by Elyakim Haetzni
The op-ed written by Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh in these pages (“Boycotting Goods from the Settlements-Not Against Israel”) is something of a déjà vu for me: This is how my late father’s business was boycotted in the city where I was born, Kiel, Germany. I hold the “call for a boycott” that was published in a Nazi newspaper shortly after Hitler’s rise to power: “German! These are your enemies in Kiel... Bombech, furniture store, Muehlstrasse 72,” and 55 other business establishments. The Nazis incited against the Jews as the writer of the op-ed, the “national economics minister,” incites against the settlers: Exploiters, disrupters of peace.
There was no point in debating with the father of the Palestinian national movement, Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, and there is also no chance of convincing Abu Libdeh of the legitimacy of Jewish residence in the heart of the Land of Israel. But several questions arise: If the boycott should succeed, the Palestinian workers manufacturing the settlers’ goods will be thrown into the street. Is the “Palestinian national economy” capable of building alternative factories for them? If so, why has it not done so until now, with the aid of the billions of dollars that have been poured into it since Oslo, with which it funded terror and filled its leaders’ pockets?
If Mr. Abu Libdeh should roam through the “land of the settlements,” he would find that many villages earn their livelihood from their settler neighbors: In construction, handicrafts, gardening, garage work. Supermarkets, malls and gas stations in the settlements are filled with Arab buyers. Since Oslo, garages, hardware stores, household goods stores and the like have “settled” opposite the gates of my city, Kiryat Arba. Is the national economics minister demanding that they close their businesses?
And the Palestinian drivers in “occupied” Jerusalem-will they stop serving the 200,000 Jerusalemite “settlers”? And where will the Palestinian patients turn, those who need Hadassah and Shaare Zedek Hospital, which are filled with “settlers”: Doctors, nurses, staff? Conversely, what will the Arab doctors and nurses do, not take the settlers’ temperature? Even Ariel University has Palestinian students. Should they leave immediately?
Abu Libdeh is trying to drive a wedge between the settlers and the rest of their people. But if even only half the Jewish people adopt a counter-boycott, how many Palestinians will lose their places in hotels, restaurants, factories and sewing shops on both sides of the Green Line? Is this how peace will look?
The Israeli government will also not be able to ignore for long a boycott imposed on its citizens by the “partner for peace,” and it too will adopt counter-measures. Has Abu Libdeh forgotten that even the lives of his “president” and “prime minister” are protected by the IDF?
Moreover, according to his own view, the “1948 Arabs” are Palestinians for all intents and purposes. If so, is he not inviting the Jews to treat them too as Ramallah treats the “1967 Jews,” the settlers?
As a settler and an attorney, I have provided professional services to Palestinians. One such client was suspected of theft and found to be innocent, but his Jewish employer, a dignified public figure, withheld his property and caused him financial damage. I advised him to file a lawsuit with the rabbinic court headed by Rabbi Dov Lior. He won the case and was compensated handsomely. If I reveal his name, will the Ramallah authorities place him in prison? Another Palestinian’s lands were damaged by a road paved by the Jewish National Fund. His attorney, a settler, obtained full compensation for him-should he return the money?
We will conclude with the unlawful subsidy that the Jewish economy as a whole provides, to its detriment, to the “Palestinian national economy”: 50 thousand stolen cars per year, thousands of heads of sheep, cattle and horses, beehives, irrigation equipment, tractors, forged and smuggled brand-name goods, tapes, and schoolbooks, unsupervised meat, goods without customs and VAT-thievery day and night. If it is forbidden to buy from Jews, it is permissible to be a parasite on their economy?
Born Georg Bombach in Kiel , Germany in 1926, Haetzni made aliyah to Mandate Palestine in 1938 with his parents and sister,settling in the Keren Avraham neighbourhood of Jerusalem . He studied at the Mizrachi Teachers' Seminary in Jerusalem, and was a member of the Haganah . He was severely wounded in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and spent eighteen months in hospital.He went on to attend the Hebrew University of Jerusalem , graduating with a law degree in 1954. While a student he established the Sherut HaMitnavdim volunteer organisation, which helped new immigrants and protested government corruption, with Haetzni himself renouncing his membership of the ruling Mapai party.
In 1961 he established a law firm in Tel Aviv . After Israel's victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, he was involved in the re-establishment of the Etzion Bloc and a Jewish community in Hebron . In 1972 he moved from Ramat Gan to the new Kiryat Arba settlement near Hebron. He later opened a law practicein the community. He became a member of the Yesha Council 's Steering Committee, and joined the Tehiya party. He was on the party's list for the 1988 Knesset elections , but failed to win a seat. However, he entered the Knesset on 31 January 1990 as a replacement for Eliezer Waldman .
See this report at Israel Behind the News
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Obama Administration Continues to Supply Israel with Advanced Weapons
by Barry Rubin
I have repeatedly pointed out that as of now the Obama Administration has never put any material pressure on Israel. There are wild rumors and irresponsible materials floating around to the contrary. They aren't true. As proof, for example, take the article by Barbara Opall-Rome in Defense News, May 3, 2010, "U.S. Backs Israeli Munitions Upgrades." She writes of "ever-expanding bilateral security ties unharmed by the unusually high-profile political rift" that took place temporarily.
In fact, the United States is equipping Israel with GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs for its F-15I fighter-bombers and this will be followed by the same system on F-16I planes. These 250-pound bombs are called bunker busters because they are smart bombs that will go through more than six feet of reinforced concrete.
In addition, Israel has equipped F-15Is to carry the 5,000-pound-class GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator, designed to burrow 100 feet into earth or 20 feet into concrete.
The Israel Air Force is also receiving the Laser-Guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (LJDAM), developed by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems and Israel's Elbit Systems and able to direct smart bombs more accurately.
To put it bluntly, GBU-39s can be used against simpler installations like arms-smuggling tunnels dug by Hamas between Egypt and the Gaza Strip along with Hizballah field fortifications.
The GBU-28s could be fired at stronger Hizballah installations. They could also be used on Iranian nuclear weapons or missile installations some day. Clearly, the U.S. government is neither urging nor advocating such an action and may never do so. But it has not blocked the possibility in terms of weaponry either.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. You can read and subscribe to his blog at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
View this story at Israel Behind the News
I have repeatedly pointed out that as of now the Obama Administration has never put any material pressure on Israel. There are wild rumors and irresponsible materials floating around to the contrary. They aren't true. As proof, for example, take the article by Barbara Opall-Rome in Defense News, May 3, 2010, "U.S. Backs Israeli Munitions Upgrades." She writes of "ever-expanding bilateral security ties unharmed by the unusually high-profile political rift" that took place temporarily.
In fact, the United States is equipping Israel with GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs for its F-15I fighter-bombers and this will be followed by the same system on F-16I planes. These 250-pound bombs are called bunker busters because they are smart bombs that will go through more than six feet of reinforced concrete.
In addition, Israel has equipped F-15Is to carry the 5,000-pound-class GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator, designed to burrow 100 feet into earth or 20 feet into concrete.
The Israel Air Force is also receiving the Laser-Guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (LJDAM), developed by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems and Israel's Elbit Systems and able to direct smart bombs more accurately.
To put it bluntly, GBU-39s can be used against simpler installations like arms-smuggling tunnels dug by Hamas between Egypt and the Gaza Strip along with Hizballah field fortifications.
The GBU-28s could be fired at stronger Hizballah installations. They could also be used on Iranian nuclear weapons or missile installations some day. Clearly, the U.S. government is neither urging nor advocating such an action and may never do so. But it has not blocked the possibility in terms of weaponry either.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. You can read and subscribe to his blog at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Iran Accepts Brazil's Proposal for Nuclear Fuel Swap in Principle
JERUSALEM - An official Iranian government news agency has announced that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a telephone conversation with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez in which the Iranian leader announced the country’s agreement with Brazil’s proposal on nuclear fuel swap for its research reactor in Tehran.
During the conversation on Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said that he announced his agreement in principle on Brazilian President Lula Da Silva’s proposal and called for continuation of talks on technical issues in Tehran.
President Chavez told Mr. Ahmadinejad that Venezuela supports his stances on international issues.
Earlier last week, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, on a visit to Tehran, had said that he hopes an Iran nuclear fuel swap deal could be revived to end disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.
Meantime, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said on
Tuesday he is still optimistic that a long awaited nuclear fuel swap between
Tehran and the West would eventually take place.
“The grounds that we have observed indicate that this [swap] is possible and show our strong logic,” Mr. Mehman-Parast said in his weekly press conference.
“If the opposite sides are really ready to swap fuel, then we will do the swap,” Mehman-Parast added.
He reiterated Iran’s conditions for nuclear swap - simultaneous swap of certain amounts of enriched uranium inside the Iranian soil - and stated, “We are still ready for swapping fuel. And such an exchange may build some confidence between the two sides.”
After Iran announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that it had run out of nuclear fuel for its research reactor in Tehran, the Agency proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5 percent enriched uranium and receive 20 percent-enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, all through the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.
The proposal was first introduced on October 1, when Iranian representatives and diplomats from the Group 5+1 held high-level talks in Geneva.
But France and the United States, as potential suppliers, stalled the talks soon after the start. They offered a deal which would keep Tehran waiting for months before it can obtain the fuel, a luxury of time that Iran cannot afford as it is about to run out of 20-percent-enriched uranium.
Iran had rejected the proposed deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any less than seven months.
Iran put forward its own proposal that envisages a two-staged exchange. According to Tehran’s offer, the IAEA safeguards nearly one third of Iran’s uranium stockpile inside the Iranian territory for the time that it takes to find a supplier.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
During the conversation on Tuesday, President Ahmadinejad said that he announced his agreement in principle on Brazilian President Lula Da Silva’s proposal and called for continuation of talks on technical issues in Tehran.
