By Khalid Amayreh

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

Who says there is no Jewish Nazism?

Ovadia Yosef is the spiritual leader of hundreds of thousands of haredi orthodox Jews who give him automatic and nearly absolute allegiance. This week, he lashed out at the Palestinians, saying that they should all be annihilated. “May God destroy them with a plague,” said the elderly rabbi.

Yosef’s remarks should be taken seriously as they seem to reflect a deepening grave phenomenon in the Israeli Jewish society. It is Jewish fascism, pure and simple.  It is racist, virulent and violent.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a few sporadic voices, which criticized the rabbi for saying what he said, the Israeli society generally ignored the manifestly racist remarks, either out of apathy, or because they concurred with him.

Even Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu refused to directly and explicitly denounce the racist tirade, even though it was politically correct to do so in a certain sense.  Instead he babbled a few words, saying that what Yosef said didn’t represent the policy of the Israeli government. Shas, the political party whose ultimate political maker is Yosef, is an important coalition partner in the Netanyahu coalition.

Interestingly, Yosef was not talking merely about Arab extremists, or terrorists, or other “demonized groups.” He was rather talking about “all Palestinians” who he said should perish.

Yosef is considered a Torah sage. Hence, it is unlikely that he was mincing words or making a slip of a tongue as some hasbara propagandists would claim to limit the damage generated by the  racist utterance.

I strongly believe the world, especially Jews, ought to treat such calls, which haven’t been made for the first time, with utmost seriousness and gravity, because wishing Palestinians “a speedy annihilation” is effectively a call for genocide.

Jews can’t keep talking about the holocaust while fascism is taking root in their midst. They should realize, in case they don’t that Nazism was sinful and evil, not because it was partly directed against Jews, but rather because it was inherently diabolical and nefarious.

In the final analysis, Jewish fascism is no less evil than German fascism or any other fascism. There is no such a thing as a kosher genocide or a kosher holocaust, the kind of which this ignorant, hateful old man, who calls himself a Torah sage, is calling for. Didn’t he learn when he was young the cardinal Biblical commandment, thou shall not murder?

Yosef is by no means thunder on a clear day. He represents a widespread phenomenon in Israel and amongst Jews who increasingly harbor genocidal views toward the Palestinian people. This genocidal ideology, dubbed by much of the international media as merely “Jewish extremism,” can be called Jewish Nazism, at least from the perspective of ideology.

Several months ago, another rabbi, Mordechai Elyahu, who died recently, was quoted by his own son as saying that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Palestinian civilians ought to be killed if largely innocuous projectiles from Gaza didn’t cease.

Other religious figures, who routinely invoke the issue of terror, readily quote from the Old Testament, justifying war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated callously by the Israeli occupation army against innocent civilians in occupied Palestine and Lebanon .

One religious Zionist leader, a lady, didn’t hesitate to call on the Israeli government and army to adopt Biblical-style genocide in dealing with the Palestinian issue. Needless to say, a Biblical-style solution means annihilating men, women, and children and not leaving a breathing thing.

It is highly hypocritical and morally duplicitous for Israel and its  supporters to urge Muslims to rein in their extremists while giving a near carte blanche to the likes of Ovadia Yosef to spew their hateful venom.

When an Israeli  soldier hears Yosef spew this Nazi-like venom,  it is predictable how this soldier will internalize what he heard, especially in dealing with Palestinians.

Then the innocent blood shed will not be the sole responsibility of the young brainwashed soldier, but also the responsibility of the rabbis who keep fostering hate and racism among their followers.

When an Israeli murderer, a French Jewish immigrant,  was asked by police  a few years ago why he murdered an Arab taxi driver who had given him a ride to his home, the murderer said he thought non-Jewish lives were worthless and had no sanctity. He apparently had learned this during a homily at his neighborhood’s synagogue.

Yes, there are extremists everywhere. But in Israel, extremism is the mainstream, as successive elections have repeatedly shown. Today, in Israel humanists, human rights activists, academics who oppose racism and equality advocates are hounded and demonized. The gangs of fascism, who function under a variety of rubrics, don’t sleep the night trying to vilify university professors and others who dare call the spade a spade. In short, terror and McCarthyism are in the air every where in a state that mendaciously calls itself  “democratic.”

True, Muslims have extremist organizations such as al-Qaeda and other organizations which commit acts of  mostly politically-motivated violence and terror. However, while the bulk of Muslims are decidedly against these groups, it is sad that we find most Jews are decidedly and enthusiastically supportive of Jewish racist and terror groups, especially the settler movement whose venomous ideology advocates genocide as the ultimate solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Ovadia Yosef will get away with impunity as he did numerous times before. In the final analysis, Yosef is the product of Israeli fascism which he epitomizes.

However, Israel should also look back at similar experiences where fascism took its course and reached its evil potentials. We all know the rest of the story.

Khalid Amayreh

Khalid Amayreh is a Journalist living in Dura, Hebron District, West Bank, occupied Palestine . He  has BA in journalism: University of Oklahoma ,  1981 MA in journalism, University of Southern Illinois , 1983

by Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Last year Rabbi Ovadia Yosef publicly insulted the president of the United States and the US Zionist controlled media has of course kept a lid on the story . He described the President as "a slave" who rules the world and who wants to control Israeli policy when it comes to building in occupied Jerusalem.

Back in October of 2005 the Western media, starting with the New York Times, mistranslated a speech by Amadinejad. The Iranian President had called for regime change in Israel, a practice American Presidents indulge in repeatedly in terms of countries like Cuba, Sudan, and Iran itself. In this case, Amadinejad’s statement that “the occupying regime over Jerusalem” will one day “vanish from the pages of time” somehow became a desire that Israel should be “wiped off the the map.” Almost immediately all hell broke loose in the United States as every devout Zionist and their supporters in and out of the government decided that Iran (allegedly seeking nuclear weapons) had now revealed itself as an “existential threat” to Israel. It was quickly pointed out that the NYT had made a mistake, that in any case Iran did not have the power to actually “wipe Israel off the map,” that the Iranian nuclear program was, according to all objective intelligence reports, not aiming to produce such weapons, etc. but it made no difference at all. To this day, not only the Zionists and their supporters in Congress, but a good many American citizens (to say nothing of the Israeli public) believe that Iran wants to commit genocide against Israel.

