Free Syria Army includes foreign mercenaries armed & backed by very Arab League supposedly investigating Syrian violence.

Thousands of people have rallied in the Syrian city of Homs, emboldened by the Arab League observers’ visit to the country. But journalist Pepe Escobar says the monitors will have to investigate both the official and the opposition armies.
Source CounterPsyOps

Dr. Rania Masri from the University of Balamand in Beirut says Arab League was designed by the West to support former colonial countries’ interests in the Arab world.

It’s not just Egypt’s fate that’s being decided in Cairo, but Syria’s future as well. Arab League members have approved unprecedented economic sanctions against Damascus over its crackdown on protesters. The measures were voted for by 19 out of 22 nations and they include a travel ban on senior officials, freezing deals with the Syrian central bank and suspending flights into the country. Damascus has already condemned the move as a betrayal of Arab solidarity. Dr. Rania Masri from the University of Balamand in Beirut says Arab League was designed by the West to support former colonial countries’ interests in the Arab world.

by Stuart Littlewood

"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it…” - Ariel Sharon

It has been an unsettling week watching Obama’s unholy alliance with Israel take the world a step nearer the edge of the abyss.

First I read John Glenn’s scary piece, “Exodus of Jewish Advisors from Obama White House Likely Not an Omen of Good Things to Come”, in which he suggests the unexpected departure of Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod and Larry Summers from the top echelons of the White House might indicate that some sinister and possibly cataclysmic event is imminent.

Then I saw reports in Haaretz and elsewhere about a leaked letter from Obama to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, showering him with gifts if he, Netanyahu, would only save Obama’s political bacon and see him through next month’s primaries by extending Israel’s freeze on settlement building for just a few months.

Obama’s letter, we’re told, grants a list of reckless American favours. He agrees not to ask for any more construction freezes and to veto any anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution in the year ahead. He also agrees that the future fate of the illegal settlements will be dealt with only as part of a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

In short, he gives a green light to Israel’s various criminal schemes.

As if that wasn’t enough Obama, in his desperation, also offers to increase the $3 billion security aid Israel receives annually from America’s hard-pressed taxpayers and to supply advanced weapons and early warning systems, including satellites. In addition the US president guarantees to prevent the smuggling of weapons and missiles into a future Palestinian state, and he OK’s a lengthy period of interim security measures in the Jordan Valley (read permanent occupation) and a regional anti-Iran defence pact (read war plan).

Most little boys are overjoyed to receive a bike or computer game. But spoilt brat Bibi Netanyahu must have the biggest and most dangerous toys on the planet so that he can continue to terrorise all the other boys on the block. And indeed all the weak-kneed adults around the globe.

Although the White House is prepared to deliver most of what’s on his wish-list, and doesn’t ask much in return, it seems little Bibi has rejected America’s extravagant gesture. Israel-watchers say he fears being tipped out of his pram by the psychopaths and extremists who push it if he doesn’t drive an even harder bargain with big softy Obama.

Settlements “have no legal validity” and are a serious obstacle to peace – official

It’s obvious lawyer Obama needs a refresher course in United Nations rulings and codes of conduct before this pathetic relationship gets hopelessly out of hand.

Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council (and therefore fully binding) requires the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict 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 requires freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area, a just settlement of the refugee problem and the guaranteeing of territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area.

And Security Council Resolution 338 (1973) calls on the parties concerned to get on with implementing 242 immediately.

Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) determines that Israel’s 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 in the Middle East… “

It calls once more on 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”.

Got that, Mr Obama?

The reason why none of it has been implemented is that US presidents up to and including Obama didn’t give a toss about international law or peace in the Holy Land, preferring to let themselves be emasculated and led by the nose by the Israel lobby.

We are all in trouble if the US president takes leave of his senses and jettisons integrity. The most powerful man in the world then becomes the most dangerous. I’m sure someone (though obviously not Emmanuel, Axelrod or Summers) has reminded Mr Obama that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it crystal clear that the occupying power is forbidden to transfer parts of its own civilian population – Israel’s half-million squatters – into the territory it occupies. What’s more, in 2001 the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention unanimously reaffirmed its applicability to the Palestinian Occupied Territories including East Jerusalem.

But he still rides roughshod and seems to think he can re-write international law and the Geneva Conventions to suit his Israeli friends.

Cuddling the quislings

The Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe), which saw more than half the Palestinian population expelled and more than 530 of their villages depopulated and completely destroyed, took place 13 years before Obama was born. And it’s still going on… on Obama’s watch. Every day more Palestinians are forced to look on while Israeli bulldozers demolish their homes, rip up their orchards and olive groves, barricade them from their farmlands and annexe their water supplies.

Obama wasn’t even born when Resolution 242 and the Geneva Conventions were solemnly signed. He fails in his obligation to uphold the precious principles they enshrine and snaps a contemptuous finger at the work of those men and women who thought they had brought universal fairness and justice to the community of nations.

“Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it…” That’s what Ariel Sharon told Shimon Peres at an Israeli cabinet meeting in 2001, according to Kol Yisrael radio. Israel’s propaganda machine of course denies it.

Nevertheless the US House of Representatives felt obliged to endorse, by 390 votes to 5, Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008/9, an atrocity that killed over 1,400 (mostly Palestinian civilians including a large number of women and children), wounded and maimed thousands more and left tens of thousands homeless.  It was an act of utter barbarism coming immediately after Israel blatantly broke the ceasefire with Hamas. It horrified and disgusted the rest of the world but not, it seems, America’s politicians.

And how is Obama’s compromised democracy, or Netanyahu’s fake democracy (it’s actually an ethnocracy with a deeply offensive racist structure), superior to Palestine’s fledgling democracy which produced a Hamas government in fair and proper elections?