President Chavez told Mr. Ahmadinejad that Venezuela supports his stances on international issues.
Earlier last week, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, on a visit to Tehran, had said that he hopes an Iran nuclear fuel swap deal could be revived to end disputes over Iran’s nuclear program.
Meantime, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said on
Tuesday he is still optimistic that a long awaited nuclear fuel swap between
Tehran and the West would eventually take place.
“The grounds that we have observed indicate that this [swap] is possible and show our strong logic,” Mr. Mehman-Parast said in his weekly press conference.
“If the opposite sides are really ready to swap fuel, then we will do the swap,” Mehman-Parast added.
He reiterated Iran’s conditions for nuclear swap - simultaneous swap of certain amounts of enriched uranium inside the Iranian soil - and stated, “We are still ready for swapping fuel. And such an exchange may build some confidence between the two sides.”
After Iran announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that it had run out of nuclear fuel for its research reactor in Tehran, the Agency proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5 percent enriched uranium and receive 20 percent-enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, all through the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.
The proposal was first introduced on October 1, when Iranian representatives and diplomats from the Group 5+1 held high-level talks in Geneva.
But France and the United States, as potential suppliers, stalled the talks soon after the start. They offered a deal which would keep Tehran waiting for months before it can obtain the fuel, a luxury of time that Iran cannot afford as it is about to run out of 20-percent-enriched uranium.
Iran had rejected the proposed deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any less than seven months.
Iran put forward its own proposal that envisages a two-staged exchange. According to Tehran’s offer, the IAEA safeguards nearly one third of Iran’s uranium stockpile inside the Iranian territory for the time that it takes to find a supplier.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Goldstone’s Past: Look Who’s Talking
JERUSALEM - Judge Richard Goldstone gained notoriety in Israel over the past year when the U.N. human rights commission that he chaired made the determination that Israel committed war crimes and criticized the Israeli Defense Forces, which, he claimed, had violated basic human rights.
Judge Richard Goldstone forgot only one thing: to make any mention of his own sordid human rights record.
A special investigation by the Tel Aviv newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, which will be published in this weekend’s Yediot weekend magazine section, will spell out Richard Goldstone’s record as a judge during the apartheid era in South Africa.
It turns out that the judge who authored the U.N. report, which castigated Israel’s three-week incursion into Gaza, took an active part in enforcing the racist policy of one of the cruelest regimes of the 20th Century.
It turns out that when Judge Goldstone sat as a judge in the Court of Appeals in the 1980s and the 1990s, he sent dozens of black people to the gallows without mercy.
This stain on his past did not prevent him from speaking many times against the death penalty and directing sharp criticism at many countries that allowed executions to take place.
Never, it seems in any of his statements, did Judge Goldstone own up to his own actions.
The findings that Yediot Ahronot obtained indicate that Mr. Goldstone sentenced at least 28 black people to death.
In those days, he made sure to demonstrate his support for the policy of executions.
“The death penalty must reflect society’s demand to claim a price for crimes that people justly see as atrocious,” Mr. Goldstone wrote in a ruling that rejected the appeal of a black man convicted of murder.
In another sentencing, in which Judge Goldstone confirmed the death sentence for a black youth who had been convicted of murdering the white restaurant owner who fired him, Judge Goldstone wrote that “hanging was the only punishment that could deter in such cases.”
“Anger is a relevant factor in imposing appropriate punishment,” Judge Goldstone added.
It should be noted that the white members of the supreme, oppressive class demanded the maximum penalty of black people who were involved in acts of violence, while the black majority in South Africa consistently opposed the death penalty.
When he judged defendants for lesser crimes, Judge Goldstone always sided with the racist policy of the apartheid regime.
Among other things, he confirmed a sentence of flogging for four black men convicted of violence.
In another case, Judge Goldstone sentenced two black youths to prison for possessing a cassette containing the recording of a speech by Nelson Mandela.
Only in 1995, when Nelson Mandela’s party came to power, was the South African constitution amended and the death penalty abolished. Hundreds of death row inmates were saved from the gallows, including those whom Goldstone had sentenced to death.
“I always opposed the death penalty, but I was part of a system in which the death penalty existed,” Judge Goldstone commented in response to the details of the investigation, which were brought to his attention.
Judge Goldstone also claimed, in his defense, that as a judge during the apartheid era, he had to respect the laws of the country and could not find enough mitigating circumstances to save the defendants brought before him from the death penalty. Judge Goldstone claimed that he never discriminated against black defendants and that he did all he could to act fairly, but sometimes was compelled to uphold laws to which he was morally opposed.
“I was always committed to preserving equality and nondiscrimination, just as I was committed to upholding the law. Sometimes these two principles clashed in very complex ways,” he said.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Judge Richard Goldstone forgot only one thing: to make any mention of his own sordid human rights record.
A special investigation by the Tel Aviv newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, which will be published in this weekend’s Yediot weekend magazine section, will spell out Richard Goldstone’s record as a judge during the apartheid era in South Africa.
It turns out that the judge who authored the U.N. report, which castigated Israel’s three-week incursion into Gaza, took an active part in enforcing the racist policy of one of the cruelest regimes of the 20th Century.
It turns out that when Judge Goldstone sat as a judge in the Court of Appeals in the 1980s and the 1990s, he sent dozens of black people to the gallows without mercy.
This stain on his past did not prevent him from speaking many times against the death penalty and directing sharp criticism at many countries that allowed executions to take place.
Never, it seems in any of his statements, did Judge Goldstone own up to his own actions.
The findings that Yediot Ahronot obtained indicate that Mr. Goldstone sentenced at least 28 black people to death.
In those days, he made sure to demonstrate his support for the policy of executions.
“The death penalty must reflect society’s demand to claim a price for crimes that people justly see as atrocious,” Mr. Goldstone wrote in a ruling that rejected the appeal of a black man convicted of murder.
In another sentencing, in which Judge Goldstone confirmed the death sentence for a black youth who had been convicted of murdering the white restaurant owner who fired him, Judge Goldstone wrote that “hanging was the only punishment that could deter in such cases.”
“Anger is a relevant factor in imposing appropriate punishment,” Judge Goldstone added.
It should be noted that the white members of the supreme, oppressive class demanded the maximum penalty of black people who were involved in acts of violence, while the black majority in South Africa consistently opposed the death penalty.
When he judged defendants for lesser crimes, Judge Goldstone always sided with the racist policy of the apartheid regime.
Among other things, he confirmed a sentence of flogging for four black men convicted of violence.
In another case, Judge Goldstone sentenced two black youths to prison for possessing a cassette containing the recording of a speech by Nelson Mandela.
Only in 1995, when Nelson Mandela’s party came to power, was the South African constitution amended and the death penalty abolished. Hundreds of death row inmates were saved from the gallows, including those whom Goldstone had sentenced to death.
“I always opposed the death penalty, but I was part of a system in which the death penalty existed,” Judge Goldstone commented in response to the details of the investigation, which were brought to his attention.
Judge Goldstone also claimed, in his defense, that as a judge during the apartheid era, he had to respect the laws of the country and could not find enough mitigating circumstances to save the defendants brought before him from the death penalty. Judge Goldstone claimed that he never discriminated against black defendants and that he did all he could to act fairly, but sometimes was compelled to uphold laws to which he was morally opposed.
“I was always committed to preserving equality and nondiscrimination, just as I was committed to upholding the law. Sometimes these two principles clashed in very complex ways,” he said.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Bolton Comments On Obama Push For A Nuclear Free Middle East
JERUSALEM - A proposal for a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East is seeing new life as the Obama administration pushes for a Middle East with no nuclear weapons, which places new pressure against Israel about its nuclear arsenal.
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that President Obama’s consent to discuss demilitarizing the Middle East of nuclear weapons endangered Israel. He said that Mr. Obama was playing into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands. He told Army Radio: “The president is not happy with Israel’s nuclear capability. I think he would be delighted if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons. The only unknown answer at this point is exactly how much pressure he will exert on Israel to do just that. But part of that pressure is being exerted right now by even considering the possibility of a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.”
The Obama administration’s newfound opposition to Israel’s formally undisclosed nuclear program reverses nearly 50 years of American silence on the subject.
President John F. Kennedy pressured then-Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to drop Israel’s plans for nuclear weapons in a May 1963 communiqué delivered by the U.S. ambassador.
Dr. Avner Cohen details the Kennedy administration’s efforts in his seminal 1998 book, Israel and the Bomb.
He wrote that Ben Gurion defended Israel’s need for nuclear weapons in the context of the mass murder of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis and the “scenario of a united Arab military coalition launching a war to liberate Palestine and destroy the Jewish state.”
He documents in his book how Ben Gurion tried in vain to convince President Kennedy that the surrounding Arab states posed just such an existential threat to the Jewish state, conjuring up memories of the Nazi threat from World War II.
In a letter to President Kennedy, dated May 12, 1963, Ben Gurion told the president: “I know that it is difficult for civilized people to visualize such a thing - even after they have witnessed what had happened to us during the Second World War... I cannot dismiss the possibility that this may occur again... if the Arab leaders continue to insist on and pursue their policy of belligerency towards Israel.”
President Kennedy refused to budge and continued to push Israel to abandon its nuclear option until his death on Nov. 22, 1963. No American president had made an issue of Israel’s nuclear capability - until now.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that President Obama’s consent to discuss demilitarizing the Middle East of nuclear weapons endangered Israel. He said that Mr. Obama was playing into Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands. He told Army Radio: “The president is not happy with Israel’s nuclear capability. I think he would be delighted if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons. The only unknown answer at this point is exactly how much pressure he will exert on Israel to do just that. But part of that pressure is being exerted right now by even considering the possibility of a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.”
The Obama administration’s newfound opposition to Israel’s formally undisclosed nuclear program reverses nearly 50 years of American silence on the subject.
