies who have succumbed to the forces of modernism completely.

Islam was from the beginning comfortable with reason. Recognizing its immense potential and necessity but also remaining acutely cognizant of its limitation. The Al Ghazali-Ibn Rushd debate on the nature of causality is an excellent chronicle of Islam’s position on reason. Islam simultaneously recognized the absoluteness of Truth as well as the relativity of truth claims. For nearly 1300 years Muslims have believed in one Shariah but recognized more than four different, competing and even contradictory articulations of this Shariah (madhahib).

Islam has survived the experiment called modernity and will survive the bonfire (postmodernity) that is threatening to burn down the lab along with the experiment. There is sufficient play within Islam in terms of epistemological pluralism, whether it is recognition of the validity of different legal opinions based on different contexts or time or based on different discursive epistemes such as burhan– illumination, jadal–dialectics, and khatabah–rhetoric, that will allow Islam to negotiate postmodernity’s epistemological rampage.

SOURCE: http://www.ijtihad.org/discourse.htm

Tagged as: Islam, Modernism, Post-Modernism, Religion

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz musician, composer, producer and writer.
Email this author All posts by Gilad Atzmon

Threatening Iran - In an Impotent World Even the Bankrupt Can Prevail

Link

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Japan did not spend years preparing her public case and demonstrating her deployment of forces for the attack. Japan did not make a world issue out of her view that the US was denying Japan her role in the Pacific by hindering Japan’s access to raw materials and energy.

Similarly, when Hitler attacked Russia, he did not preface his invasion with endless threats and a public case that blamed the war on England.

These events happened before the PSYOPS era. Today, America and Israel’s wars of aggression are preceded by years of propaganda and international meetings, so that by the time the attack comes it is an expected event, not a monstrous surprise attack with its connotation of naked aggression.

The US, which has been threatening Iran with attack for years, has passed the job to Israel. During the third week of July, the American vice president and secretary of state gave Israel the go-ahead. Israel has made great public disclosure of its warships passing through the Suez Canal on their way to Iran. “Muslim” Egypt is complicit, offering no objection to Israel’s naval forces on their way to a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US imposed on the world.

By the time the attack occurs, it will be old hat, an expected event, and, moreover, an event justified by years of propaganda asserting Iran’s perfidy.

Israel intends to dominate the Middle East. Israel’s goal is to incorporate all of Palestine and southern Lebanon into “Greater Israel.” The US intends to dominate the entire world, deciding who rules which countries and controlling resource flows.

The US and Israel are likely to succeed, because they have effective PSYOPS. For the most part, the world media follows the US media, which follows the US and Israeli governments’ lines. Indeed, the American media is part of the PSYOPS of both countries.

According to Thierry Meyssan in the Swiss newspaper Zeit-Fragen, the CIA used SMS or text messaging and Twitter to spread disinformation about the Iranian election, including the false report that the Guardian Council had informed Mousavi that he had won the election. When the real results were announced, Ahmadinejad’s reelection appeared to be fraudulent.

Iran’s fate awaits it. A reasonable hypothesis to be entertained and examined is whether Iran’s Rafsanjani and Mousavi are in league with Washington to gain power in Iran. Both have lost out in the competition for government power in Iran. Yet, both are egotistical and ambitious. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 probably means nothing to them except an opportunity for personal power. The way the West has always controlled the Middle East is by purchasing the politicians who are out of power and backing them in overthrowing the independent government. We see this today in Sudan as well.

In the case of Iran, there is an additional factor that might align Rafsanjani with Washington. President Ahmadienijad attacked former President Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s most wealthy persons, as corrupt. If Rafsanjani feels threatened by this attack, he has little choice but to try to overthrow the existing government. This makes him the perfect person for Washington.

Perhaps there is a better explanation why Rafsanjani and Mousavi, two highly placed members of the Iranian elite, chose to persist in allegations of election fraud that have played into Washington’s hands by calling into question the legitimacy of the Iranian government. It cannot be that the office of president is worth such costs as the Iranian presidency is not endowed with decisive powers.

Without Rafsanjani and Mousavi, the US media could not have orchestrated the Iranian elections as “stolen,” an orchestration that the US government used to further isolate and discredit the Iranian government, making it easier for Iran to be attacked. Normally, well placed members of an elite do not help foreign enemies set their country up for attack.