Now let us fast forward to August 29, 2010. On that day the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on a speech made by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader the Israeli political party, Shas. Shas is a major political movement in Israel. It represents the religiously observant Sephardi Jewish population of that country. It has eleven seats in the Knesset, is a key part of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition government, and one of its members (Eli Yishai) is the current Minister of Internal Affairs. He is the one leading the effort to ethnically cleanse in East Jerusalem. Shas’ power means Rabbi Yosef is an influential political player in today’s Israel. That is why Haaretz paid attention to his speech of the 29th. So, what did he say?

Rabbi Yosef said that the Palestinians and their leaders are “evil and damnable.” That “God should strike them with a plague.” And just in case God doesn’t get them all, Israel “must send missiles to them and annihilate them.” He finished up with “Abu Mazen (aka Mahmoud Abbas) and all these evil people should perish from this world.” One is tempted to ask if the spiritual leader of Shas was trying to mimic the New York Times’ distorted image of Amadinejad?

The U.S. State Department was quick to condemn Yosef’s “inflammatory” remarks and note that they “hurt the cause of peace.” Coming just days before Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas are to begin face to face “peace talks” that is probably Yosef’s intent. Rather than see Israel achieve a compromise peace, the Rabbi would prefer to see the Palestinians “ wiped off the map,” so to speak. It is no surprise then that Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestine Authority, concluded that Rabbi Yosef’s speech was “incitement to genocide.”

The Israeli Prime Minister’s office released a statement (see State Department link above) emphasizing that Yosef’s remarks, as influential as they must be on the Shas party and its minister in the cabinet, “do not reflect Netanyahu’s views, nor the stance of the Israeli government.” Nonetheless, it is interesting that Haaretz felt it necessary to add that Netanyahu’s comments “stopped short of a condemnation.” Back here in the U.S. The Jewish Week noted that the American Jewish community’s response had been rather anemic. J Street ‘s Hadar Susskind said that Israeli leaders as well as Palestinian leaders should refrain from incitement, and Abe Foxman (who on this side of the water is an inciter par excellence) released a statement saying that the ADL was “outraged” by Yosef’s remarks, coming as they do “on the eve of the Jewish New Year.” From all those in Congress who regularly label Amadinejad as a racist and a madman, there has been silence.

It appears that we live in a world permeated with double standards. Indeed, it may very well be that we are born with a genetic predisposition for them. Even while claiming adherence to “universal” sets of ethical teaching (such as the Ten Commandments), we regularly accept and/or excuse behavior by blood relatives that we would condemn when practiced by those to whom we are unrelated. We extend this to our ‘cultural relatives’ by holding one set of standards for our community and another set for those that are alien. What is terrorism? It is something the ‘other’ does, not us. Where is mass murder committed? It is in Rwanda, in Darfur, in Bosnia, but not in Iraq or Vietnam or Nicaragua. Who are the torturers? Not us. President Bush told us that waterboarding does not count, and those that wrote the memos saying “intensive interrogation” was legal while international law was obsolete, now teach at our most prestigious universities. We are good. They are bad. We deserve to live. They deserve to die. This practice of double standards is old and very persistent.

Now Rabbi Ovadia Yosef shows us that Israeli Jews, and Zionists in general, are just ordinary hypocrites like the rest of us. Has the “light unto the nations” gone out? Well not completely. There is still a tiny little flame that is kept alight by the Jewish minority who understands that Zionism has been very bad for the Jews and Jewish values. There have always been such ethical Jews around, but they have been shouted down by the majority who insist that immorality somehow turns moral when practiced by Israel. But now, thanks to the spiritual icon of Shas, the minority has been proven right. As a consequence, it is now clear–if the world is looking for a madman and a racist with influence over people who possess nuclear weapons, Iran’s Amadinejad (who has no such weapons) cannot logically be high on the list. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, however, seems a most suitable candidate.

Lawrence Davidson
Department of History
West Chester University
West Chester, Pa 19383
USA

Dr. Lawrence  Davidson has done extensive research and published in the areas of American perceptions of the Middle East, and Islamic Fundamentalism. His two latest publications are Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 1998) and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood  (University Press of Florida, 2001). He has published thirteen articles on various aspects of American perceptions of the Middle East. Dr. Davidson holds a BA from Rutgers, an MA from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Alberta.

by Stuart Littlewood

From left, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak listen as President Barack Obama speaks on the Middle East peace negotiations in the East Room of the White House in Washington, on Wednesday. Photo: AP.

For real peace he must bang heads together at the United Nations to finish their unfinished business

On the eve of the silliest peace talks in history, the big question is this. What makes Obama’s envoy George Mitchell, a negotiator of high repute, say there is “no role” for Hamas?

The talks are silly because they seek to overturn what the United Nations has already decided for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict and drive a bulldozer through the building blocks of justice.

It might be music to Zionist ears, but to people of good will it’s a cruel, futile and immensely damaging ploy.

The talks are also silly because they bring together two people who by no stretch of the imagination could qualify as partners for peace. And they sit down under the auspices of a third party with an appalling track record in the Middle East and whom no-one trusts to act fairly.

So Mitchell has been dealt a crap hand. The former US senator, we’re told, has had an illustrious career in politics. Honours have been heaped upon him for his part in the Northern Ireland ‘Good Friday’ agreement.

Accepting one of those awards – the Liberty Medal in 1998 – Mitchell said: “I believe there’s no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended… No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how hateful, no matter how hurtful, peace can prevail. But only if those who stand for peace and justice are supported and encouraged, while those who do not are opposed and condemned. Seeking an end to conflict is not for the timid or the tentative. There must be a clear and determined policy not to yield to the men of violence…”

How about that? Conflict can be ended only by supporting those who stand for peace and condemning those who don’t. But does he know – has he really taken the trouble to find out – who actually stands for peace and justice in the ever-escalating obscenity of the Israeli occupation of Palestine? And is he absolutely clear who “the men of violence” are? Get it wrong and matters are made worse.