Perversely Obama, ‘king’ of the free democratic world and self-proclaimed honest peace broker, refuses to recognise Palestinian democracy and rejects the people’s choice – even to the point of denying Hamas a place in peace talks.  Instead, Obama props up and arms ruthless Fatah, the sore losers, and their leader, Abbas, whose term as Palestinian president expired long ago but who clings to power like a nasty blot that’s resistant to stain remover. Obama sets one faction against the other, cruelly undermining the Holy Land’s democratic processes and sabotaging the Palestinians’ right to self-determination – the sort of grubby act no respectable politician should ever contemplate.

The laugh is on Obama, however. Hamas are increasingly likened to the Maquis, or French Resistance, who struggled heroically against the Nazi occupation in World War 2, while Fatah are seen as the hated Vichy ‘government’ who actively collaborated with the Nazi occupier.

When liberation finally came the vengeful French rounded up and executed many of the Vichy quislings.

Abbas and his henchmen would do well to reflect on that, and so should their backers – including our own dear government here in London.

Stuart Littlewood

8 October 2010

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For fu

By Alan Hart

Perhaps most depressing of all was Obama’s statement about the need for an independent Palestinian state. It is required, he said, to provide Israel with “true security”.

On marks out of ten for his speech to the UN on the subject of ending the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, I’d give President Obama minus five.

Earlier this month (on 4 September) I wrote a piece with the headline Obama has signalled his coming complete surrender to Zionism and its lobby. That surrender, it seems to me, is now effectively a fait accompli.

“After 60 years in the community of nations, Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” Obama proclaimed. “It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”

Leaving aside the matter of whether Zionism’s monster child is legitimate or not (I say it’s not), only a complete idiot would deny that Israel exists. The question is – WHICH Israel must not have its existence debated? Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war or the greater Israel of today? That’s not a question Obama is prepared to ask let alone answer.

In my view the most appropriate response to Obama from the Arab and wider Muslim would be something this: All American presidents who refuse to demand (with the promise of sanctions if necessary) that Israel end its occupation of all Arab land grabbed in 1967 will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of all Arabs and other Muslims everywhere.

We now know what Obama himself expects of those Arabs who “count themselves as friends of the Palestinians”. They “must seize the opportunity for a peace agreement that will lead to a Palestinian state.” They can do that, Obama added, “by supporting the Palestinian Authority financially and politically and by coming to terms with Israel’s existence.”

Again the question – the existence of WHICH Israel must the Arabs come to terms with? To Obama I say, “Mr. President, until you are prepared to answer this question, you will have no credibility whatsoever in the Arab and wider Muslim world, at least far as ‘the street’ (the masses) is concerned.”

Obama’s notion that there is an opportunity for a peace agreement to be seized can only be the product of desperate and deluded wishful thinking on his part unless he believes that he can bribe and bully the discredited Palestinian Authority into accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table. It’s not totally impossible that he might be able to do so, but that would only provoke a Palestinian civil war. Could that be what Zionism really wants, in order to have a pretext for completing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

Perhaps most depressing of all was Obama’s statement about the need for an independent Palestinian state. It is required, he said, to provide Israel with “true security”. No mention of it being needed to go some way to righting the terrible wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name.

Yes, President Obama did call on Israel to continue its moratorium on new settlement activity. The question is – What is he going to do when, in a few days or three months from now, Israel defies him?

We know the answer. Nothing.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition.  He blogs on www.alanhart.netwww.twitter.com/alanauthor. and tweets on

By Dr. Elias Akleh

The terrorist attack of 911 had been used to launch WWIII called “Global war on terror”. The American administration had enlisted world political bodies such as UN, EU, and NATO to wage wars in different kinds of shapes and intensity against other countries; Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Iran.

This global war on terror had been deliberately manipulated to take the shapes of underlying war against Islamic extremism, war against Islam, clash of civilizations, and Judeo-Christianity against Islam. This conflict had been carefully planned and executed. It is only one link in the chain of perpetual wars along the history of mankind.

Man went to war against his brother to steal his property and his wealth. Unfortunately, war is a dangerous business and many men were killed rather than accumulating wealth. A group of people found a better and safer way of making their fortune. They manufactured weapons and sold them to desperate countries, which would pay large sums of money for such weapons to defend themselves. To continue their flourishing business those weapon manufacturers need to create conflict and enmity between nations. False flag terror attacks have been the most effective methods of creating such conflicts.

WWII ended when communist Soviet Union and capitalist United States worked together to destroy strong Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. During the war the military industrial complex in both Soviet Union and the US had been strengthened and well established. WWII was supposed to be the “good war” that would have ended all wars. That would have been devastating to the military industry.

The cold war between communist Soviet Union and capitalist US and their competition in claiming parts of the world had kept the military industries in both countries flourishing. Billions of dollars had been spent on weaponization and a large part of the countries’ economy became dependent on the military industry. The American military budget exceeds the sum of all military budgets of all other countries of the world. Military industry constituted the largest portion of the backbone of the American economy.

The threat of communism, considered the greatest enemy of the US, was used to justify the huge military budget that sustained the military industry and American economy. After the collapse and capitalization of communist Soviet Union the American administration could not justify the huge military budget; there are no more enemies to be afraid of. Also the American economy could not depend on selling the expensive American products to WWII devastated countries any longer. The war had destroyed the industries of these countries. Yet they have now rebuilt their industries and their products exceeded similar American products in reliability and most importantly in price.

The American economy had suffered a lot and the status of the US as the strongest economical and military country in the world was threatened. Something needed to be done to regain this status.

Deregulation, allowing the American jobs to be outsourced (exported) to other countries, was meant partly to tie and to make subservient the economies of the outsourced countries to the American economy. Outsourcing jobs did not help the military industries since military secrets could not be revealed to other countries. Although outsourcing had helped boost the revenues of other American corporations it had created huge unemployment crisis that in turn created housing crisis.