President John F. Kennedy pressured then-Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to drop Israel’s plans for nuclear weapons in a May 1963 communiqué delivered by the U.S. ambassador.
Dr. Avner Cohen details the Kennedy administration’s efforts in his seminal 1998 book, Israel and the Bomb.
He wrote that Ben Gurion defended Israel’s need for nuclear weapons in the context of the mass murder of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis and the “scenario of a united Arab military coalition launching a war to liberate Palestine and destroy the Jewish state.”
He documents in his book how Ben Gurion tried in vain to convince President Kennedy that the surrounding Arab states posed just such an existential threat to the Jewish state, conjuring up memories of the Nazi threat from World War II.
In a letter to President Kennedy, dated May 12, 1963, Ben Gurion told the president: “I know that it is difficult for civilized people to visualize such a thing - even after they have witnessed what had happened to us during the Second World War... I cannot dismiss the possibility that this may occur again... if the Arab leaders continue to insist on and pursue their policy of belligerency towards Israel.”
President Kennedy refused to budge and continued to push Israel to abandon its nuclear option until his death on Nov. 22, 1963. No American president had made an issue of Israel’s nuclear capability - until now.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Anti Zionist Netura Carta Leader Moshe Hirsch’s Death: A Footnote About The Funding Of Netura Carta
JERUSALEM - This past week, the Jewish world observed the death of Netura Carta leader Moshe Hirsch.
Netura Carta is known as an anti-Zionist wing of the Orthodox Jewish world.
Hirsch led Netura Carta to actively support all Palestinian terrorist groups and demonstrated active support for Iran, after Teheran declared its nuclear threat against the Jewish state.
In an interview that Hirsch gave to foreign reporters in Jerusalem in May 1994, following former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman Yasser Arafat’s entry into Gaza, Hirsch confirmed that Arafat had agreed to provide funding for Netura Carta from the treasury of the newly constituted Palestinian Authority (PA).
When the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) entered Arafat’s Headquarters in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, the IDF discovered documentation of PLO bank transfers to Netura Carta.
With renewal of talks with the PLO and the PA, the question was asked whether the government of Israel would demand that the PLO and the PA cease funding the Netura Carta.
An Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government had other priorities to address.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Netura Carta is known as an anti-Zionist wing of the Orthodox Jewish world.
Hirsch led Netura Carta to actively support all Palestinian terrorist groups and demonstrated active support for Iran, after Teheran declared its nuclear threat against the Jewish state.
In an interview that Hirsch gave to foreign reporters in Jerusalem in May 1994, following former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman Yasser Arafat’s entry into Gaza, Hirsch confirmed that Arafat had agreed to provide funding for Netura Carta from the treasury of the newly constituted Palestinian Authority (PA).
When the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) entered Arafat’s Headquarters in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, the IDF discovered documentation of PLO bank transfers to Netura Carta.
With renewal of talks with the PLO and the PA, the question was asked whether the government of Israel would demand that the PLO and the PA cease funding the Netura Carta.
An Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government had other priorities to address.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Sunday, May 9, 2010
New Bill Reduces the Rights of Hamas Convicts in Israeli Jails
JERUSALEM - Israel Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich has withdrawn his opposition to a new bill that would cancel the numerous privileges that thousands of Hamas convicts incarcerated in Israeli jails currently enjoy.
Mr. Aharonovich yesterday held a meeting this week on this subject with a number of pertinent officials.
Likud Member of the Israel Knesset Parliament Danny Danon introduced a new bill to the cabinet stipulating that members of a terrorist organization that is holding an Israeli soldier without allowing him visitation rights would also be withheld visitation rights while in prison.
The bill was drafted after the Israeli media exposed the “summer camp conditions” that the Hamas convicts enjoy during their terms of incarceration in Israeli jails.
Many professionals said they believed that the most pressing and effective pressure that could be applied on Hamas would be to cut back dramatically on the privileges that the Hamas convicts receive in Israeli prisons.
It became evident that Hamas convicts receive numerous visits, are allowed physical contact with their children, have cable TV (at the tax-payers’ expense) in their cells, receive a regular supply of newspapers and magazines, and even pursue academic studies without any limitations while in Israeli prison.
They are due none of those privileges according to either international law or the Geneva Convention.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Mr. Aharonovich yesterday held a meeting this week on this subject with a number of pertinent officials.
Likud Member of the Israel Knesset Parliament Danny Danon introduced a new bill to the cabinet stipulating that members of a terrorist organization that is holding an Israeli soldier without allowing him visitation rights would also be withheld visitation rights while in prison.
The bill was drafted after the Israeli media exposed the “summer camp conditions” that the Hamas convicts enjoy during their terms of incarceration in Israeli jails.
Many professionals said they believed that the most pressing and effective pressure that could be applied on Hamas would be to cut back dramatically on the privileges that the Hamas convicts receive in Israeli prisons.
It became evident that Hamas convicts receive numerous visits, are allowed physical contact with their children, have cable TV (at the tax-payers’ expense) in their cells, receive a regular supply of newspapers and magazines, and even pursue academic studies without any limitations while in Israeli prison.
They are due none of those privileges according to either international law or the Geneva Convention.
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
YVES ENGLER AT U OF M EXPLAINS HIS SUSPENSION FROM CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY AFTER NETANYAHU’S ABORTED SPEECH IN 2002
by Rhonda Spivak
The Winnipeg Jewish Review asks Engler at U of M to explain his suspension on the record
Special Report and Comment By Rhonda Spivak
Yves Engler, who has written an anti-Israel book entitled “Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid” spoke in Winnipeg on April 7 at University College at the University of Manitoba, to an audience of about 20 students/supporters.
His talk at the U of M was sponsored by Canada-Palestine Support Network, Independent Jewish Voices, U of M’s Labour Studies Program, and Canadian Dimension Magazine. His talk followed his talk the night before at the Rudolf Rocker Cultural Centre on 91 Albert Street.
Alan Yusim, Director of B’nai Brith, Mid-West Region, was present to hear Engler’s talk at the U of M.
Those who introduced Engler and put on the program made no mention of the fact that Engler had been suspended from Concordia University, and Engler himself didn’t mention this either.
Engler served as Vice President of the Concordia Student Union prior to being removed from office. A student tribunal found Engler guilty of "vexatious conduct" in the aftermath of a riot on Sept. 9, 2002, when Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu's speech was aborted by demonstrators. Engler later tried to overturn his suspension; however, he was denied by a student hearing panel and Board of Governors. The university's decision was upheld by a Quebec tribunal.
The day that Netanyahu was supposed to speak, some protesters harassed the predominantly Jewish audience that had arrived for the speech, and there were reports of Holocaust survivors being assaulted. Journalist Lysiane Gagnon accused the university's pro-Palestinian students union of "refusing to blame those who broke windows, threw chairs around, spat at and shoved the Jewish students who wanted to hear Mr. Netanyahu. (Lysiane Gagnon, "Here's to you, Mr. Robinson", Globe and Mail, 2 December 2002, A19).
An article in Concordia’s Thursday Report on March 3, 2005 (http://ctr.concordia.ca/2004-05/mar_03/23/ ) states:
“A student tribunal found Engler guilty of assault and vandalism in the aftermath of a riot on Sept. 9, 2002, when Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech was aborted by demonstrators. Engler was fined $500 and expelled for one term.
“However, when he defied the ban by appearing on campus, President Frederick Lowy added another term to his suspension. Once again he breached the sanction, this time committing vandalism. On Dec. 15, on the recommendation of then Dean of Students Charles Bertrand, Lowy extended the suspension to five years.
“Engler took this decision to an appeals panel, which, like the student hearings panel, is part of the university’s Code of Rights and Responsibilities. His appeal was denied. He asked the Board of Governors to exercise their discretionary powers on his behalf, and this, too, was denied.
“In her judgment, rendered Feb. 1, Justice Sylviane Borenstein of Quebec Superior Court said the decisions taken by the university conformed to its own regulations and followed the rules of natural justice.”
Engler’s talk at U of M was being taped by two different parties, including University of Winnipeg radio.
I asked several times during question period for Engler to talk about his suspension, something which he was reluctant to do. At first he offered to talk to me afterward (where he would not be recorded). Just before the event ended, after persistent questioning he finally did answer the question.
As readers review Engler’s “side of the story” below, note how in his answer he makes great effort to downplay any responsibility the protesters had for breaking windows and vandalizing. Note also how Engler essentially tries to turn the story on its head by saying that Arab protesters broke windows in a good faith attempt to help a left-wing Jewish victim of police brutality. Other reports essentially say the opposite- that police officers were attacked, and that windows were broken by Arab protesters to cause a riot and attempt to prevent Netanyahu from speaking. It’s also worth noting that in the end, Engler tells us that when the University suspended him for five years, it was the maximum punishment allowed.
Here is Yves Engler’s side of the story ( as recorded in his talk at the U of M on April 7)
SPIVAK:
ENGLER: Benjamin Netanyahu on Sept 9 2002...was planned to speak at Concordia. Most people in this room are probably aware that he didn’t end up speaking, and there was a big protest outside...because the police were beating up a Jewish student who was protesting Netanyahu’s speaking engagement, a Jewish student who was a member of the Concordia Student Union, because of that some Arab students outside busted a window to come to the defense of the Jewish student.. which is not part of the large narrative that we hear about the anti-Semitism of the day... but the windows that have been cited in the Globe and Mail as the day of broken glass.. the windows were busted because some Arab students outside were disgusted by what the police were doing to a Jewish student inside...Part of the story that I’m sure you’re not familiar with... What happened with Netanyahu was that Netanyahu and the Montreal police cancelled the talk because the Concordia security messed up...
The Montreal police who were not initially inside the building once the window was broken. They had people coming down from the mezzanine...and they had people coming from outside after the window was busted...they freaked out... released pepper spray, some say tear gas within the university. It got caught in the university’s ventiliation system so people on the tenth or twelfth floor of the university had to come out of their classes... cuz they couldn’t breathe....that’s what shut down Netanyahu’s talk. That’s what happened
SPIVAK: But then why were you suspended?