Mitchell is such an awesome peace-monger that he has become a visiting Professor at Britain’s Leeds Metropolitan University’s School of Applied Global Ethics, and the University is developing a new Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution bearing his name.

If Mitchell is so clued up you have to wonder why he took the job – a veritable poisoned chalice. And you’d think a person with his vast experience would stick to accepted rules of engagement for conflict resolution and peace-making. I’ll mention just three…

• Talk directly with the people who are concerned or with whom there are concerns.
• Attack the issues, not the people with whom there is disagreement.
• No issue can be ‘off limits’.

There is no-one more concerned than Hamas. As the democratically elected authority they are the principle stakeholder on the Palestinian side. Obviously they must be allowed to represent the Palestinian case. It matters not one jot or tittle that the White House has “identified” Hamas as a terrorist organization. They have legitimacy. Besides, millions outside the White House can point to Israel’s much worse terror crimes.

Mitchell, besides barring Hamas, bends even further to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s demands and has ruled there must be no pre-conditions. Which means that Israel’s criminal conduct such as settlement construction, dispossession, ethnic cleansing, the land and sea blockade of Gaza, the occupation, the strangulation of the economy and their taste for piracy and extra-judicial killing, and their trampling of human rights including those of self-determination, are allowed to continue while the hapless Palestinians face them across the table.

And never mind that Netanyahu is permitted to enter these talks with his own pre-conditions, saying that the return of Palestinian refugees to the homes they were forced to flee, and the continuing occupation of East Jerusalem including the Old City, are not for discussion, and threatening to resume the (temporarily suspended) illegal settlement building.

If Mitchell is truly a person of integrity and a champion of “global ethics” how could he show such favour to one side?

What, I wonder, will he be saying to the Israeli team about UN Resolution 181 of 1947, which deals declares that “the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum“ administered by the United Nations?

What will he say to them about Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council and therefore fully binding? This insists on:

(i) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

242 also emphasizes the need for

(a) guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

Will Mitchell bang the table to demand long overdue action on Security Council Resolution 338 (1973), which called on the parties concerned to start immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 242?

Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) leaves absolutely no wriggle room. It “determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace… Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”

It’s all there, Mr Mitchell, in black and white. The UN has set it out. The world is waiting for the UN to implement it.

Stand up, any suitable partners for peace and any genuine peace-brokers

Israeli foreign policy is driven by manifesto promises like…

• “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”
• “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.”
• The claim to a national and historic right to the Land of Israel “in its entirety” and the pledge to keep Jerusalem and the settlements.

Netanyahu’s belligerent coalition government probably won’t survive unless he uses all means to achieve these unlawful and hugely provocative aims and resists demands to give back Israel’s ill-gotten gains. A thief is clearly no partner for peace.

Neither is the PLO’s Abbas, who dances to America’s tune and whose authority is in question. Any agreement he makes will be open to challenge by his own people.

Obama is US president courtesy of the pro-Israel lobby. He is like putty in their hands. And he’s so ill-informed that he told AIPAC it’s OK for Israel to grab the hallowed City of Jerusalem and turn it into the permanent headquarters of the Zionist regime. Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” he blurted. When it dawned on him that he’d made a monumental blunder he tried to wriggle out: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations… And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem, but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

A legitimate claim? Who says? And negotiate what? Has the President forgotten that the UN decided long ago that Jerusalem, along with Bethlehem, was to become an international zone?

And how can it be right for weak, unarmed and impoverished Palestinians to have to negotiate with a brutal, lawless military regime for their universal rights and freedoms, which are supposed to be guaranteed by the international community but have been denied them for decades?

Obama is clearly no genuine peace-broker.

And George Mitchell, despite his awesome reputation elsewhere, has so far failed in the Holy Land. He and his boss are getting desperate. Staging farcical, lopsided talks in order to achieve a fake, temporary peace will no doubt save a few worthless political skins for the timebeing. But they benefit no-one else. And they don’t do an envoy of Mitchell’s calibre any credit. He would be better employed banging heads together at the United Nations, to finish the unfinished business there and ensure all the resolutions they have passed and all the other solemn declarations they have endorsed are implemented. No need for conflict resolution, judgment has already been handed down.

Then peace talks can begin, if genuine partners and an honest broker can be found.

It’s called justice, Mr Mitchell. There’ll be no real peace until justice is delivered.

Stuart Littlewood

1 September 2010

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk

Wednesday, 01 September 2010 12:40

Following a visit yesterday to some young prisoners being held at the Megiddo Prison, lawyers for the Ministry of Detainees have stated that the young prisoners testified under oath that they had been interrogated and systematically electrocuted and tortured by Israeli intelligence officers in settlements near to Palestinian cities.

According to Salim Redouane who was arrested near Qalqilya on 08.05.2010, he was kept in a camp near Tzofin for 3 hours before being transferred to the settlement of Ariel where he was questioned by Shin Bet interrogators. His head was repeatedly hit against the prison room wall in an effort to get him to confess and he was beaten severely. The investigators threatened to burn his skin if he did not confess to the accusations against him.

Another detainee, Mohamed Ali Radwan, informed the lawyers that he was arrested at his home in Qalqilya Azzun on 3/8/2010 and one of the soldiers forced him to take off his shirt in order to use it as a blindfold. He was handcuffed and then taken somewhere near the village where he was told to hand in what was in his possession before he was hit in the back with a rifle butt and kicked repeatedly in the stomach and on the back. One of the soldiers then dragged him across the ground which resulted in deep wounds on his hands and he was taken to the Ariel settlement where he was questioned for several hours and was hit on the head, in the face and all over his the body.

According to the testimony of Yahya Ali Abdel-Hafez, born 03.07.1995 and a resident of the Qalqilya Governorate of Azzoun, he was arrested on 05.08.2010 near the city of Qalqilya and taken to a camp near Tzofin where he was kept for 3 hours before being transferred to the settlement of Ariel and interrogated. During the interrogation, he did not recognize some of the charges against him and so he was beaten in the face several times and repeatedly electrocuted. Under duress, Yahya eventually signed the statement to avoid further torture.