There exists a global power elite that controls and manipulates the economies and the government systems of many countries. This power elite consists of very influential group of people, who believe themselves to be chosen (Zionist Jews are not the only people believed to be chosen) as the light unto this world, who are smarter than the rest of the nations, and whose mission is to manage the world under one governing organization as they see fit. This delusional mission goes back into very ancient history and could be seen in the kings and military leaders, who perceived their only mission in life was to conquer the world.

The sole job of this power elite is to draw plans to increase their power. Such plans include wars, political assassinations, coup de tats, financial melt downs, economical crisis, political conflicts, and brainwashing nations among many others. The US, the most powerful country on earth, has been chosen to be their executive tool to accomplish their plans.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had left the Middle East and the whole region of South East Asia open for this power elite to conquer. After the defeat of communism a new enemy was needed to sell the conquest to the American people. A false flag terrorist attack, similar to Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam and Pay of Pigs operation in Cuba among others, was perpetrated against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The attacks of 911 were probably planned in late 1980’s. It was postponed after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing accident. Some of the explosives, transported into the public parking garage beneath the Trade Center, exploded accidently. To cover the incident Muslims including Omar Abdel-Rahman “The Blind Sheikh” and others were accused and imprisoned. The investigation of the incident was just as suspicious and questionable as the investigations of 911 Commission. Sheikh Abdel-Rahman was originally a CIA operative, whose job was to enlist Muslim Mujahedeen to fight Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

After a wait period and careful preparation the attacks of 911 took place. Before the dust settled Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were pronounced as the culprit terrorists. A new public enemy was created and the global war against terror was launched and gradually had evolved into a full-fledged holy crusade against the Muslim World.

Scientific studies and many investigations done by 911 truth groups have discredited the investigation of the 911 Commission. There are a lot of evidences indicating that 911 was a false flag terrorist attack planned by the power elite and executed with the cooperation of Israeli Mossad operatives (the dancing Israelis documenting the attack).

Al-Qaeda was portrayed as an internationally strong military Islamic movement, whose aim is to fight the Christian and Israeli infidels in order to spread the Islamic faith. Although the American invasion of Afghanistan had bombed its camps and killed the majority of its followers, Al-Qaeda is still described as a very powerful multinational terrorist organization with possible weapons of mass destruction and branches in every country.  Originated in the caves of Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda is described by mainstream media as an international terrorist group with endless financial resources, military power, and man power that exceed those of the US, UN, NATO, and UN combined. Such description justifies the military interference of the US and its allies in the affairs of every country.  Joining the American war on terror many governments took advantage of this description to persecute local oppositional groups and oppress freedom activists calling them Al-Qaeda branch.

Bin Laden and his followers were originally recruited, financed, trained and armed by the CIA to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The name Al-Qaeda was reported by Robin Cook, the former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs,  to be a computer database file, maintained by the CIA, which contained the names of all the Mujahedeen supported by the CIA.

The goal of 911 terror attack is to fool the world in general and the American people, specifically, into believing that there exists a global enemy; Islamic extremism in the form of Al-Qaeda, and the whole world should combine, under one leadership, to combat it. The global war on terror and spreading the American democracy are used to justify sending armies into the Middle East and South East Asia, mainly the Islamic World, to destroy countries, to rebuild them, to reshape them, to control their economy, and to enslave their people as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other countries and more wars are next on the list.

By: Stuart Littlewood

The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, led condemnation of the Methodist Church for its approval of a report on Israel which he warned would have widespread repercussions for interfaith relations: Photo JC.COM

A few weeks ago the Methodist Church’s annual conference did a very courageous and praiseworthy thing. It voted to boycott products from Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestine, regarded as illegal under international law, and to encourage Methodists across Britain to do the same.

“The decision is a response to a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a growing number of Jewish organisations, both inside Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches,” said the press release.

Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships, remarked: “This decision has not been taken lightly, but after months of research, careful consideration and finally, today’s debate at the Conference. The goal of the boycott is to put an end to the existing injustice. It reflects the challenge that settlements present to a lasting peace in the region.”

Predictably the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which calls itself “the chief voice of British Jewry”, blew a gasket. In a joint statement with the Jewish Leadership Council they said the Methodists should “hang their heads in shame”. The Chief Rabbi led the verbal assault warning that the implications would “reverberate across the hitherto harmonious relationship between the faith communities in the UK”.

What seemed to have inflamed the Chief Rabbi this time was the report ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’ submitted to the Methodist Conference. Its recommendations include the following…

“In listening to Church Leaders and our fellow-Christians in Israel Palestine as well as leaders of Palestinian civil society we hear an increasing consensus calling for the imposition of boycott, divestment and sanctions as a major strategy of non-violent resistance to the Occupation. The Conference notes the call of the WCC [World Council of Churches] in 2009 for an ‘international boycott of settlement produce and services’ and calls on the Methodist people to support and engage with this boycott of Israeli goods emanating from illegal settlements (some Methodists would advocate a total boycott of Israeli goods until the Occupation ends).”

Elsewhere it says:

“The Methodist Church has consistently expressed its concern over the illegal Occupation of Palestinian lands by the State of Israel. That Occupation continues not only compounds the state’s illegal and immoral action but also makes any accommodation with the Palestinian people and future peace in the region much less possible.”

The Chief Rabbi nevertheless denounced the report as “unbalanced, factually and historically flawed” without saying in what way it was inaccurate. Actually it is a very well put together document, which hits the mark and is hard to fault.

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said the authors of the Methodists’ report had “abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage on this issue, only to find our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction”. Here is the full text:

Statement on the Flawed Document Endorsed by the Annual Methodist Conference

This is a very sad day, both for Jewish-Methodist relations and for everyone who wants to see positive engagement with the complex issues of Israeli-Palestinian relations. The Methodist Conference has swallowed hook, line and sinker a report full of basic historical inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of Jewish theology and Israeli policy. The deeply flawed report is symptomatic of a biased process: The working group which wrote the report had already formed its conclusions at the outset. External readers were brought in to give the process a veneer of impartiality, but their criticisms were rejected. The report’s authors have abused the trust of ordinary members of the Methodist Church, who assumed that they were reading and voting on an impartial and comprehensive paper, and they have abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage with this issue, only to find that our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction.