An Israeli attack on Iran is likely to produce retaliation, which Washington will use to enter the conflict. Have the personal ambitions of Rafsanjani and Mousavi, and the naive youthful upper class Iranian protesters, set Iran up for destruction?

Consult a map and you will see that Iran is surrounded by a dozen countries that host US military bases. Why does anyone in Iran doubt that Iran is on her way to becoming another Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, in the end to be ruled by oil companies and an American puppet?

The Russians and Chinese are off balance because of successful American interventions in their spheres of influence, uncertain of the threat and the response. Russia could have prevented the coming attack on Iran, but, pressured by Washington, Russia has not delivered the missile systems that Iran purchased. China suffers from her own hubris as a rising economic power, and is about to lose her energy investments in Iran to US/Israeli aggression. China is funding America’s wars of aggression with loans, and Russia is even helping the US to set up a puppet state in Afghanistan, thus opening up former Soviet central Asia to US hegemony.

The world is so impotent that even the bankrupt US can launch a new war of aggression and have it accepted as a glorious act of liberation in behalf of women’s rights, peace, and democracy.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Posted by JNOUBIYEH at 7:38 PM

Labels: Iran, Israeli crimes, Usurping Zionist entity, Zionist propaganda

"The question is what we will do if we find, disastrously, that Obama is serious... this may be the end of us"

Link

Via the Pulse, here

Ben Caspit in Ma'ariv :

" ... Netanyahu's move yesterday was a wise tactical move. Obama backed him into a corner with the settlements? So Netanyahu, with a maneuver of his own, takes him into the opposite corner, with Jerusalem. Just as the settlements are a consensus in the US and around the world, Jerusalem is a consensus in Israel and within the Jewish people.

Finally, something that is truly worth fighting over. Both of them, Obama and Netanyahu, now hold each other by a sensitive place. Now we will see whether Obama is a real man. Whether he really intends to take this to the end. The question is what we will do if we find, disastrously, that Obama is serious. That he will take it to the end. In this case, this may be the end of us.
We must not forget for a single moment: This is not really a balanced game. The US is the world power, and we are the protectorate. The Americans can pull the switch on us at any given moment. We cannot survive without them. They know it, and so do we. The question is whether the US can afford a real crisis in its relations with Israel. A crisis that could also harm Israel's security. Is this worth the great reconciliation with the Muslim world. Can Obama survive this......
Yesterday, Bibi made a tiebreaker move for the first time. At least for one moment, he dictated the pace. He made it clear to Obama that he had pushed him against the wall, and there was no place for him to back down. He stood up in the cabinet meeting and said it in his own voice, loud and clear. This may be a preface to the mother of all wars between Jerusalem and Washington, and it may be a preface to an impressive Israeli capitulation on construction in the settlement blocs, in favor of a symbolic achievement in Jerusalem. This is something that we will only know in the future."

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 11:57 AM

"... Syria may have to remind the West that it also has cards to play ..."

Link

Analysis by Joshua Landis, here

"US-Syrian rapprochement seems to have hit a rough patch. There has been no good news about the formation of a Lebanese government. Feltman recently stressed that the US has a problem with Syria’s continued support of Hizbullah. The US has not named an ambassador to Damascus, although it promised to do so some time ago. The Charge d’affairs has departed leaving the third in command to run things.