ENGLER:...If you want to hear my personal element to it...Everyone agrees that I was not there, including the university administration, agrees that I was not on the mezzanine when the stuff went down per se...I was there earlier on....
I was kicked out of the university, because two months after the Netanyahu protest-I wasn’t suspended I was expelled from the university-two months after the Netanyahu protest, a student came forward and claimed...this was after I had been arrested for handing out leaflets for the Free Trade Area of the Americas,six weeks after the Netanyahu protest a student came forward and said I assaulted his girlfriend during the Netanyahu protest.. The girlfriend of course didn’t exist of course and they decided not to bring this to the police of course where they would have had to provide some evidence...There was a student tribunal... and.. they tried to throw me out of university for putting up stickers about the Free trade Area of the Americas and handing out leaflets about the Free Trade Area of the Americas and for two things related to the Netanyahu protest.
Spivak: What were those two things?
Engler: One [was for the] vexatious conduct...which was the alleged assault... and the other one was something do with being on the mezzanine at some point, a very sort of whatever.. The student tribunal found me guilty of two of the charges putting up stickers and the vexatious conduct...and I didn’t know what vexatious meant until I saw that. According to the dictionary it means pushing, harassing, assaulting I think is what vexatious means.
The student tribunal came out the next day and said they were pressured by the University administration to suspending me... What they wanted to bring on was some small number of community service hours... The University said I didn’t fulfill my suspension... They suspended me again, they said I didn’t fulfill my suspension. They suspended me a second time and said I didn’t fulfill it again and they expelled me for 5 years...by law they can’t suspend me for more than a five years suspension. That’s the story...
ENGLER’S AGENDA
When I asked Engler whether he advocated a two state solution or a one state solution, Engler said that “the idea of a Jewish state seems immoral to me”, although he then tried to soften this statement by saying that he also at times questions whether Canada should exist as it does, since, for example “Vancouver and Seattle” have a lot in common and could easily be part of one country.
Engler, who several months earlier had signed a call to support the international campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel, said “the easiest solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] is a two state [solution]toward a more longer term just solution.”
In my view, Engler’s comment is consistent with the well known “eliminate Israel in stages plan.” How many people seriously think that Israel will agree to a two-state solution, so that rather than this being a final end of the conflict, it is only the first stage toward a one state solution-- where Israel is flooded by the return of Palestinian refugees so that there is no Israel at all, but one large Palestinian state among twenty two other Arab states (where Jews have no right to national self-determination at all.)
In his talk Engler also criticized Canada’s role in building up the Palestinian police force under General Dayton, indicating that this was an attempt to created Palestinian disunity (in that the PA police force would crack down on Hamas).
In my view, it is quite a stretch to suggest that Canada is responsible for causing Palestinian disunity? (as if Palestinian unity would exist but for Canada’s intervention!!)
I asked Engler if he could list some other factors that cause Palestinian disunity (such as Hamas forces in 2007 throwing Fatah forces off of rooftops in Gaza), but he did not answer the question.
SMALL ATTENDANCE FOR ENGLER’S TALK
Before Engler’s talk I overheard Engler openly state that it was unfortunate nobody tried to ban him from speaking because he receives much more attention and more people coming out to hear him when a pro-Israel group tries to ban him. He noted that when he spoke at the Rudolf Rocker Cultural Centre the previous evening, there had only been about 20 people, and he would have had three or four times as many had someone tried to ban him.
Alan Yusim from B’nai Brith ought to be commended for coming to hear Engler. As distasteful as Engler’s views are to the vast majority of the Jewish community, it is important that we be aware of what is really happening on our campuses.
See the story here at Israel Behind the News
The Winnipeg Jewish Review asks Engler at U of M to explain his suspension on the record
Special Report and Comment By Rhonda Spivak
Yves Engler, who has written an anti-Israel book entitled “Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid” spoke in Winnipeg on April 7 at University College at the University of Manitoba, to an audience of about 20 students/supporters.
His talk at the U of M was sponsored by Canada-Palestine Support Network, Independent Jewish Voices, U of M’s Labour Studies Program, and Canadian Dimension Magazine. His talk followed his talk the night before at the Rudolf Rocker Cultural Centre on 91 Albert Street.
Alan Yusim, Director of B’nai Brith, Mid-West Region, was present to hear Engler’s talk at the U of M.
Those who introduced Engler and put on the program made no mention of the fact that Engler had been suspended from Concordia University, and Engler himself didn’t mention this either.
Engler served as Vice President of the Concordia Student Union prior to being removed from office. A student tribunal found Engler guilty of "vexatious conduct" in the aftermath of a riot on Sept. 9, 2002, when Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu's speech was aborted by demonstrators. Engler later tried to overturn his suspension; however, he was denied by a student hearing panel and Board of Governors. The university's decision was upheld by a Quebec tribunal.
The day that Netanyahu was supposed to speak, some protesters harassed the predominantly Jewish audience that had arrived for the speech, and there were reports of Holocaust survivors being assaulted. Journalist Lysiane Gagnon accused the university's pro-Palestinian students union of "refusing to blame those who broke windows, threw chairs around, spat at and shoved the Jewish students who wanted to hear Mr. Netanyahu. (Lysiane Gagnon, "Here's to you, Mr. Robinson", Globe and Mail, 2 December 2002, A19).
An article in Concordia’s Thursday Report on March 3, 2005 (http://ctr.concordia.ca/2004-05/mar_03/23/ ) states:
“A student tribunal found Engler guilty of assault and vandalism in the aftermath of a riot on Sept. 9, 2002, when Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech was aborted by demonstrators. Engler was fined $500 and expelled for one term.
“However, when he defied the ban by appearing on campus, President Frederick Lowy added another term to his suspension. Once again he breached the sanction, this time committing vandalism. On Dec. 15, on the recommendation of then Dean of Students Charles Bertrand, Lowy extended the suspension to five years.
“Engler took this decision to an appeals panel, which, like the student hearings panel, is part of the university’s Code of Rights and Responsibilities. His appeal was denied. He asked the Board of Governors to exercise their discretionary powers on his behalf, and this, too, was denied.
“In her judgment, rendered Feb. 1, Justice Sylviane Borenstein of Quebec Superior Court said the decisions taken by the university conformed to its own regulations and followed the rules of natural justice.”
Engler’s talk at U of M was being taped by two different parties, including University of Winnipeg radio.
I asked several times during question period for Engler to talk about his suspension, something which he was reluctant to do. At first he offered to talk to me afterward (where he would not be recorded). Just before the event ended, after persistent questioning he finally did answer the question.
As readers review Engler’s “side of the story” below, note how in his answer he makes great effort to downplay any responsibility the protesters had for breaking windows and vandalizing. Note also how Engler essentially tries to turn the story on its head by saying that Arab protesters broke windows in a good faith attempt to help a left-wing Jewish victim of police brutality. Other reports essentially say the opposite- that police officers were attacked, and that windows were broken by Arab protesters to cause a riot and attempt to prevent Netanyahu from speaking. It’s also worth noting that in the end, Engler tells us that when the University suspended him for five years, it was the maximum punishment allowed.
Here is Yves Engler’s side of the story ( as recorded in his talk at the U of M on April 7)
SPIVAK:
ENGLER: Benjamin Netanyahu on Sept 9 2002...was planned to speak at Concordia. Most people in this room are probably aware that he didn’t end up speaking, and there was a big protest outside...because the police were beating up a Jewish student who was protesting Netanyahu’s speaking engagement, a Jewish student who was a member of the Concordia Student Union, because of that some Arab students outside busted a window to come to the defense of the Jewish student.. which is not part of the large narrative that we hear about the anti-Semitism of the day... but the windows that have been cited in the Globe and Mail as the day of broken glass.. the windows were busted because some Arab students outside were disgusted by what the police were doing to a Jewish student inside...Part of the story that I’m sure you’re not familiar with... What happened with Netanyahu was that Netanyahu and the Montreal police cancelled the talk because the Concordia security messed up...
The Montreal police who were not initially inside the building once the window was broken. They had people coming down from the mezzanine...and they had people coming from outside after the window was busted...they freaked out... released pepper spray, some say tear gas within the university. It got caught in the university’s ventiliation system so people on the tenth or twelfth floor of the university had to come out of their classes... cuz they couldn’t breathe....that’s what shut down Netanyahu’s talk. That’s what happened
SPIVAK: But then why were you suspended?
ENGLER:...If you want to hear my personal element to it...Everyone agrees that I was not there, including the university administration, agrees that I was not on the mezzanine when the stuff went down per se...I was there earlier on....
I was kicked out of the university, because two months after the Netanyahu protest-I wasn’t suspended I was expelled from the university-two months after the Netanyahu protest, a student came forward and claimed...this was after I had been arrested for handing out leaflets for the Free Trade Area of the Americas,six weeks after the Netanyahu protest a student came forward and said I assaulted his girlfriend during the Netanyahu protest.. The girlfriend of course didn’t exist of course and they decided not to bring this to the police of course where they would have had to provide some evidence...There was a student tribunal... and.. they tried to throw me out of university for putting up stickers about the Free trade Area of the Americas and handing out leaflets about the Free Trade Area of the Americas and for two things related to the Netanyahu protest.
Spivak: What were those two things?
Engler: One [was for the] vexatious conduct...which was the alleged assault... and the other one was something do with being on the mezzanine at some point, a very sort of whatever.. The student tribunal found me guilty of two of the charges putting up stickers and the vexatious conduct...and I didn’t know what vexatious meant until I saw that. According to the dictionary it means pushing, harassing, assaulting I think is what vexatious means.