Lawyers also visited Abdul Hamid Abdul Latif Sa’id Abu Haniyeh who is currently in year 10 and was born on 12/11/1994. A resident of Azzun, he was arrested on 05.08.2010 near Qalqilya, where was also taken to the Ariel settlement and interrogated by Shin Bet interrogators. He was beaten up severely before being hit hard by a large jolt of electricity. A terrified Abdul Hamid who thought he would be imprisoned at the Megiddo prison along with his brothers, signed the statement he was given.

Lawyers for the Ministry of Prisoners also visited Ahmed Hussein Mustafa who was born on 10/01/1994 and is from Jalazoun, north of Ramallah. He was arrested from his home at three in the morning on 11.02.2010 and was beaten up inside his house before being taken to the Beit El settlement. Ahmed remained in the settlement until daybreak when he was transferred to Benjamin where he was fined 2000 NIS and sentenced to 20 months in detention. His two brothers were detained in the Negev prison

Source: News of Palestine – Agencies via Middle East Monitor

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

The soldier, who has only been identified as “Captain R”, was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

The manner of Iman’s killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was “scared to death”, made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

After the verdict, Iman’s father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.

“They did not charge him with Iman’s murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times,” he said. “This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children.”

The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

Capt R’s lawyers argued that the “confirmation of the kill” after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

Following the verdict, Capt R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: “I told you I was innocent.”

The army’s official account said that Iman was shot for crossing into a security zone carrying her schoolbag which soldiers feared might contain a bomb. It is still not known why the girl ventured into the area but witnesses described her as at least 100 yards from the military post which was in any case well protected.

A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post’s operations room and describes Iman as “a little girl” who was “scared to death”. After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to “lure” the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then “confirmed the kill”.

“I and another soldier … are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill … Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her … I also confirmed the kill. Over,” he said.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.

On the tape, Capt R then “clarifies” to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: “This is commander. Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed.”

At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.

The prosecution case was damaged when a soldier who initially said he had seen Capt R point his weapon at the girl’s body and open fire later told the court he had fabricated the story.

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child’s body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. “She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs,” he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. “The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face.”

The army’s initial investigation concluded that the captain had “not acted unethically”. But after some of the soldiers under his command went to the Israeli press to give a different version, the military police launched a separate investigation after which he was charged.

Capt R claimed that the soldiers under his command were out to get him because they are Jewish and he is Druze.

The transcript

The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl

From the watchtower “It’s a little girl. She’s running defensively eastward.” “Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?” “A girl about 10, she’s behind the embankment, scared to death.” “I think that one of the positions took her out.” “I and another soldier … are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill … Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her … I also confirmed the kill. Over.”

From the operations room “Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?”

Watchtower “A girl about 10, she’s behind the embankment, scared to death.”

A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts

Watchtower “I think that one of the positions took her out.”

Captain R “I and another soldier … are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill … Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her … I also confirmed the kill. Over.”

Capt R then “clarifies” why he killed Iman

“This is commander. Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over

Source: The Guardian

Sami Moubayed

Abu Mazen's Mission Impossible

President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Mahmoud Abbas heads off to the United States this week for dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the White House.

Days later, Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, stalled for more than 10 years, begin in the US. No serious effort has been exerted in this direction – despite all the loud talk at the Annapolis conference by the former George Bush Administration. That conference in November 2007 brought Abbas together with then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and a host of Arab and European leaders who set the end of Bush’s term, January 2009, as a deadline for agreement on a two-state solution.

Earlier, US president Bill Clinton had been unable to hammer out a sustainable peace. Obama, however, appears both able and willing, but faces an reluctant Israeli prime minister and an incapable Palestinian one.

Whether these talks succeed or collapse, this will probably be the last task for the aging Palestinian leader, also known as Abu Mazen. At 75, Abbas, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since November 2004, is ailing and an increasingly unpopular figure in the Palestinian street.

A series of setbacks has rocked his presidency since he succeeded his boss, Yasser Arafat, in 2004. It started with a political rift with Hamas, the grassroots Islamic party that swept parliamentary elections in 2006 and which since June 2007 has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories. Abbas had tried to disarm the group in 2003, when serving as prime minister under Arafat, creating a permanent rift with Palestinian guerrillas from different ends of the political spectrum.

Abbas was never a fan of armed resistance – even when it was celebrated in the 1970s and 1980s – always projecting himself as a moderate civilian politician keen on diplomacy rather than armed confrontation. However, his image was severely tarnished when in 2007 Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, dividing the already amputated Palestinian Territories in two.

The Israeli war on Gaza in 2008-2009 did not break Hamas’ power, much to Abbas’ displeasure. Abbas tried to drown the high-profile United Nations report blaming Israel for the war, further tarnishing his image among ordinary Palestinians who increasingly saw him as an American stooge.

Hamas now claims that Abbas is an illegal president with no mandate to rule from the Palestinian people and therefore no authority to engage in any peace talks with Israel. Abbas’ presidential term expired in January 2009, but he unilaterally extended it for another year and remains in office although that year too has also expired.

Hamas has refused to recognize this extension, claiming that Abbas is not entitled to debate sensitive issues related to the future of Jerusalem, final borders, security and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Abbas has no war medals on his neatly pressed Western suit, making it very difficult – if not impossible – for him to make any concessions on peace, and get away with it before ordinary Palestinians.

Making peace needs decorated war heroes – Arafat would not have been able go to Oslo in 1993 without having led the Palestinian resistance for 30 years. Otherwise, he would have been labeled as a traitor by his own people. Arafat was a man who could take decisions, and bear the consequences. He would say: “Only this hand [waving his right hand], can sign a peace treaty with Israel!”

If Abbas decides to make concessions to Israel, and signs a flawed peace treaty, he risks being killed by an extremist Palestinian. Precisely by his death, Arafat has marked the “red lines” of Palestinian politics. What he did not concede during his lifetime nobody will be able to give after his death: abandoning Jerusalem as the capital of the “State of Palestine”, and the right of return for refugees.

Uri Avnery, an Israeli peace activist and Arafat friend, once wrote: “If you are a Palestinian in Jenin [in the West Bank] with a rifle, and you hear their names [Abbas and his team], your reaction is: ‘Who are these guys anyway? Who are they to tell me what to do?’ Their authority will be superficial.”