This outcome is extremely serious and damaging, as we and others have explained repeatedly over recent weeks. Israel is at the root of the identity of Jews and of Judaism, and as an expression of Jewish spiritual, national and emotional aspirations, Zionism cannot simply be ruled as illegitimate in the way that the Methodist Conference has purported to do. This smacks of breathtaking insensitivity, as crass as it is misinformed. That this position should now form the basis of Methodist Church policy should cause the Conference to hang its head in shame, just as surely as it will cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines.

Empty barrels, they say, make the most noise.

If arrogance is the only response to serious concerns about Israel’s unending barbarity towards Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land, it’s time that implications did indeed “reverberate” across the faith communities, not only in the UK but around the world.

Zionist cuckoos in the Methodist nest

Lo and behold, before the dust could settle another new product from the Zionist drawing-board popped up, calling itself Methodist Friends of Israel. “We are Christians who are members or adherents of the Methodist Church, who love Israel and want to bless her and who fully accept God’s everlasting covenant with His chosen people,” they announced. “While recognising that the nation of Israel is, like all nations of the world, an unrighteous nation that does not always get things right, we firmly stand with her at all times and continue to support her in an increasingly hostile world.  We will not turn our backs as so many did in the 1930s.

“We see that anti Semitism is on the rise throughout the world with synagogues and graveyards vandalised and Jews being attacked both verbally and physically and that there appears to be a direct relationship between the increased attacks on Jews and the blanket condemnation of Israel by the media, many charitable organizations and world bodies such as the UN. We are concerned that the whole, true picture of what life is like in Israel is given to the world rather than the biased half truths, distortions and lies that are presently reported.

“We are concerned that many churches are going down the politically correct line of condemning Israel’s policies and are thus contributing to the strong anti Semitic views of the world.”

Note that they are concerned only with “what life is like in Israel”, not the hell Israel has created in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for Christians and Muslims.

And what else do they believe in?

• They recognize that Israel is the land given by God to the Jews and Jerusalem is its only capital.
• They believe that God’s word for, promises to, and covenants with Israel – people and land, through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) are everlasting and that the church has not replaced Israel
• They believe that Scripture prophesies the restoration of the Jews to the land of Israel and what they are seeing today is a fulfilment of prophecy.  It is a privilege that they are witnesses to this fulfilment
• They believe that Israel is central in the enactment of God’s purposes as we move in these last days
• They believe in finding out from many sources the whole picture of what is happening in Israel so that they can pass on the facts to those whose view is based solely on biased media coverage, and so correct mistaken beliefs (achingly funny, this)
• They believe in blessing Israel however possible including buying goods and produce from Israel and resisting all calls for boycotts
• They believe in supporting Israel’s defence of its people and their right to live without the threat of missile attacks, homicide bombings etc.
• They believe in standing against libelous attacks against Israel
• They believe in fully supporting Israel’s right to the land given them by God

According to the Jewish Chronicle, the group was set up by preacher Pam Smith from South Wales in reaction to her Church’s call to boycott Israel. Naturally Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation, was overjoyed and said: “I hope this will be the start of a grass-roots movement within the Methodists to reverse the motion passed at the Methodist Conference, which was theologically invalid, maligned Zionism and demonised Israel.”

Needless to say, the Methodist Friends of Israel website editorial reads like pages from some Israeli propaganda rag.

Have they not heard of The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a statement by the Latin Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem issued in 2006? It is neatly summed up in its first sentence:

“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.”

Those guys are on the ground, in the front line. They know the score. It’s time Preacher Pam visited Gaza and the West Bank (not by Israeli tour bus or as guests of Israel’s ‘establishment’) and got a grip on reality. She and others have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked into supporting a sinister political movement that is intent on stealing the Holy Land from under our noses.

I wonder how long these cuckoos will be allowed to foul the Methodist Church’s nest.

Stuart Littlewood

11 August 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

======================================================

See Also

Palestine’s “Turbulent Priest” Delivers a Blistering Easter Message - by Stuart Littlewood

Exclusive Intifada Interview with Archbishop Theodosios (Atallah) Hanna -  by Elias Harb

What sort of Christians become Zionists? -  by Stuart Littlewood

Archbishop Theodosios Atallah Hanna Appeals to Churches worldwide to Prevent Israeli Decimation of Historic Christian Sites

wanted for war crimes?

By Stuart Littlewood

Israelis wanted for war crimes can sleep easier thanks to their friends and admirers in the British Establishment.

Yes, our brand-new coalition government intends providing a safe haven for the vilest of criminals.

When Israel’s ex-foreign minister Tzipi Livni, and other architects of the terror campaign against Palestinian civilians, recently cancelled trips to the UK for fear of being arrested under universal jurisdiction laws on charges of war crimes, it sparked a diplomatic row. Britain’s then foreign secretary-in-waiting, William Hague, an avid Friend of Israel since boyhood, said: “We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country. The situation is unsatisfactory [and] indefensible. It is absolutely my intention to act speedily.”

He found it “completely unacceptable” that someone like Livni felt she could not visit the UK. He didn’t explain how welcoming Livni with open arms was possible “without weakening our commitment to hold accountable those guilty of war crimes”.

Gordon Brown, the then prime minister, expressed his regret over the incident, saying that Livni was “most welcome in Britain any time” – even though she was no longer a government minister in Israel.

Under universal jurisdiction all states that are party to the Geneva Conventions are obliged to seek out and either prosecute or extradite those suspected of having committed grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them, regardless of nationality, to court.

“Grave breaches” means willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war… the sort of atrocities that have been (and still are) committed wholesale by Israel in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Lo and behold, new Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has announced, just as MPs are about to disappear on their long summer recess, that “it would be appropriate to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued to a private prosecutor in respect of an offence of universal jurisdiction.”