The student tribunal came out the next day and said they were pressured by the University administration to suspending me... What they wanted to bring on was some small number of community service hours... The University said I didn’t fulfill my suspension... They suspended me again, they said I didn’t fulfill my suspension. They suspended me a second time and said I didn’t fulfill it again and they expelled me for 5 years...by law they can’t suspend me for more than a five years suspension. That’s the story...
ENGLER’S AGENDA
When I asked Engler whether he advocated a two state solution or a one state solution, Engler said that “the idea of a Jewish state seems immoral to me”, although he then tried to soften this statement by saying that he also at times questions whether Canada should exist as it does, since, for example “Vancouver and Seattle” have a lot in common and could easily be part of one country.
Engler, who several months earlier had signed a call to support the international campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel, said “the easiest solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] is a two state [solution]toward a more longer term just solution.”
In my view, Engler’s comment is consistent with the well known “eliminate Israel in stages plan.” How many people seriously think that Israel will agree to a two-state solution, so that rather than this being a final end of the conflict, it is only the first stage toward a one state solution-- where Israel is flooded by the return of Palestinian refugees so that there is no Israel at all, but one large Palestinian state among twenty two other Arab states (where Jews have no right to national self-determination at all.)
In his talk Engler also criticized Canada’s role in building up the Palestinian police force under General Dayton, indicating that this was an attempt to created Palestinian disunity (in that the PA police force would crack down on Hamas).
In my view, it is quite a stretch to suggest that Canada is responsible for causing Palestinian disunity? (as if Palestinian unity would exist but for Canada’s intervention!!)
I asked Engler if he could list some other factors that cause Palestinian disunity (such as Hamas forces in 2007 throwing Fatah forces off of rooftops in Gaza), but he did not answer the question.
SMALL ATTENDANCE FOR ENGLER’S TALK
Before Engler’s talk I overheard Engler openly state that it was unfortunate nobody tried to ban him from speaking because he receives much more attention and more people coming out to hear him when a pro-Israel group tries to ban him. He noted that when he spoke at the Rudolf Rocker Cultural Centre the previous evening, there had only been about 20 people, and he would have had three or four times as many had someone tried to ban him.
Alan Yusim from B’nai Brith ought to be commended for coming to hear Engler. As distasteful as Engler’s views are to the vast majority of the Jewish community, it is important that we be aware of what is really happening on our campuses.
See the story here at Israel Behind the News
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Reaction in Israel to Anti-Semitic Blood Libel in Germany
Jerusalem - Israeli officials are outraged by the decision made by the general prosecutor in Cologne, Germany, regarding a cartoon that showed a Jew eating a Palestinian boy and drinking his blood.
After a complaint was lodged with the police about the cartoon, the general prosecutor allowed for the continued display of the cartoon, ruling that “at issue is not an antisemitism cartoon but an expression of legitimate criticism about Israel’s inhuman policies towards the Palestinians.” The cartoon has been on display in the square of the Cologne cathedral, which is the most important Catholic church in Germany.
Emanuel Nahshon, an official with the Israeli embassy in Berlin, said in response that this was a boost of support for Israel-haters. “We do not intervene in the decisions made by legal authorities in Germany, but at the same time we believe that this cartoon possesses a blatant antisemitic characteristics and encourages hatred and violence.
“The argument about the need to discern between hatred for the people of Israel and hatred for the State of Israel is completely ludicrous. When a figure with the flag of the State of Israel is depicted eating a Palestinian child, it reminds all of us of the most wicked blood libels of European antisemitism.”
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
After a complaint was lodged with the police about the cartoon, the general prosecutor allowed for the continued display of the cartoon, ruling that “at issue is not an antisemitism cartoon but an expression of legitimate criticism about Israel’s inhuman policies towards the Palestinians.” The cartoon has been on display in the square of the Cologne cathedral, which is the most important Catholic church in Germany.
Emanuel Nahshon, an official with the Israeli embassy in Berlin, said in response that this was a boost of support for Israel-haters. “We do not intervene in the decisions made by legal authorities in Germany, but at the same time we believe that this cartoon possesses a blatant antisemitic characteristics and encourages hatred and violence.
“The argument about the need to discern between hatred for the people of Israel and hatred for the State of Israel is completely ludicrous. When a figure with the flag of the State of Israel is depicted eating a Palestinian child, it reminds all of us of the most wicked blood libels of European antisemitism.”
View this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Sunday, May 2, 2010
by David Bedein
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at the Institute for National Security Studies
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
See more on this story at Israel Behind the News
Saudi Arabia, the only Arab nation contiguous to Israel which remains in a total state of war with Israel since 1948, has taken a step towards posing a nuclear threat against Jerusalem. This past week, The Tel Aviv based Institute of National Security Studies issued a report which confirms the ata that Riyad has been working to prepare a nuclear infrastructure.
That report can be found at the Institute for National Security Studies
The report, entitled "The Saudi Nuclear Option", authored by a senior intelligence analyst, Yoel Guzansky, asserts that Pakistan will be the most likely developer of a Saudi nuclear option
The report said that a key Saudi option involved the Saudi alliance with Pakistan, which has received billions of dollars from the Gulf Cooperation Council kingdom for strategic programs. In the words of the report...”Should Saudi Arabia find itself in a sensitive security situation, it may well be that it would seek to capitalize on its investment in the Pakistani program."
The report went in to say that “Despite Saudi Arabia’s relative transparency and cooperation with the international community on nuclear issues, there are more than a few doubts as to its credibility, given that in the past it had very close relations with Pakistan," the report said. "More than once the claim has been made that Saudi Arabia was in fact behind the financing of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs. After the Islamic revolution and throughout the 1980s Pakistan stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia and the two nations cooperated in assisting the Afghani mujahadeen."
The report also stated that Pakistan wields the manpower and technology for the nuclear weapons program for Saudi Arabia.
In the 1980s, Saudi Arabia procured the Chinese-origin CSS-2 surface-to-surface missiles from Pakistan. The CSS-2, although not regarded as accurate, was designed to contain a nuclear warhead.
"Various developments therefore may lead Saudi Arabia to accelerate its timetable, and along with or instead of developing independent nuclear
infrastructures, it is not inconceivable that it would prefer buying turnkey components, enter into a military treaty with Pakistan, and in certain
scenarios, even deploy Pakistani nuclear forces on Saudi soil because of the urgency and its lack of appropriate infrastructures," the report said.
This seminal study has hardly been reported in Israel - because INSS couched Saudi's nuclear option only as a response to a possible Iranian threat against Saudi Arabia.
Yet Saudi Arabia is not in a state of war with Iran.
Saudi Arabia is in a state of war with Israel, expressed in terms of consistent Saudi aid to Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Saudi funding for middle east studies programs on Unversity campuses around the world which prepare the next geneation of intellectuals to carry on the war with Israel and with Zionism.
See more on this story at Israel Behind the News
MICHAEL IGNATIEFF ON IRAN, KAIROS, UNRWA, A PALESTINIAN STATE AND AN URBAN RESERVE IN TUXEDO ?Ignatieff’s One on One with the Winnipeg Jewish Review
by Rhonda Spivak
The following are questions given to Michael Ignatieff, the leader of Canada’s Liberal Party who was in Winnipeg during an interview on April 24th, and his responses. The questions and answers are reproduced here not necessarily in the order they were asked.
LOCAL-ABORIGINAL URBAN RESERVE IN TUXEDO
SPIVAK: Do you think there should be an urban aboriginal reserve in Tuxedo [Winnipeg South]?
IGNATIEFF: I can’t comment on that directly. I need to talk to the Chiefs, I need to talk to the community leaders a bit more before I wade in there. You know there’s some issues there that I think I need to think about more before I get drawn in.
IRAN
SPIVAK: What do you think of the approach of the Obama administration in dealing with Iran so far? First it tried dialogue, but now it has backed away from that ?
IGNATIEFF: I don’t think rapprochement is possible with the Ahmadinejad regime and I can’t believe that that’s the objective of the Obama policy. My sense of the Obama policy is [that it is designed to] contain the regime, isolate the regime, and deter the regime and that I think would be the core of a Canadian policy.
Now the issue is moving towards targeted sanctions, targeted in the sense that they target the core elements of the regime and try and avoid harming civilians in Iran. The thing that we have to get right is that there are a lot of people in Iran not only discontented with the A regime but seeking to move against it so if you are going to have a sanctions regime it’s got to target the regime and not cut off the legs of the civilian resistance to the regime and that’s the balance that Canadian policy and international policy has to follow. But, there can be no dealing with this regime. It just not an acceptable member of the international community
SPIVAK: How can sanctions target the regime without hurting Iranian civilians?
IGNATIEFF: I think there’s no question that we can target... the Revolutionary Guard, we can target some of the international holding companies that hold regime assets. [Liberal MP]Irwin Cotler has done wonderful work in thinking about that and marshalling international condemnation of the Iranian regime and also marshalling the instruments of international law to condemn the country for incitement to genocide. That’s been the core of Irwin’s campaign against Iran and it has my full support.
KAIROS
SPIVAK: What do you think about the Harper government’s defunding of KAIROS ?
[On November 30, KAIROS received notice from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) that its project proposal for 2009-2013 had been declined, on the basis that its program did not fit CIDA priorities. In December 16, Jason Kenny Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said to the Global Forum to Counter Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem that “ We have defunded organizations, most recently, like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott [of Israel.]”
IGNATIEFF: I think there’s something gone badly wrong when a coalition of church groups that has a an established reputation for working in developing nations and doing good decent work is suddenly defunded by a Conservative government. I think it’s a bad decision, and we can’t understand its rationale. We think that KAIROS does good work and we would review the file again and see if whether our impression in opposition is right which is that these guys are going good work, let them get on with it.
FUNDING OF UNWRA FOR HUMANITARIAN FOOD AID ONLY
SPIVAK: What do you think of the Harper government’s decision to stop Canada’s core funding of the United Nations Works and Relief Agency [UNWRA] in 2009. Instead of providing funds to general education or health programs by UNWRA in UNWRA’s general account, Canada specifically earmarked all Canadian funds towards food aid for Palestinian refugees.