Although on the surface Arafat seemed to quarrel with Hamas and another militant group, Islamic Jihad, they respected Arafat and listened to him – something that does not happen with Abbas. Also, while post-Arafat leaders of Palestine travel around in black-tinted automobiles, and are always surrounded by heavy security, Arafat always showed up with the masses. Arafat had the looks of a resistance leader. Scruffy, always in khaki military uniform, and always with a revolver buckled on his side, he was the perfect mirror of his people’s image and revolution. Abbas is not like that.

For weeks, Hamas has been whipping up massive anti-peace talks demonstrations in Gaza, supported by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). It claims that no peace talks should take place unless the Israeli siege of Gaza is completely lifted, settlements are dismantled and real reconciliation takes place between Abbas’ Fatah and Hamas.

That position is supported by Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Qatar, Turkey and naturally other Palestinian factions which are not members of Abbas’ PNA. How can Abbas speak for the Palestinians, Hamas leaders ask, when at best the Palestinian president only represents 50% of the Palestinian street?

For his part, Abbas has conditioned his participation in the Obama-sponsored talks on Israel abiding by a freeze on settlements in the West Bank. A 10-month freeze currently holds, and will expire at midnight on September 26, two days before the ninth anniversary of the famous al-Aqsa (second) intifada – the second Palestinian uprising.

If Israel continues its settlement policies, Abbas has threatened to walk out on the talks, explaining why Obama has pushed both parties to reaching concrete steps ahead of September 26, thereby making it difficult for Abbas to distance himself from the peace process.

The main question is: can such an unpopular president deliver peace? The Israelis are clearly humoring Obama in the peace talks, uninterested in hammering out a sustainable peace with the Palestinians. Obama’s promises of Palestinian statehood at his famous speech in Cairo in the summer of 2009 raised red flags in Israel.

Hardliners in the Netanyahu administration accused him of taking sides with the Arabs when he came close to saying: “Read my lips: no new settlements!” Earlier this year, the Israelis threw sand in the eyes of US peacemakers by announcing preparations to build 1,600 new settlements in the Palestinian Territories.

Netanyahu appears to be playing with Obama, going along with his flawed peace process ahead of the November congressional elections in the US that are expected to produce a Democratic Party defeat.

Obama desperately needs a success story in the Middle East, and so does Abbas. Netanyahu, however, knows what it takes to produce peace and realizes that his lack of interest and Abbas’ likely inability to deliver will soon send the talks into history, like so many failed attempts at peace in the Middle East since the Madrid Peace Conference kicked off 20 years ago.

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria. This article appeared in Asia Times on August 31, 2010 entitled, “Abbas faces a mission impossible

by Philip Giraldi

There has been considerable concern expressed in the media over the date August 21st.  It was the day when Russian technicians were to insert the fuel rods to begin the activation of the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr. No less a voice out of the past than John Bolton, UN Ambassador under George W. Bush, called for an immediate attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities before the reactor became operational.  Bolton and his neoconservative friends reasoned that no attack against Iran would be “complete” if Bushehr were not taken out as it is part of the broader Iranian nuclear program.  In their view, its destruction would have the same impact as the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by Israel in 1981, which was intended to derail Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.

Well, the 21st has come and gone and neither Israel nor the United States took the initiative to destroy Bushehr.  Indeed, the entire argument about attacking it has something of a surreal quality.  Bushehr is not a reactor that can be used to concentrate its fuel, meaning that it can generate electricity but cannot itself produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium.  The entire argument about attacking it seems to center on its symbolic value as Iran’s only soon-to-be operating reactor combined with the notion that its fuel could be removed and enriched somewhere else.  The reactor is located in a relatively heavily populated coastal area and the demand to hit it before it became operational was based on the possible consequences of having to do so after it is up and running.  Destroying an operating reactor would produce considerable radioactive contamination that would devastate a wide area both within Iran and in neighboring countries and would kill many civilians.  Comparisons with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island spring to mind.  Whoever would bomb and destroy such a target would be vilified by most of the international community, and rightly so.  While Israel and the United States both regularly ignore such criticism, the deaths of thousands in a deliberate bombing directed against a country that poses no immediate threat would be a bit hard to explain, even in the New York Times and Washington Post.

To be completely and cold bloodedly serious about the respective positions being staked out by Iran and its chief antagonists in Washington and Tel Aviv, one must first of all remember that Tehran does not currently have a nuclear weapon and there is no real evidence that it even has a program to produce one.  It has been basically compliant with the UN inspection regime mandated by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory.  Nor is there any evidence that the Mullahs are suicidal, suggesting that they would not want to develop a weapon in a secret program at great cost to hand off to terrorists and thereby guarantee the annihilation of their nation and millions of their people.  And they have good reason to be just a bit paranoid about their own security.  The repeated threats coming out of Israel and the United States that “all options are on the table” with Iran is a not exactly subtle suggestion that many policymakers in both countries consider it perfectly acceptable to begin bombing, all in spite of the fact that it would be an attack on a country based on what might happen without any evidence that there is an actual intention to develop and use a weapon of mass destruction.  Bombing a country under those circumstances would be a war crime, one more crime among many.

The real problem is that the public utterances of the policy makers in Washington and Tel Aviv have backed them into a corner, reducing their options and committing them to a policy that has no real attainable objective and makes absolutely no sense.  If Iran is a threat at all, which can be disputed, it can be easily contained by either Israel or the United States, both of which have large nuclear and conventional arsenals. Iran is a military midget compared to either country, though admittedly it has the capability to strike back hard in asymmetrical ways if it is attacked.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu both appreciate very clearly that Iran does not pose a serious threat and both know that the often cited claim that Tehran has called for wiping Israel off the map is bogus. Such knowledge is widespread even among hawks in Israel, though apparently less so among American neocons.  In September 2009 former Israeli Prime Minister and current Minister of Defense Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that “I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel.”  A few years earlier, Foreign Minister Livni argued against the idea that a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat. This summer, ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi made the same point and added that speaking of Iran as an existential threat exaggerates Iran’s power and suggests instead the false and dangerous narrative that Israel might be vulnerable.