Alerts have gone out from activist groups. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign urges its members to write to their MPs immediately: “This would seriously hamper the work of human rights lawyers in this country who are attempting to bring these war criminals to justice, and would deny the Palestinians yet another chance at justice.

“Between September and December 2009, lawyers issued arrest warrants against three Israeli ministers who were planning to visit Britain. Two of them – Livni and Moshe Ya’alon – cancelled their visits as a result. The third – Barak – had his status upgraded by the then Labour government, so that he could attend the Labour Party Conference in Brighton.

“If the Government’s plans become law, warrants such as these will become much harder to serve.”

Meanwhile, in his report to the UN, Judge Richard Goldstone found masses of evidence of war crimes by Israel in Gaza and has called for individual states in the international community to “start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949″.

Hague and Clarke, however, seem determined to make the likes of Livni and Barak and their murderous military henchmen a protected species.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, a supposedly independent figure, is answerable through the Attorney General. The new Attorney General is Dominic Grieve. In 2007 he was in Israel with a Conservative Friends of Israel delegation. He spoke up for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit but his sense of justice apparently didn’t prompt him to mention the thousands of Palestinian civilians tortured and rotting in Israeli jails.

Grieve’s deputy is Solicitor General Edward Garnier. In February, while still in opposition but warming up for the general election, he and Kenneth Clarke visited Israel as delegates of Conservative Friends of Israel when they could (and should) have gone under a neutral parliamentary flag. They met with deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon and leader of the Opposition Livni. Ayalon is also on the wanted list but was able to visit London after receiving a letter from the Foreign Ministry promising he would be safe from arrest while in England.

At the height of the Gaza blitz (which killed 1,400 including 350 children, destroyed or damaged 58,000 homes, 280 schools, 1,500 factories, water and sewage installations and 80 percent of agricultural crops), Hague said in Parliament: “The immediate trigger for this crisis… was the barrage of hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel on the expiry of the ceasefire or truce.”

Wrong. A person in his position should know better than mouth off the Israeli propaganda line. The truce with Hamas didn’t just “expire”. It was violated after five months by Israeli forces, killing six Palestinians in air strikes and other attacks, in order to provoke Hamas. Israel had also failed to deliver its side of the ceasefire bargain, which was to lift the blockade.

While the evidence piles up against Livni and others, the Justice Secretary assures us that “our commitment to our international obligations and to ensuring that there is no impunity for those accused of crimes of universal jurisdiction is unwavering”. How can that be if universal jurisdiction cases in future are filtered and processed solely by the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The fear is that the DPP’s wheels turn so slowly that the birds will have flown before arrests can be made, and  the change in the law will simply enable the DPP to thwart private efforts to bring to book those criminals the British government regards as friends.

Let’s remember that after the 22-day devastation of Gaza and the mega-deaths and maimings, their friend Livni bragged how she would happily do it again.

Hague, after just two months in the top job at the Foreign Office, is already an embarrassment to English people who yearn for moral leadership in foreign affairs. It was Hague who uttered these words in 2008: “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue. Although it will no doubt often be tested in the years ahead, it will remain constant, unbroken, and undiminished by the passage of time.”

Undimished by the passage of crime, too.

Stuart Littlewood

23 July 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

Nadia Hijab

After locking itself up for hours on end, Israel’s security cabinet finally emerged to announce an easing of its blockade on Gaza, a move immediately welcomed by the United States. Israel and the U.S. hope to defuse world outrage over the collective punishment of the 1.5 million Palestinians who live there and to prevent future flotillas from trying to break the siege.

Will they succeed? It is tempting to think that the flagrant illegality of attacking unarmed humanitarians on the open seas is bound to lead to an end to the blockade. However, Palestinian analyst Mouin Rabbani has warned against over-optimism. He notes that after the horror of Israel’s 2008-9 attacks on Gaza the blockade was not only kept in place; it was tightened.

Yet America and Israel are fighting a losing battle in their efforts to devise a kinder, gentler blockade for the simple reason that there is no such thing. Activists, the United Nations, and the human rights community are saying more loudly than ever that the blockade is against the law — international law.

Activists appear to have the upper hand at the moment, as more ships head to Gaza to try to break Israel’s naval blockade. And they are being organized not only by groups in Iran, Lebanon and Turkey; European Jews for a Just Peace are also organizing a flotilla.

EJJP, an umbrella group of Jewish groups from 10 European countries, plans to deliver humanitarian aid but its purpose is primarily political. The activists want to focus attention on the “immoral” blockade. And, German organizer Edith Lutz told The Huffington Post, “We are frightened that Israeli policies will help anti-Semitism. We also want to show that these actions are not Jewish.

Meanwhile, UN organizations have lined up in the past few weeks to counter Israeli claims that there is no “humanitarian crisis.” The World Health Organization has warned that the health system is on the verge of collapse. The UN’s Humanitarian Coordinator in the occupied Palestinian territory has said that Gaza’s agricultural sector is suffocating, noting that the “absurdity” of a situation in which Gaza’s coastal population is forced to import fish through tunnels. And the UN Secretary General repeatedly says that the blockade must be completely lifted.

The most damning report in recent weeks has perhaps been that of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC rarely speaks out, but it has clearly stated that the closure constitutes collective punishment in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. And, should anyone need affirmation that there is no such thing as a better blockade, the ICRC says the hardship facing Gaza’s Palestinians cannot be addressed by providing more humanitarian aid: “The only sustainable solution is to lift the closure.”

The way Israel plans to ease the blockade gets nowhere near lifting the closure. For example, all food will be allowed in — but not materials that will enable Palestinians to grow their own food. And Israel’s “security envelope” will remain in place, including the naval blockade.

Why is Israel so eager to maintain its siege when even Israeli strategists are saying that its purpose — to dislodge or weaken Hamas and its resistance — has not and cannot be achieved?