IGNATIEFF: UNWRA has a 50-60 year record of providing for Palestinian refugees. I know that there is criticism that... they’ve lost their impartiality, they’ve become too controlled by Palestinian elements. So I ‘m aware of the criticisms of UNWRA but I would frankly want to review that decision if we were in government. I think UNWRA is a delivery mechanism for people in need, and I’d want to review that decision... I obviously don’t want don’t want Canadian money going to militants, I don’t want Canadian money supporting political extremism but equally I don’t want us to deny legitimate aid to,you know, civilians in need.
[For more on this issue of the shift in Canadian funding of UNWRA, see Rhonda Spivak’s article in the Jerusalem Post, Jan 13, 2010 reprinted here at the very bottom.]
PALESTINIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND PALESTINIAN STATE
SPIVAK: In January 2010, Canada announced it would be focusing its efforts on funding the Palestinian justice system, including building courthouses in Ramallah and elsewhere in the West Bank? What do you think of that direction in Canadian policy?
IGNATIEFF: When I was last in Jerusalem I talked to some Canadian officials who were involved in Palestinian policing and heaven knows the Palestinian justice system needs all the help it can get and its police and security systems need all the help they can get so these are long standing commitments of Canada and we would again support them provided that there are no ties to militant extremism, provided these are building capacity for legitimate Palestinian institutions.
SPIVAK: What do you think of the stated intention of the President of the Palestinian Authority Salam Fayyad to declare a Palestinian state unilaterally by the summer of 2011?
IGNATIEFF: The conditions for recognition for a Palestinian state are very complicated... I’m not going to be drawn into anticipating what Salam Fayyad may or may not do, or what the Palestinians may or may not do.
I’ve always been clear that I believe in a two state solution. I don’t believe Israel can be secure unless its got a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, that can operate as a state, that has a monopoly of the means of force, that lives in peace with Israel and engages in economic partnership with Israel.
So, that’s where I think this has to end and I think that’s where this has to go, but there has to be an orderly process by which Palestinian statehood is achieved and that involves good faith negotiations with the Stare of Israel next door.
ON ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK
Ignatieff made the following statement which appeared in the National Post in regard to Israel Apartheid Week:
“On university campuses across the country this week, Israeli Apartheid Week will once again attempt to demonize and undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state. It is part of a global campaign of calls for divestment, boycotts and proclamations, and it should be condemned unequivocally and absolutely.
Apartheid is defined, in international law, as a crime against humanity. Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal.
The activities planned for the week will single out Jewish and Israeli students. They will be made to feel ostracized and even physically threatened in the very place where freedom should be paramount -- on a university campus.
Let us be clear: criticism of Israeli government policy is legitimate. Wholesale condemnation of the State of Israel and the Jewish people is not legitimate. Not now, not ever.
The very premise of Israeli Apartheid Week runs counter to our shared values of mutual respect and tolerance, regardless of nationality, race or creed. It is an attempt to heighten the tensions in our communities around the tragic conflict in the Middle East.
On behalf of the Liberal party of Canada and the Parliamentary caucus, I urge all Canadians to join with us in condemning Israeli Apartheid Week, and to reject, in principle, all forms of anti-Semitism, racism and intolerance, both within this country and around the world.”
LOOKING BACK: SPIVAK’S INTERVIEW WITH IGNATIEFF A YEAR AGO
By Rhonda Spivak, March 20, 2009
(*versions of this article below were published in the Canadian Jewish News and the Vancouver Jewish
Independent)
Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff says that the Iranian government must understand that the international community’s support for Israel’s existence is “backed up by credible deterrents.”
Ignatieff was referred to a recent statement made by Israel’s incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the March 9,2009 edition of Newsweek. Netanyahu was asked by Newsweek whether he thought that short of military action it’s possible to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu answered, “I think this regime is vulnerable to pressure that ought to be intensified. But none of these sanctions and other measures that are contemplated would have much of an effect if the Iranians believe that a military option is off the table.”
After referring to the above statement by Netanyahu, Ignatieff was asked if he agreed with Netanyahu. Ignatieff’s response:
“What I would say is that Iran has to understand that the international community is united on the proposition that you can’t deny the holocaust, and you can’t threaten any of your neighbors, and certainly not the Jewish state. And that means that the Iranian government has to be aware that those feelings, those views are backed up with appropriate military force.... so its backed up by credible deterrents. But I think it’s legitimate... to say no thoughtful Israeli and no thoughtful Iranian in my view wants this to come to conflict, and it would be a catastrophe for both sides. And Canada has always stood for peace. So... Canada has to stand essentially for three things: unequivocal condemnation of holocaust denying rhetoric [and] anti-Israeli rhetoric by the Iranian regime 2) commitment to credible military deterrence 3) commitment to demanding that Iran comply with the International Atomic Energy Association in respect of its domestic nuclear program; and 4) Canada has always said there are no military solutions in this region.
“At the end of the day, Iran is a great power. Israel is a legitimate democratic state. There are no ultimate military solutions to these problems. There has to be some kind of opening of the doors in which Israel and Iran eventually sit down and live in peace with each other. The alternatives are generally too horrible to contemplate. That doesn’t mean backing down form being totally clear to the Iranians, but I don’t want to encourage any saber rattling rhetoric, especially not at a moment when the President of the United States is beginning to open the door to discussion. And those discussions I’ve made clear have to include as the central item of business with the Iranians: you can’t talk to Israel this way, it’s got to stop. And if they stop, then things become possible. If not, we’ll be back in the deep freeze for a long time to come.”
Ignatieff was asked whether he would be in favour of trying to organize an explicit statement and commitment from a number of countries (West and East) regarding the safety of Israel that might be used to try to dissuade Iran from ever deploying nuclear weapons against the Jewish state. He answered:
“I think Iran is fully aware...[Israel’s] allies have made it perfectly clear that nuclear threats towards Israel are unacceptable and will be met with...uh there’s credible deterrence, lets put it that way. I don’t think the Iranian regime... is in any doubt about the determination of Israel’s allies to defend her.”
Ignatieff made a statement in the Gaurdian, in April 19, 2002, regarding the Palestinian territories. He was quoted then as saying:
“Two years ago, an American friend took me on a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Golan Heights over the Palestinian West Bank. He wanted to show me how vulnerable Israel was, how the Arabs only had to cross 11 km of land to reach the sea and throw the Israelis into it. I got this message but I also came away with another one. When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control.”
When asked to clarify what he meant by the above statement, Ignatieff responded:
“You know I think all my adult life [I’ve] made it clear that... it’s... illegitimate to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa and let’s be very clear why, because all citizens of Israel have equal rights. In apartheid South Africa, people were excluded from full citizenship on the basis of race. And that was denounced as a crime against humanity. So I’ve never ever in my life equated Israel and apartheid South Africa. I think what I meant in using the terminology that I used in that article in 2002 is something that I think is as evident to Israelis as it is to anybody else, which is that the only way out of the horror and the tragedy in the Middle East is a two state solution in which Israel has absolutely solid guarantees of its security and international legitimacy, and the Palestinian state is viable enough to survive. I think my choice of words was not of the best, but the point was not to equate Israel to apartheid South Africa but to say for Israel’s own security the Palestinian state that will eventually emerge in the West bank and Gaza must be viable. It’s not for me to say what viability amounts to. It’s not for me to define what the boundaries and frontiers should be. That’s between the two parties. But it ought to be viable.”
When asked if he was concerned about the clear rise of anti-Semitism in the European mainstream, Ignatieff responded:
“Well, it’s not just in Europe. I’m very concerned about the statements by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. I’m very concerned about Durban II, the flagrant misuse of international UN bodies to promote this entirely false equation between Zionism as a kind of racism. We’ve been here with this for thirty years. So some of the phenomena of anti-Semitism is not new in Canada, and I’m aware there are Jewish communities in Canada that feel a degree of insecurity in Canada that they’ve never felt before.
“My predecessor [Mr. Dion] committed to work with... not just the Jewish community but any community that feels its security is in danger to make sure they have the means to protect and defend their schools,.. all their establishments, because the bottom line for me as a Canadian politician is that every Canadian citizen must have a right to be who they are, say who they are, affirm their identity proudly, and go about their business in security. And the general atmosphere out in the world is of increasing hostility to the Jewish people and Canada has to make a very clear statement that that’s unacceptable, that all citizens in Canada are entitled to go about their business in peace and security.”
See the original interview in the Winnipeg Jewish Review
See more on this at Israel Behind the News
The following are questions given to Michael Ignatieff, the leader of Canada’s Liberal Party who was in Winnipeg during an interview on April 24th, and his responses. The questions and answers are reproduced here not necessarily in the order they were asked.
LOCAL-ABORIGINAL URBAN RESERVE IN TUXEDO
SPIVAK: Do you think there should be an urban aboriginal reserve in Tuxedo [Winnipeg South]?
IGNATIEFF: I can’t comment on that directly. I need to talk to the Chiefs, I need to talk to the community leaders a bit more before I wade in there. You know there’s some issues there that I think I need to think about more before I get drawn in.
IRAN
SPIVAK: What do you think of the approach of the Obama administration in dealing with Iran so far? First it tried dialogue, but now it has backed away from that ?
IGNATIEFF: I don’t think rapprochement is possible with the Ahmadinejad regime and I can’t believe that that’s the objective of the Obama policy. My sense of the Obama policy is [that it is designed to] contain the regime, isolate the regime, and deter the regime and that I think would be the core of a Canadian policy.