But in spite of their certain knowledge of the fragility of the Iranian threat, both Obama and Netanyahu have unfortunately let themselves wallow in rhetoric that hypes the danger.  If it sounds and smells exactly like the lead up to Iraq, it should. And, like the case of Iraq, the fearmongering does not end with the intemperate comments made by the two leaders.  The US Congress with its proposed House Resolution 1553 is engaged in giving the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran, indicating in advance its support for such an action.  HR 1553 comes on top of harsh sanctions approved in early July, measures that could lead to US Navy vessels attempting to board Iranian flagged merchant ships. Even tougher sanctions, steps that would almost certainly lead to war are endorsed by many legislators, particularly those who are regarded as close to Israel. Congressman Brad Sherman of California explains “Critics [of the sanctions] argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”  At least Congress shows consistency when it is knee jerking spasmodically to demonstrate support for Israel.  Sherman’s view of Iranians is somewhat similar to his punishing the Gazans for voting for Hamas or pillorying the Turks for trying to send aid to the Palestinians.  Or, not so long ago, sending the 500,000 Iraqi children to their deaths à la Madeleine Albright.

And the White House rhetoric blends harmoniously with the congressional ire.  President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all repeatedly stated that Israel is completely free to make its own decisions relating to its security.  That assertion presumably plays well in certain quarters, but as an Israeli attack will have to be enabled by the United States they also know that bombing courtesy of Tel Aviv would mean Iranian retaliation directed against American troops in the Middle East.  In other words, America’s leaders have abdicated all responsibility for maintaining a rational policy in an unstable part of the world and have instead granted the authority to make key decisions to Israel.  How many Americans will die as a result?

Both the Israeli and American people have been prepared for war by all of the truculent noises coming out of Washington and the propaganda appearing in the media.  The conversation on Iran, such as it is, has been expressly designed to bring about a war rather than avoid it.  The mainstream media disinformation campaign orchestrated by AIPAC has worked just fine.  Most Americans already believe incorrectly that Iran has a nuclear weapon and most also support attacking it, a product of the steady diet of hokum that they have been fed.  The moral turpitude of America and Israel’s leaders combined with the popular consensus that they have willy-nilly allowed to develop grants the concept of war with Iran a certain inevitability.  Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has described the process as “inexorable.”

So we have dodged the bullet on the war that might have begun on August 21st because our leaders really do know that Iran is not a threat and when it came to gut check time were ultimately unwilling to start World War III.  But the bomb is still ticking because those selfsame politicians, lacking any sense of true leadership, have set the forces in play that will almost inevitably produce a war.  It is somewhat reminiscent of Iraq surely, but it also recalls the 1914 European security environment in which an entangling web of alliances and arrangements virtually guaranteed that a war would take place.  The only way to stop the rot is for President Obama to consider for a moment what is good for the United States rather than for his political party’s hold on power.  He should act like a true statesman instead of a used car salesman.  If he is uncertain how to do that there are a number of good nineteenth century political biographies that he can read up on to learn the ropes.  He must stand up before the American people and state simply and unequivocally that Washington opposes any new military action in the Middle East and that the United States is not threatened by Iran and will take no part in any military action directed against it.  He might add that the US will further consider anyone staging such an attack as an aggressor nation and will immediately break off relations before demanding a UN Security Council vote to condemn the action.  Will that happen?  Fat chance.

Source: Antiwar.com

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. His “Deep Background” column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative.

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

“The fact that not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists, it is nonsensical to claim that criticism of a political state and its idiosyncratic ideology is the same as criticism of a worldwide religion and people.”

Between the 23^rd and the 25^th of August, Yale University held a conference on Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity.” It was sponsored by the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism. Therefore, this was a university event and not one brought in from the outside to use Yale facilities. On the surface there is nothing wrong with this. Anti-Semitism is an age old form of racism and it calls for ongoing academic study. The problem is that this particular conference approached the subject from the ideologically driven position of radical Zionism. In other words, many of the assumptions upon which the conference was built were unfortunately tainted with bias. Indeed, in at least one instance (a panel on the “self-hating” Jew), one might suggest that the event was itself promoting a particularly virulent form of anti-Semitism. Very odd indeed.

The way you initially judge an academic conference is from the reputation of its participants and the nature of its panels. Philip Weiss, the co-editor of the blog Mondoweiss, has looked at both these categories and he concludes that this conference was “dedicated to the idea that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.” It appears he is largely correct. Many (though not all) on the participant list are the sort of strident supporters of Israel who confuse Zionism with Judaism and criticism of Israel with “demonization.” Some of the panels were dedicated to problematic issues as “Jewish Self-Hatred” and “Confronting and Combating Contemporary Anti-Semitism in the Academy.” Itamar Marcus who was a conference keynote speaker and is also a leader of the West Bank settler movement, lectured the participants on “The Central Role of Palestinian Anti-Semitism in Creating the Palestinian Identity.” Putting many of the participants (regardless of their academic credentials and affiliations) into the context created by these panels, what you get is not an academic conference in toto. Parts of it were more like an attempt to assert ideology as truth.

Let’s take a look at some of the assumptions that appear to be behind at least a part of the conference.

1. Criticism of Israel/Zionism, somehow smacks of “demonization”and this constitutes a “contemporary form of anti-Semitism.” (This seems to be the opinion of Charles Small, the Yale Initiative director – See the Weiss link above). If you think this assertion through, you find that it is illogical. Leaving aside the fact that not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists, it is nonsensical to claim that criticism of a political state and its idiosyncratic ideology is the same as criticism of a worldwide religion and people. The only way those at the Yale conference could fall into this confusion is by taking Israel’s description of itself as the “Jewish state” and then uncritically accepting that this warrants the conflation of an entire people and religion with that state. This is an enormous leap, and one that just does not reflect reality.

Indeed, it is even logically suspect to assume that criticism of Israel or Zionism is anti-Israeli, much less anti-Jewish! By way of analogy, one can point to the fact that there are millions of Americans who have consistently criticized U.S. domestic and foreign policy at least since the 1960s. The only folks who accuse them of being anti-American are the fanatics on the far right. Is that the sort of company the Yale Initiative academics want to keep? Maybe so. The Zionist version of such fanatics certainly showed up for their conference and seemed to fit right in.