There are persistent reports that a major Israeli reason could be access to and control of Gaza’s gas fields, valued at some $4 billion. Such reports might sound hard to believe — until one considers that Israel has been tapping the West Bank’s water for decades and that the illegal Wall it is building in the West Bank conveniently encircles the Palestinians’ strategic aquifers. Writing about the Gaza gas deals in the Guardian in 2007, Arthur Neslen notes that Hamas has persistently called for the renegotiation of the contract negotiated with BG Group.

Meanwhile, human rights activists are turning to the courts — a move that may at last grab Israel’s attention. The Free Gaza Movement, organizers of the flotilla Israel attacked on May 31, is currently working with attorneys in a number of countries to pursue legal action on behalf of those killed or badly injured.

Here’s a question: Since the blockade is illegal under international law, could the Palestinians of Gaza organize some kind of class action suit against Israel and seek compensation for the agonies they have suffered since 2006? For all those dead due to lack of access to care? The children stunted due to malnourishment? The school years lost, the crops and land and infrastructure destroyed. The list is long, but it is long past time to total up and claim the costs of Israel’s occupation.

Nadia Hijab is co-director of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network.

© 2010 Nadia Hijab – distributed by Agence Global

—————

For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

Palestine Center Brief No. 205 (22 June 2010)

By Yousef Munayyer

Last week the government of Israel announced the launch of an investigation into the events surrounding the deadly Memorial Day flotilla raid which left nine activists dead. Many international bodies including the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), as well as human rights groups like Amnesty International, are calling for an independent and impartial, international investigation into the incident. In fact, The UN Human Rights Council has already called for an investigation and chosen a principle investigator. Turkey too has decided to launch its own investigation. The Mahmoud Abbas-led Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, which can in no way be construed as a pro-Hamas entity, also slammed the Israeli investigation.

There are obvious questions that arise when an alleged perpetrator, in this case the government of Israel, is left in charge of investigating themselves. To mitigate such concerns, Israel has allowed two international observers to participate. One of them, David Trimble, raises questions on his own. He has a Nobel Peace Prize on his resume, but he is also known for having antipathy towards human rights groups whom he has accused of aiding terrorists, and was recently part of an initiative to launch a pro-Israel campaign in his native land. The other observer, Ken Watkin, is the former head of Canada’s military judiciary.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the international observers can keep any biases they may have out of their deliberations. Will they be able to come up with an accurate assessment of the events? It’s not likely, since any information “almost certain to cause substantial harm to [Israel’s] national security or to the State’s foreign relations”¹ will not be made available to the international observers. Basically, the international observers, hand-picked by the state of Israel, are only permitted to observe what the state of Israel wants them to observe. A farce, if there ever was one.

Despite this, and a vast international outcry for an impartial, international investigation, the United States has come out in support of Israel’s commission, calling it an “important step” and stating that Israel’s “independent public commission can meet the standard of a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation.”

Many around the globe do not share these sentiments and are deeply skeptical of Israel’s investigation. But this skepticism does not lie in anti-Semitism or an anti-Israel sentiment, as many Israeli government spokespeople would have us believe. Rather, a long history of flawed or non-existent investigations into the killings of civilians at the hands of Israel’s soldiers has led many to the conclusion that Israel is incapable of independently reaching justice. A brief review of some of these investigations in is order:

1953 – Qibya – As a punitive and vengeful response to cross-border raids, the Israeli government decided to send a message to the Palestinians. This village, just over the Green Line, became the target. The death toll of 70 Palestinians was made up mostly of women and children, and 45 homes were destroyed. Operational orders included commands for maximal killing and driving the inhabitants from their homes. International condemnation followed what was known to the Israeli military as Operation Rose. The United States expressed its regret for the loss of life and demanded that perpetrators “be brought to account and that effective measures should be taken to prevent such incidents in the future.”² No credible public independent investigation was held. Those responsible included Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan, Deputy Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon, and Chief of Staff Mordechai Meklaf. The latter appointed Ariel Sharon who was the commander of the brigade responsible for the raid. He would go on to have a long and controversial career in Israeli political and military life. None of these officials were charged and all continued careers in public life.

1956 – Kufr Qasem – In this village of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, 47 were killed of which fifteen were women, and eleven were children under the age of fifteen. Thirteen others were wounded. The IDF swiftly changed curfew hours as villagers were returning to their homes. Major Shmuel Melinki gave the order to “shoot to kill” anyone outside of their homes. During trial, Melinki claimed the order “conformed to the spirit of the times.” Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion ordered an investigation. To the surprise of many Palestinians the initial court martial found Melinki guilty of killing 43 civilians and sentenced him to 17 years in prison. Others found guilty included Lieutenant Joubral Dahan and Sergeant Shalom Ofer, both sentenced to fifteen years. Privates Hreish and Abraham, among others, were sentenced to seven years imprisonment for killing 17 citizens. The brigadier who directed Melinki to crack down on those breaking the curfew was found guilty of a mere technical error, and was sentenced to a reprimand and a fine of one piaster (ten cents!). Those initially sentenced by court martial for the killings had their sentences commuted by a series of civilian courts and politicians. No one found guilty for the murders ultimately served more than three years in prison. After their release, Melinki was promoted into the ranks of military intelligence and Dahan received a position in a city municipality.

1967 – The USS Liberty – During the war in 1967, Israeli military aircraft and navy bombarded a United States Navy reconnaissance ship killing 34 noncombatant sailors and injuring approximately 170 others. The United States reacted with outrage. At the time, Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated that the attack must be condemned and that the U. S. government expects the government of Israel to take the disciplinary measures required by international law. The Israeli position was that this was a mistake. The IDF Chief Military Prosecutor filed charges against select military personnel, but an examining judge ruled that nothing in the incident deviated “from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify the committal of anyone for trial.”³ No official proceedings ensued.