The Saudis are also dangling the notion of an ambassador in front of Syria, but haven’t made the final arrangements to send one, just as they have not made arrangements for a meeting between the King and Assad, although there has been plenty of talk about a Syrian-Saudi confab.
The Palestinian front remains as paralyzed as ever. Hamas and the PLO are far from agreeing to form a national unity government.
Iraq security arrangements between Damascus and the US also appear to have stalled. The fact that a CENTCOM delegation preceded Mitchell to Damascus last month suggested that military cooperation would begin in tandem with the return of a US ambassador. The fact that no US ambassador has been named to Damascus suggests to me that Syria will likewise drag its feet on military cooperation.
Finally, Israel has stonewalled US and Syrian attempts to get talks on the Golan back on track. Netanyahu’s insistence that Israel retain a major portion of the Golan and the Syria abandon its allies as a prerequisite to talks are both killers.
Quite possibly, US policy makers believe that they can squeeze Syria to better their advantage now that Damascus’ two regional allies have run into headwinds at the polls. The Lebanese opposition lost elections in Lebanon and the Iranian government is in turmoil over its election misdeeds.
Damascus is unlikely to concede to last minute US bargaining tactics, however. It will likely stand firm, allowing Lebanon’s emulous factionalism to paralyze progress in forming a government. Assad can also stand back as Netanyahu and Obama play their game of chicken over settlements and the future of Palestinian land. If Obama blinks and allows Netanyahu to continue to expand Israel’s control over Palestinian land, as most expect him to do, it will be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan — America’s allies — which will take the most heat for America’s failure. They have gambled on Obama and the ability of the US to play a constructive role in the region. The Saudis have insisted that the Palestinians must pursue the path of non-violence, following the practices of Mahatma Gandhi and not those of Hamas and Hizbullah which advocate violent resistance.
In the face of US pressure, Syria may have to remind the West that it also has cards to play. Perhaps that is the purpose of President Assad’s public hosting of Muqtada al-Sadr in Damascus?"

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 3:34 AM

Blustering Biden bows to Bibi

Link

By PAUL J. BALLES

Paul J. Balles comments on US Vice-President Joe Biden’s twisted logic, which concedes to Israel the sovereign “right” to grab, steal and murder but denies to Iran the just right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

US Vice President Joe Biden told ABC television the US could not "dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do".

On ABC's current affairs programme “This Week”, host George Stephanopoulos asked Mr Biden whether the Israeli position was the right approach.

The vice-president replied: "Israel can determine for itself – it's a sovereign nation – what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." Perhaps to please Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, Biden added that this was the case, "whether we agree or not" with the Israeli view.

Making thoughtless statements like these utterly defies both logic and sensibility. Using the same logic, he could have said the same thing about Iran.

Why doesn't he say "Iran can determine for itself – it's a sovereign nation – what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Israel and anyone else?" With the same logic and lack of sensibility, Biden might have said, "Iran can develop nuclear weapons whether we agree or not with their view."

With this kind of senseless thinking, it’s a wonder that Biden ever managed to hold the leading Democratic position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, except that he is a self-declared Zionist with a 36-year Senate record of pro-Israel leadership.

While in his non-interference state of mind, Biden recently questioned the legitimacy of Mahmud Ahmadinejad's victory in Iran's presidential elections. He commented that officials "just don't know enough" about how they were conducted.

What if they were conducted like elections in other countries that have clearly been rigged but have gone unnoticed by Biden? This is a perfect demonstration of America’s foreign policy hypocrisy.

There's also the insensibility of maintaining double standards about international issues. "The president will not allow Iran to go nuclear," says Biden.

About North Korea's tests of long-range missiles, Biden says: "If the country is proliferating nuclear weapons or missiles, then it is a serious danger and a threat to the world..."

With North Korea, which withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it's a question of how quickly the missiles and nuclear weapons are being developed. Iran, on the other hand, remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which seeks to control the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran has made it clear that they want only to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Meanwhile, as Israel and America focus on the potential of Iran to become a nuclear power, Israel carries on with its never-ending land grab on the West Bank and its terrorist slaughter and mayhem in Gaza.

Commenting on the growing settlements in the West Bank, Sandy Tolan writes: "So dense had the Israeli West Bank presence become by 2009, so fragmented is Palestinian life – both physically and politically – that it now requires death-defying mental gymnastics to imagine how a two-state solution could ever be implemented."

The “logical” comments by Joe Biden should bring scathing criticism of the way Israel spends American taxpayers’ money to support its continuing ruthless inhumanity to indigenous Palestinians.

Haaretz reports: "Israeli officials told US envoy George Mitchell in recent weeks that Jerusalem is willing to temporarily freeze settlement construction, but that the move would be conditioned on substantive steps from the Arab side, as well as guarantees from the United States." What an abomination!

Break into my house with guns. Lock me in a small room; and when a neighbour complains, agree to set me free if I agree to let you keep much of the stolen loot.

This is the twisted logic of Joe Biden's Israel-American politics, using Iran as a distraction.

Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

Posted by JNOUBIYEH at 7:30 PM

Labels: Israeli crimes, Zionist Joe Biden