2. Public Jewish criticism of Israel is a form of self-hatred. This is one of those defensive positions Zionists throw up to protect themselves from what they see as the most dangerous attack of all, that from fellow Jews. You will note that when they use this epithet, they will most often put in the proviso that to constitute “self-hatred” the criticism must be made “in public.” What does that mean? It means that if you make the criticism in private, no non-Jew will hear it and the Israeli/Zionist claim to represent all Jewry is not called into question. That being the case, there is no need to intimidate the critic with nasty name calling. However, if the criticism is make in public, non-Jews do hear it and the Israeli/Zionist claim of representation is called into question. And, since they insist that they stand in for all Jews, that makes you, the Jewish critic, a “self-hating” anti-Semite. In the end, this gambit is nothing but a form of intimidation used to stifle criticism.

Yet, by persistent repetition, year in and year out, the Zionists have convinced many of their supporters that there is something to this otherwise nonsensical assertion that those Jews who stand against them are “self-haters.” So, you can now find Israelis who complain about the “rot in the diaspora” and describe their Jewish critics both inside and outside of Israel as not only “self-haters,” but also as “traitors to their people” This is what ideology taken too far can do. The room for critical debate disappears and you start to see those who disagree as mortal enemies.

3. Anti-Semitism plays a central role in Palestinian identity. Here I shall tell a story. I once met Yasser Arafat. From the subsequent interaction I concluded that he was no anti-Semite. He saw the state of Israel as an enemy because of what it did to the Palestinian people, but he did not ascribe blame to the Jewish people as a whole. He even talked endearingly of Yitzak Rabin, his “partner for peace.” I thought that latter opinion naive of him, but it certainly was not the mark of an anti-Semite.

While Arafat was in forced exile in Tunisia the Israelis managed to tap his phone. There they allegedly recorded Arafat saying some bad things about “the Jews.” I say allegedly because the Israelis are not above having forged the whole incident. Real or false the statements appeared the next day in the New York Times and many people said, “Aha! You see. The leader the Palestinian people is anti-Semitic.” Assuming, for the moment, that Arafat did make the comments, I do not find that surprising (though I do not think such the single incident would make him an anti-Semite). Actually, what I would find surprising is if he did not occasionally make such comments. Do the Palestinians hate all Jews? The vast majority do not. But, given Israel’s barbarous treatment of them, and its simultaneous insistence that it is the institutional incarnation of the entire Jewish people, it is a small miracle that most Palestinians, including Yasser Arafat, have never fallen into the trap of blaming all of Jewry for the actions of only some of them.

It is not the Palestinian national character that has been shaped by anti-Semitism. Rather, it is the Israeli national character that has been shaped by a fear and loathing of all Arabs and Palestinians in particular. If you doubt this just go to Israel and keep your ears open. There you will find that too many of its Jewish citizens see Arabs as dirty, promiscuous, untrustworthy, and all the other things that we Americans once ascribed to Irishmen, Italians, Poles, African Americans, and the Jews as well. Quite frankly, I have never run into anything approaching this level of racial animosity in an Arab country.

If this past week’s conference is indicative of anything, it is that Yale’s Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism is in danger of falling from academic grace. That is, it is in danger of ceasing to be a center for the objective study of an age old form of racism, and instead tying itself to an ideological view of the world that is itself racist. Why are they apparently doing so? Is it because they are funded by wealthy Zionist ideologues who have influenced the choice of leadership and therefore the parameters of what here passes for “research?” Maybe. Whatever the reason, if this keeps up the Yale Initiative is doomed as a legitimate academic venture. I recommend that Yale University correct the situation or rapidly distance itself from the entire project.

Lawrence Davidson
Department of History
West Chester University
West Chester, Pa 19383
USA

Dr. Lawrence  Davidson has done extensive research and published in the areas of American perceptions of the Middle East, and Islamic Fundamentalism. His two latest publications are Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 1998) and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood  (University Press of Florida, 2001). He has published thirteen articles on various aspects of American perceptions of the Middle East. Dr. Davidson holds a BA from Rutgers, an MA from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Alberta.

by ALI ABUNIMAH

Ali Abunimah

GEORGE J. MITCHELL, the United States Middle East envoy, tried to counter low expectations for renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations by harking back to his experience as a mediator in Northern Ireland.

At an Aug. 20 news conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, announcing the talks that will begin this week, Mr. Mitchell reminded journalists that during difficult negotiations in Northern Ireland, “We had about 700 days of failure and one day of success” — the day in 1998 that the Belfast Agreement instituting power-sharing between pro-British unionists and Irish nationalists was signed.

Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy.

The conflict in Northern Ireland had been intractable for decades. Unionists backed by the British government saw any political compromise with Irish nationalists as a danger, one that would lead to a united Ireland in which a Catholic majority would dominate minority Protestant unionists. The British government also refused to deal with the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, despite its significant electoral mandate, because of its close ties to the Irish Republican Army, which had carried out violent acts in the United Kingdom.

A parallel can be seen with the American refusal to speak to the Palestinian party Hamas, which decisively won elections in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006. Asked what role Hamas would have in the renewed talks, Mr. Mitchell answered with one word: “None.” No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas on board, any more than could have been the case in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein and the I.R.A.

The United States insists that Hamas meet strict preconditions before it can take part in negotiations: recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by agreements previously signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, of which Hamas is not a member. These demands are unworkable. Why should Hamas or any Palestinian accept Israel’s political demands, like recognition, when Israel refuses to recognize basic Palestinian demands like the right of return for refugees?

As for violence, Hamas has inflicted a fraction of the harm on Israeli civilians that Israel inflicts on Palestinian civilians. If violence disqualifies Hamas, surely much greater violence should disqualify the Israelis?

It was only by breaking with one-sided demands that Mr. Mitchell was able to help bring peace to Northern Ireland. In 1994, for instance, Mr. Mitchell, then a Democratic senator from Maine, urged President Bill Clinton — against strenuous British objections — to grant a United States visa to Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader. Mr. Mitchell later wrote that he believed the visa would enable Mr. Adams “to persuade the I.R.A. to declare a cease-fire, and permit Sinn Fein to enter into inclusive political negotiations.” As mediator, Mr. Mitchell insisted that a cease-fire apply to all parties equally, not just to the I.R.A.