1976 – ‘Land Day’ Shootings – After announcing the confiscation of thousands of dunams of land that fell between two Palestinian villages in the Galilee, Israel braced for a reaction by declaring immediate curfews and that protests would be illegal. Palestinian citizens of Israel in the area organized strikes and demonstrations in protest of the land confiscation, part of which was privately owned Palestinian land. The crackdown that ensued involved thousands of Israeli police and tactical forces, and resulted in the killing of six unarmed Palestinian Arabs, the injury of approximately 100 more and the mass arrests of hundreds of others.  No credible public investigation took place. No one was prosecuted in connection with the killings.

1978 – Operation Litani – Following a Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) bus hijacking that left 37 Israelis dead, Israel invaded southern Lebanon in March 1978. The result of the operation was a stunningly disproportionate response that left 1,100 Palestinian and Lebanese dead. Most of the causalities were civilians. The operation solicited ire from U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Carter noted in his book, The Blood of Abraham, that he instructed the State Department to push for condemnation of the killings in the UN Security Council, and that if the Israelis refused to cease the operation, he would be compelled to notify congress that U.S. weapons were being used illegally.   No credible public independent investigation into the killings of civilians was held.

1982 – Sabra and Shatila – The number of deaths at these Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon is disputed to be between 400 to upwards of 3,000, mostly civilians. This massacre drew international condemnation and the UN General Assembly termed it an act of genocide by a vote of 123-0 with 22 abstentions (the United States abstained). An outcry in Israel led to the establishment of an investigation led by Yitzhak Kahan, then President of the Israeli Supreme Court. The Kahan Commission found that Israel was indirectly responsible for the massacre and that Ariel Sharon (whose career continued unabated after the Qibya massacre) bore personal responsibility. The Kahan Commission recommended Sharon be dismissed from his post as defense minister and never hold a ministerial position again. After much debate, Sharon stepped down as defense minister but maintained a minister-without-portfolio position in the government. It was during these years that President Ronald Reagan drew the conclusion that Sharon was a “bad guy who seemingly looks forward to a war.” Sharon would go on to be elected prime minister.

1996 – Qana – During fighting in southern Lebanon between Israel and Hizballah, approximately 800 Lebanese civilians sought shelter in a United Nations compound in Qana. Israeli forces shelled the UN compound killing 106 and injuring 116 more. Israel claimed that the attack was a grave error. The investigation conducted by the Israeli Army determined mapping errors were behind the shelling. The United Nations disagreed, stating that evidence from the scene of the massacre shows that the Israeli claims are untrue and that “it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.”⁴ While the international outcry that followed the killings led to increased diplomatic efforts to end the fighting in southern Lebanon, no one was prosecuted in connection with the massacre.

2000 – October Events – After Ariel Sharon’s controversial visit to the Temple Mount, an event thought to have sparked the second intifada, numerous protests throughout Israel and the Occupied Territories took place. The Israeli repression of these protests led to several incidents of killings of unarmed, Palestinian, civilian protesters. Within a few weeks, twelve Palestinian citizens of Israel and a Palestinian from Gaza were killed. An Israeli commission was established to investigate the killings headed by Israeli Supreme Court Judge Theodor Or. The Or Commission’s 860 page report released in 2003 found that the demonstrators were merely exercising their rights as citizens to protest. The report criticized Israeli commands to authorize the use of snipers without a security threat and criticized Israeli police for failing to collect evidence surrounding the killings. As a result, no officers were prosecuted.

2002 – Jenin – During the second intifada and under the leadership of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel declared Jenin a closed military zone on 1 April. Raids and fighting in the camp left many dead and wounded as well as significant damage to civilian infrastructure. The death toll is in dispute and media and observers were not permitted into the camp until nearly a week after the battle ended, leading to widespread accusations of a massacre cover-up. The United Nations puts the death toll at 52 of “whom up to half may have been civilians.”⁵ Much international uproar followed, and the United States pressured Israel to account for their actions through an international investigation. Initially Israel complied with a UN investigation before retracting. No Israeli investigations took place, and Israel did not cooperate with the UN investigation. No prosecutions followed the events in Jenin.

2008-09 – Operation Cast Lead – A 23-day Israeli Operation in the Gaza Strip with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire, resulted in the deaths of approximately 1400 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians. The scores of civilian dead, the use of controversial weapons such as white phosphorus in civilian areas and the destruction of UN facilities and civilian infrastructure, led to an international outcry. A now infamous UN investigation led by Justice Richard Goldstone found that Israeli actions may amount to war crimes. Israel refused to cooperate with the UN commission, and, to date, one Israeli soldier has been prosecuted for stealing and charging items on a Palestinian’s credit card. Other recent reports indicate that one or two more soldiers may be charged in connection with shooting unarmed civilians. No other charges have been brought forth. The Israeli defense minister that oversaw the operation, Ehud Barak, remains in the same position today.

A number of other events could be added to this list, but the trend is clear. Where there have been allegations of war crimes or the killing of civilians, Israel has often failed to carry out or cooperate with independent investigations. In the instances where Israeli investigations have been carried out and soldiers or commanders have been found responsible, sentences were significantly commuted and/or the recommendations of the commission have been completely ignored by the heads of state empowered to enforce them. One must wonder how the course of history may have been altered had Ariel Sharon, who played a role in a number of these events, been discharged and imprisoned after Qibya in 1953, or even prevented from holding a ministerial level position as the Kahan Commission had recommended after the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Instead, Sharon went on to ascend to the premiership and presided over the most significant expansion of illegal Israeli settlements since the Menachem Begin era in the late 1970s.  Indeed, it was only failed health, not the Israeli judicial system, that ended Sharon’s long career in public life.

It’s in this historical context that Israel begins an investigation into the raid on the flotilla that left nine dead. Pardon me for not holding my breath.

Source: The Palestine Center

Yousef Munayyer

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

By Sami Moubayed

Depending on who one listens to in the Middle East, Turkish-Israeli relations are either very much repairable or have reached a point of no return after the killing of nine Turkish citizens on board the Free Gaza flotilla off the shores of Gaza last month.