Now the issue is moving towards targeted sanctions, targeted in the sense that they target the core elements of the regime and try and avoid harming civilians in Iran. The thing that we have to get right is that there are a lot of people in Iran not only discontented with the A regime but seeking to move against it so if you are going to have a sanctions regime it’s got to target the regime and not cut off the legs of the civilian resistance to the regime and that’s the balance that Canadian policy and international policy has to follow. But, there can be no dealing with this regime. It just not an acceptable member of the international community
SPIVAK: How can sanctions target the regime without hurting Iranian civilians?
IGNATIEFF: I think there’s no question that we can target... the Revolutionary Guard, we can target some of the international holding companies that hold regime assets. [Liberal MP]Irwin Cotler has done wonderful work in thinking about that and marshalling international condemnation of the Iranian regime and also marshalling the instruments of international law to condemn the country for incitement to genocide. That’s been the core of Irwin’s campaign against Iran and it has my full support.
KAIROS
SPIVAK: What do you think about the Harper government’s defunding of KAIROS ?
[On November 30, KAIROS received notice from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) that its project proposal for 2009-2013 had been declined, on the basis that its program did not fit CIDA priorities. In December 16, Jason Kenny Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said to the Global Forum to Counter Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem that “ We have defunded organizations, most recently, like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott [of Israel.]”
IGNATIEFF: I think there’s something gone badly wrong when a coalition of church groups that has a an established reputation for working in developing nations and doing good decent work is suddenly defunded by a Conservative government. I think it’s a bad decision, and we can’t understand its rationale. We think that KAIROS does good work and we would review the file again and see if whether our impression in opposition is right which is that these guys are going good work, let them get on with it.
FUNDING OF UNWRA FOR HUMANITARIAN FOOD AID ONLY
SPIVAK: What do you think of the Harper government’s decision to stop Canada’s core funding of the United Nations Works and Relief Agency [UNWRA] in 2009. Instead of providing funds to general education or health programs by UNWRA in UNWRA’s general account, Canada specifically earmarked all Canadian funds towards food aid for Palestinian refugees.
IGNATIEFF: UNWRA has a 50-60 year record of providing for Palestinian refugees. I know that there is criticism that... they’ve lost their impartiality, they’ve become too controlled by Palestinian elements. So I ‘m aware of the criticisms of UNWRA but I would frankly want to review that decision if we were in government. I think UNWRA is a delivery mechanism for people in need, and I’d want to review that decision... I obviously don’t want don’t want Canadian money going to militants, I don’t want Canadian money supporting political extremism but equally I don’t want us to deny legitimate aid to,you know, civilians in need.
[For more on this issue of the shift in Canadian funding of UNWRA, see Rhonda Spivak’s article in the Jerusalem Post, Jan 13, 2010 reprinted here at the very bottom.]
PALESTINIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND PALESTINIAN STATE
SPIVAK: In January 2010, Canada announced it would be focusing its efforts on funding the Palestinian justice system, including building courthouses in Ramallah and elsewhere in the West Bank? What do you think of that direction in Canadian policy?
IGNATIEFF: When I was last in Jerusalem I talked to some Canadian officials who were involved in Palestinian policing and heaven knows the Palestinian justice system needs all the help it can get and its police and security systems need all the help they can get so these are long standing commitments of Canada and we would again support them provided that there are no ties to militant extremism, provided these are building capacity for legitimate Palestinian institutions.
SPIVAK: What do you think of the stated intention of the President of the Palestinian Authority Salam Fayyad to declare a Palestinian state unilaterally by the summer of 2011?
IGNATIEFF: The conditions for recognition for a Palestinian state are very complicated... I’m not going to be drawn into anticipating what Salam Fayyad may or may not do, or what the Palestinians may or may not do.
I’ve always been clear that I believe in a two state solution. I don’t believe Israel can be secure unless its got a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, that can operate as a state, that has a monopoly of the means of force, that lives in peace with Israel and engages in economic partnership with Israel.
So, that’s where I think this has to end and I think that’s where this has to go, but there has to be an orderly process by which Palestinian statehood is achieved and that involves good faith negotiations with the Stare of Israel next door.
ON ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK
Ignatieff made the following statement which appeared in the National Post in regard to Israel Apartheid Week:
“On university campuses across the country this week, Israeli Apartheid Week will once again attempt to demonize and undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state. It is part of a global campaign of calls for divestment, boycotts and proclamations, and it should be condemned unequivocally and absolutely.
Apartheid is defined, in international law, as a crime against humanity. Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal.
The activities planned for the week will single out Jewish and Israeli students. They will be made to feel ostracized and even physically threatened in the very place where freedom should be paramount -- on a university campus.
Let us be clear: criticism of Israeli government policy is legitimate. Wholesale condemnation of the State of Israel and the Jewish people is not legitimate. Not now, not ever.
The very premise of Israeli Apartheid Week runs counter to our shared values of mutual respect and tolerance, regardless of nationality, race or creed. It is an attempt to heighten the tensions in our communities around the tragic conflict in the Middle East.
On behalf of the Liberal party of Canada and the Parliamentary caucus, I urge all Canadians to join with us in condemning Israeli Apartheid Week, and to reject, in principle, all forms of anti-Semitism, racism and intolerance, both within this country and around the world.”
LOOKING BACK: SPIVAK’S INTERVIEW WITH IGNATIEFF A YEAR AGO
By Rhonda Spivak, March 20, 2009
(*versions of this article below were published in the Canadian Jewish News and the Vancouver Jewish
Independent)
Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff says that the Iranian government must understand that the international community’s support for Israel’s existence is “backed up by credible deterrents.”
Ignatieff was referred to a recent statement made by Israel’s incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the March 9,2009 edition of Newsweek. Netanyahu was asked by Newsweek whether he thought that short of military action it’s possible to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu answered, “I think this regime is vulnerable to pressure that ought to be intensified. But none of these sanctions and other measures that are contemplated would have much of an effect if the Iranians believe that a military option is off the table.”
After referring to the above statement by Netanyahu, Ignatieff was asked if he agreed with Netanyahu. Ignatieff’s response:
“What I would say is that Iran has to understand that the international community is united on the proposition that you can’t deny the holocaust, and you can’t threaten any of your neighbors, and certainly not the Jewish state. And that means that the Iranian government has to be aware that those feelings, those views are backed up with appropriate military force.... so its backed up by credible deterrents. But I think it’s legitimate... to say no thoughtful Israeli and no thoughtful Iranian in my view wants this to come to conflict, and it would be a catastrophe for both sides. And Canada has always stood for peace. So... Canada has to stand essentially for three things: unequivocal condemnation of holocaust denying rhetoric [and] anti-Israeli rhetoric by the Iranian regime 2) commitment to credible military deterrence 3) commitment to demanding that Iran comply with the International Atomic Energy Association in respect of its domestic nuclear program; and 4) Canada has always said there are no military solutions in this region.
“At the end of the day, Iran is a great power. Israel is a legitimate democratic state. There are no ultimate military solutions to these problems. There has to be some kind of opening of the doors in which Israel and Iran eventually sit down and live in peace with each other. The alternatives are generally too horrible to contemplate. That doesn’t mean backing down form being totally clear to the Iranians, but I don’t want to encourage any saber rattling rhetoric, especially not at a moment when the President of the United States is beginning to open the door to discussion. And those discussions I’ve made clear have to include as the central item of business with the Iranians: you can’t talk to Israel this way, it’s got to stop. And if they stop, then things become possible. If not, we’ll be back in the deep freeze for a long time to come.”
Ignatieff was asked whether he would be in favour of trying to organize an explicit statement and commitment from a number of countries (West and East) regarding the safety of Israel that might be used to try to dissuade Iran from ever deploying nuclear weapons against the Jewish state. He answered:
“I think Iran is fully aware...[Israel’s] allies have made it perfectly clear that nuclear threats towards Israel are unacceptable and will be met with...uh there’s credible deterrence, lets put it that way. I don’t think the Iranian regime... is in any doubt about the determination of Israel’s allies to defend her.”
Ignatieff made a statement in the Gaurdian, in April 19, 2002, regarding the Palestinian territories. He was quoted then as saying:
“Two years ago, an American friend took me on a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Golan Heights over the Palestinian West Bank. He wanted to show me how vulnerable Israel was, how the Arabs only had to cross 11 km of land to reach the sea and throw the Israelis into it. I got this message but I also came away with another one. When I looked down at the West Bank, at the settlements like Crusader forts occupying the high ground, at the Israeli security cordon along the Jordan river closing off the Palestinian lands from Jordan, I knew I was not looking down at a state or the beginnings of one, but at a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control.”
When asked to clarify what he meant by the above statement, Ignatieff responded:
“You know I think all my adult life [I’ve] made it clear that... it’s... illegitimate to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa and let’s be very clear why, because all citizens of Israel have equal rights. In apartheid South Africa, people were excluded from full citizenship on the basis of race. And that was denounced as a crime against humanity. So I’ve never ever in my life equated Israel and apartheid South Africa. I think what I meant in using the terminology that I used in that article in 2002 is something that I think is as evident to Israelis as it is to anybody else, which is that the only way out of the horror and the tragedy in the Middle East is a two state solution in which Israel has absolutely solid guarantees of its security and international legitimacy, and the Palestinian state is viable enough to survive. I think my choice of words was not of the best, but the point was not to equate Israel to apartheid South Africa but to say for Israel’s own security the Palestinian state that will eventually emerge in the West bank and Gaza must be viable. It’s not for me to say what viability amounts to. It’s not for me to define what the boundaries and frontiers should be. That’s between the two parties. But it ought to be viable.”
When asked if he was concerned about the clear rise of anti-Semitism in the European mainstream, Ignatieff responded:
“Well, it’s not just in Europe. I’m very concerned about the statements by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. I’m very concerned about Durban II, the flagrant misuse of international UN bodies to promote this entirely false equation between Zionism as a kind of racism. We’ve been here with this for thirty years. So some of the phenomena of anti-Semitism is not new in Canada, and I’m aware there are Jewish communities in Canada that feel a degree of insecurity in Canada that they’ve never felt before.