Both the Irish and Middle Eastern conflicts figure prominently in American domestic politics — yet both have played out in very different ways. The United States allowed the Irish-American lobby to help steer policy toward the weaker side: the Irish government in Dublin and Sinn Fein and other nationalist parties in the north. At times, the United States put intense pressure on the British government, leveling the field so that negotiations could result in an agreement with broad support. By contrast, the American government let the Israel lobby shift the balance of United States support toward the stronger of the two parties: Israel.

This disparity has not gone unnoticed by those with firsthand knowledge of the Irish talks. In a 2009 letter to The Times of London, several British and Irish negotiators, including John Hume, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize for the Belfast Agreement, criticized the one-sided demands imposed solely on Hamas. “Engaging Hamas,” the negotiators wrote, “does not amount to condoning terrorism or attacks on civilians. In fact, it is a precondition for security and for brokering a workable agreement.”

The resumption of peace talks without any Israeli commitment to freeze settlements is another significant victory for the Israel lobby and the Israeli government. It allows Israel to pose as a willing peacemaker while carrying on with business as usual.

As for Mr. Mitchell, since he was appointed Middle East envoy, he has so far enjoyed almost 600 days of failure. As long as the United States maintains the same hopeless approach, he can expect many more.

Ali Abunimah is the author of “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 29, 2010, on page WK10 of the New York edition.

Souce: New York Times

by Jamal Dajani

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said recently that Abbas was too weak to stand up to Israel and negotiate a just deal at the talks in Washington. “If the talks succeed they will succeed to Israeli standards and liquidate the Palestinian cause. They’ll give us parts of 1967 lands. They’ll draw the borders as they want and they’ll confiscate our sovereignty,” said Meshaal

Direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis are scheduled to commence in Washington on September 2, a decade after the last real final-status talks, and nearly two years after the last direct talks. Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu will come face to face for dinner and talks in Washington as guests of President Obama after 18 months of shuttle diplomacy and indirect “proximity talks” headed by Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell.

President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, along with Tony Blair, the special representative of the Middle East Quartet are also due to join the inaugural session in Washington.

While much hope has been placed on these talks culminating in an agreement within a year, most Palestinians and Israelis remain skeptical of their success. More importantly, hopes and expectations have been inflated in some media reports, adding confusion and creating myths about what might turn up only to be yet another photo op in DC.

Here are some of the myths:

Myth No. 1- They’re not talking

Although Abbas and Netanyahu have not sat face to face for the past eighteen months, contacts and cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government have not ceased on several fronts, most notably in commerce and security.

Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, spoke at the Herzliya Conference in February alongside Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at a time when his boss, President Mahmoud Abbas, was insisting on a total halt to settlement construction before peace talks could resume. Also, Shin Bet and Israel Defense Forces senior officials have made several visits to Ramallah for meetings with senior PA officials and members of the Palestinian security services. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Shin Bet security service head Yuval Diskin recently spent a day in the West Bank city of Jenin as a guest of the Palestinian Authority’s security service.

This is Diskin’s second visit of this kind to Palestinian Authority territory in recent months, the aim of which is to coordinate security ties between Israel and the PA. The first visit was to Ramallah.

Myth No. 2- Settlement Freeze

Settlement construction is “business as usual” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Although a few projects were pushed back, construction on existing projects continues unabated. Close to half a million Israeli Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. More importantly, settlers have accelerated their activities taking over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, in Arab neighborhoods in Sheikh Jarrah, Shu’fat, and Silwan. Furthermore, in 2010, more than 240 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in Area C of the West Bank, compared to 182 in all of 2009.

Myth No. 3- Security Fears

Israel’s concern over security in the West Bank is exaggerated. Today the Palestinian Authority is policing the West Bank on behalf of the IDF. Very few Israeli deaths, only two in 2010, have been registered due to attacks in the West Bank. In comparison, far more Palestinians have been killed and injured by settlers and the IDF in 2010. Rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip have also subsided. Israel’s main security concern these days is Iran.

“The threat that Iran poses is very grave for the state of Israel, for peace in the Middle East and the whole world,” Netanyahu said in November 2009, repeating variations on this statement on several occasions.

Myth No. 4- Abbas & Netanyahu can deliver peace

Neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor President Abbas have the mandate to deliver a peace agreement. Netanyahu would face strident opposition from within his Likud party and fierce opposition from his own foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who has the ability and influence to unravel his fragile coalition.

Abbas also faces a complex problem of legitimacy. His term as President has expired, and under his watch, Palestinian unity was fractured when Hamas managed to rout his forces in Gaza.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said recently that Abbas was too weak to stand up to Israel and negotiate a just deal at the talks in Washington.

“If the talks succeed they will succeed to Israeli standards and liquidate the Palestinian cause. They’ll give us parts of 1967 lands. They’ll draw the borders as they want and they’ll confiscate our sovereignty,” said Meshaal

Myth No. 5- No preconditions

Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted for many weeks that he was ready to come to the negotiating table in Washington, but without “preconditions.” In fact both he and President Mahmoud Abbas have already announced preconditions, raising expectations and laying the groundwork for failure.

Among the preconditions laid out by Netanyahu for peace with the Palestinians is recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians consider this condition as a non-starter, instead they’d like to delve into sensitive areas such as the construction of Jewish settlements on occupied territory, the status of Jerusalem, the borders of a future Palestinian state and the right of return, issues that will be difficult to overcome.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas has declared that he will withdraw from negotiations if settlement activity resumes. The settlement moratorium is due to expire on Sept. 26. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems unlikely to extend it.

Source: Huffington Post

Jamal Dajani is an award-winning producer and Vice President of International News at Link TV. He has produced more than 2,000 episodes of the Peabody Award winning news show, Mosaic: World News from the Middle East. He is also the host of the Mosaic Intelligence Report and has worked as producer and in an editorial capacity on several Link TV productions including, Occupied Minds and Who Speaks for Islam? Jamal is a frequent commentator on national and international television and radio networks. He serves on the board of directors of New America Media and on the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. Dajani holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Columbia University.
More information is available on Jamal’s website.
Follow Jamal on Twitter.