A best-case scenario would be for Israel to try and fix the mess resulting from the affair through a basket of political gestures, while a worst-case scenario would be war between the two countries.

War, though, is not on anybody’s mind except for a few sensational journalists in the Arab world.

Some in Israel, like Alon Liel, who for many years served as his country’s ambassador to Turkey, are nevertheless worried about where things might lead. After the flotilla affair Liel said, “They have already called the Turkish ambassador back to Ankara. I hope very much that this incident will not lead to breaking the diplomatic link. This link has existed for 61 years without interruption and it will be a very severe blow to Israel’s international standing if this link will be broken.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke with a very different tone, furious with his government for releasing the prisoners onboard the flotilla without bringing them before an Israeli court, and saying Israel was too “soft” on Turkey. His stance was challenged by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who raised a red flag that common ground between two countries that had been allied since 1948 had disappeared.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is definitely in no mood to reconcile. He cut short a visit to Chile, withdrew his ambassador from Israel and cancelled joint military drills with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In angry statements from the Turkish parliament, he accused Israel of “state terrorism”, while bidding farewell during a speech in the Turkish city of Konya to the Turkish civilians killed onboard the Mavi Marmara. Erdogan said, “If the entire world has turned its back on the Palestinians, Turkey will never turn its back on Jerusalem and the Palestinians.”

He said the two peoples were bound by destiny – “a destiny that binds Jerusalem, Ramallah, Hebron and Bethlehem to Ankara,” saying “if the world becomes silent over Gaza, Turkey will never be silent.”

As far as the Israelis are concerned, these are strong words that echo what has been said in the past, by Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s, and by Hasan Nasrallah of Hezbollah since the mid-1990s.

Annoyed as the Israelis are, two weeks into the crisis they have still not recalled their ambassador from Ankara, nor have they called off a military deal with the Turkish army worth US$180 million.

The Turkish parliament has for its part, however, called for an overall review of political, economic, and military ties between Turkey and Israel. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, speaking to the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia on June 8, said, “Turkey will not let Israel escape its responsibilities,” noting that the Israeli government must feel the pain of its mistake over the Gaza flotilla incident.

One creative way to solve the crisis would be to lift the two-year siege of Gaza, which Erdogan time and again has said is crucial for any improvement of relations with the Israelis.

Given the mood in Israel, that seems unlikely in the near future, despite pressure from the Quartet – the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia – and international community to gradually reduce the siege with a view to ending and replacing it with international observers.

There are heavyweights in Israel like Ambassador Liel who are pushing strongly for jumpstarting peace talks between Syria and Israel, under Turkish supervision, which had been called off by Damascus in December 2008, during the IDF war on Gaza.

Since then, both the Syrians and Turks have said that they are ready for indirect talks, but Israel has repeatedly said no, claiming that the Turks are no longer honest brokers in the Middle East for having clearly taken sides with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria.

If Israel accepts the Turkish mediation role – something that Ankara has strongly pushed for since 2008, then boiling tension would certainly soften. More importantly, Israel needs a major public relations campaign to help polish its image in the eyes of ordinary Turks, who whether Islamist or secular are appalled by what happened with the the Gaza flotilla.

Those who realize how important trade, for example, has been between both countries are pushing in this direction from within the Israeli business community. Bilateral trade between both countries reached US$2.5 billion in 2009, regardless of the political tension resulting from the war on Gaza and Erdogan’s famous outburst against Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos.
Sources in Turkey are now saying that their government is no longer interested in extending the Russian Blue Stream pipeline, a major trans-Black Sea pipeline that carries natural gas from Russia to Turkey.

Turkey and Israel have a long history of secretive military cooperation going back to the 1950s. Turkish commentators used to refer to it as “the ghostly alliance”. In 1996, the two countries signed an agreement allowing Israeli pilots to train in Turkish airspace in return for which Israel refurbished Turkish military aircraft and provided hi-tech equipment. Since Erdogan’s rise to power in 2002, the influence of the Turkish military over the country’s civilian leadership has declined.

Simply put, although military relations have not been severed, political relations are damaged almost beyond repair at this stage. The Turks no longer trust Israel. It would be a mistake to trace the entire crisis to the flotilla incident, however, since signs of a confidence collapse between both countries have been evident for nearly two years.

In late 2008, when mediating indirect talks between Syria and Israel, for example, Erdogan was certain that a breakthrough was within reach but was worried by all talk of an upcoming confrontation in Gaza.

Israeli premier Ehud Olmert arrived in Turkey on December 22 and was asked by his Turkish counterpart if there was any merit to these “rumors”. Olmert said that war would not break out in Gaza. Five days later it did, prompting Erdogan to snap in front of Peres in January 2009: “President Peres, you are old, and your voice is loud out of a guilty conscience. When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know well how you hit and kill children on beaches.”

An easy argument would be that the Israelis no longer trust the Turks. The Israeli media have been filled with stories about how Erdogan received Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Turkey in 2004 and yet refused to meet then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. They point to all the statements fired off by senior Turkish officials and the Turkish media against Israel since mid-2008, arguing that Turkey needs to change before any real improvement takes place.

Erdogan has been in power for seven years. Anybody who expects him to change – or to pursue a path vis-a-vis Israel that looks like anything related to moves taken by predecessors like Jalal Bayar, for example, have no understanding either of the Turkish prime minister, his Justice and Development Party, or of the 80 million people he represents.

As long as Erdogan is in power, Turkish-Israeli relations as we know them are history. Particular gestures, like lifting the siege of Gaza or jumpstarting talks with Syria, could help heal some of the wounds, but the psychological and moral damage caused by the blood of nine Turkish civilians is not likely to heal while Benjamin Netanyahu is in power in Israel.
Source: Mideastviews

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria. This article appeared in Asia Times on June 18, 2010 entitled, “Turkey and Israel: The broken alliance.”