“My predecessor [Mr. Dion] committed to work with... not just the Jewish community but any community that feels its security is in danger to make sure they have the means to protect and defend their schools,.. all their establishments, because the bottom line for me as a Canadian politician is that every Canadian citizen must have a right to be who they are, say who they are, affirm their identity proudly, and go about their business in security. And the general atmosphere out in the world is of increasing hostility to the Jewish people and Canada has to make a very clear statement that that’s unacceptable, that all citizens in Canada are entitled to go about their business in peace and security.”
See the original interview in the Winnipeg Jewish Review
See more on this at Israel Behind the News
US Report: Infantry Needed to Fight Hizbullah
From: Middle East News Line
The U.S. Army has commissioned a study that concluded
that conventional ground forces would be required to battle the
Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah.
The Rand Corp. has relayed a study to the U.S. Army that analyzed
Israel's 2006 war with Hizbullah. The report, titled "Military Capabilities
for Hybrid War," concluded that Israel's air combat strategy against
Hizbullah was flawed and that infantry and armor would be required to fight
the Lebanese-based militia, trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps.
"Finally, heavy forces -- based on tanks and infantry fighting
vehicles -- are key elements of any force that will fight sophisticated
irregular opponents, because they reduce operational risk and minimize
friendly casualties," the report, released on April 9, said.
The report was part of a project by the U.S. Army to assess emerging
insurgency threats based on Israel's wars with Hizbullah and Hamas over the
last four years. Rand said both Israel and the United States were facing a
so-called hybrid opponent, or a force that combined conventional and
guerrilla capabilities.
"Although the U.S. security situation is much different from that of
Israel, similarities do exist," the report said. "Both nations believe they
must prepare for challenges across the range of military operations.
Therefore, the following insights from recent Israeli experience have
relevance for the U.S."
A key finding was that Israel's air combat doctrine has been ineffective
against either Hamas or Hizbullah. The report asserted that air strikes must
be combined with a significant infantry and armor component to minimize the
insurgency use of civilian shields.
"The basics of combined arms fire and maneuver are necessary for
successful operations against sophisticated hybrid opponents who, like
Hizbullah and Hamas, have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced
weapons, particularly if they are operating 'among the people,'" the report,
authored by David Johnson, said. "Additionally, precision, standoff fires
are critical, but not sufficient, to cope with sophisticated hybrid
opponents. Furthermore, responsive and adequate air, artillery, and unmanned
aerial system support are critical components of the combined arms fight
against hybrid opponents."
Rand concluded that the Israel Army had underestimated Hizbullah's
capabilities to combine military maneuvers with sustained rocket fire. The
report cited Israel's long counter-insurgency campaign in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip and the military's assessment that conventional warfare would not
return to the Middle East.
"The U.S. presence in Iraq following OIF [U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003], coupled with low threats from neighbors except Syria, encouraged a
belief that Israel was beyond the era of a major war and that the primary
role of ground forces was LIC [low-intensity conflict]," the report said.
"Some of the political and military elites in Israel have reached the
conclusion that Israel is beyond the era of wars. It had enough military
might and superiority to deter others from declaring war against her; these
would also be sufficient to send a painful reminder to anyone who seemed to
be undeterred; since Israel did not intend to initiate a war, the conclusion
was that the main challenge facing the land forces would be low intensity
asymmetrical conflicts."
The result was that Israel's military budget had been slashed, main
battle tanks and mechanized infantry became idle and training declined, the
report said. The best army commanders were used for CI operations, and air
force tactical air control capabilities were removed from infantry brigades.
"In Lebanon, the Israelis faced terrain and enemy conditions for which
they were not prepared," the report said. "Hizbullah, although not 10 feet
tall, was trained and organized into small units and armed with
sophisticated weapons, including anti-tank guided missiles, RPGs --
including RPG-29s -- rockets, mortars, mines, IEDs, and MANPADS."
Rand said the Hizbullah and Hamas threat required what the report termed
integrated joint air and ground intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities "similar to those used against conventional
adversaries, but at a reduced scale." The report said the army's command and
control system must also be revised to battle Hizbullah.
Israel's military was said to have renewed its heavy armored force to
confront Hamas and Hizbullah. Rand cited the resumption of production of the
Merkava Mk-4 main battle tank and the launch of the Namer infantry fighting
vehicle, based on the Mk-1. These assets were used in the Hamas war in
December 2008 and January 2009.
"The single most important change in the IDF between the 2006 Second
Lebanon War and the recent operation in Gaza was the clear understanding by
senior Israeli political and military
leaders that ground operations are an essential component of military
operations," the report said. "They no longer believe standoff attack alone,
principally by air, can create success. Thus, from the beginning, it was a
given to Israeli political and military leaders that ground forces would
have to fight in Gaza -- putting troops on the ground was a necessary
precondition to achieving their military and political objectives."
Rand warned that Israel's war with Hamas did not prove that the
military was certain to defeat Hizbullah. The report said Hamas was not as
capable as Hizbullah, and the Gaza Strip was flat while southern Lebanon was
hilly.
"Hizbullah defended its positions," the report said. "Hamas frequently
retreated. Hizbullah had advanced ATGMs and used them to good effect; Hamas
seems not to have had many and used few, if any, relying mainly on small
arms, RPGs, mortars, rockets, IEDs, and mines. Finally, Operation Cast Lead
[Israeli war against Hamas] was a relatively small-scale operation for the
Israeli Army, involving only a handful of brigades, one division, and the
Southern Command."
See more on this at Israel Behind the News
The U.S. Army has commissioned a study that concluded
that conventional ground forces would be required to battle the
Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah.
The Rand Corp. has relayed a study to the U.S. Army that analyzed
Israel's 2006 war with Hizbullah. The report, titled "Military Capabilities
for Hybrid War," concluded that Israel's air combat strategy against
Hizbullah was flawed and that infantry and armor would be required to fight
the Lebanese-based militia, trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps.
"Finally, heavy forces -- based on tanks and infantry fighting
vehicles -- are key elements of any force that will fight sophisticated
irregular opponents, because they reduce operational risk and minimize
friendly casualties," the report, released on April 9, said.
The report was part of a project by the U.S. Army to assess emerging
insurgency threats based on Israel's wars with Hizbullah and Hamas over the
last four years. Rand said both Israel and the United States were facing a
so-called hybrid opponent, or a force that combined conventional and
guerrilla capabilities.
"Although the U.S. security situation is much different from that of
Israel, similarities do exist," the report said. "Both nations believe they
must prepare for challenges across the range of military operations.
Therefore, the following insights from recent Israeli experience have
relevance for the U.S."
A key finding was that Israel's air combat doctrine has been ineffective
against either Hamas or Hizbullah. The report asserted that air strikes must
be combined with a significant infantry and armor component to minimize the
insurgency use of civilian shields.
"The basics of combined arms fire and maneuver are necessary for
successful operations against sophisticated hybrid opponents who, like
Hizbullah and Hamas, have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced
weapons, particularly if they are operating 'among the people,'" the report,
authored by David Johnson, said. "Additionally, precision, standoff fires
are critical, but not sufficient, to cope with sophisticated hybrid
opponents. Furthermore, responsive and adequate air, artillery, and unmanned
aerial system support are critical components of the combined arms fight
against hybrid opponents."
Rand concluded that the Israel Army had underestimated Hizbullah's
capabilities to combine military maneuvers with sustained rocket fire. The
report cited Israel's long counter-insurgency campaign in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip and the military's assessment that conventional warfare would not
return to the Middle East.
"The U.S. presence in Iraq following OIF [U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003], coupled with low threats from neighbors except Syria, encouraged a
belief that Israel was beyond the era of a major war and that the primary
role of ground forces was LIC [low-intensity conflict]," the report said.
"Some of the political and military elites in Israel have reached the
conclusion that Israel is beyond the era of wars. It had enough military
might and superiority to deter others from declaring war against her; these
would also be sufficient to send a painful reminder to anyone who seemed to
be undeterred; since Israel did not intend to initiate a war, the conclusion
was that the main challenge facing the land forces would be low intensity
asymmetrical conflicts."
The result was that Israel's military budget had been slashed, main
battle tanks and mechanized infantry became idle and training declined, the
report said. The best army commanders were used for CI operations, and air
force tactical air control capabilities were removed from infantry brigades.
"In Lebanon, the Israelis faced terrain and enemy conditions for which
they were not prepared," the report said. "Hizbullah, although not 10 feet
tall, was trained and organized into small units and armed with
sophisticated weapons, including anti-tank guided missiles, RPGs --
including RPG-29s -- rockets, mortars, mines, IEDs, and MANPADS."
Rand said the Hizbullah and Hamas threat required what the report termed
integrated joint air and ground intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities "similar to those used against conventional
adversaries, but at a reduced scale." The report said the army's command and
control system must also be revised to battle Hizbullah.
Israel's military was said to have renewed its heavy armored force to
confront Hamas and Hizbullah. Rand cited the resumption of production of the
Merkava Mk-4 main battle tank and the launch of the Namer infantry fighting
vehicle, based on the Mk-1. These assets were used in the Hamas war in
December 2008 and January 2009.
"The single most important change in the IDF between the 2006 Second
Lebanon War and the recent operation in Gaza was the clear understanding by
senior Israeli political and military
leaders that ground operations are an essential component of military
operations," the report said. "They no longer believe standoff attack alone,
principally by air, can create success. Thus, from the beginning, it was a
given to Israeli political and military leaders that ground forces would
have to fight in Gaza -- putting troops on the ground was a necessary
precondition to achieving their military and political objectives."
Rand warned that Israel's war with Hamas did not prove that the
military was certain to defeat Hizbullah. The report said Hamas was not as
capable as Hizbullah, and the Gaza Strip was flat while southern Lebanon was
hilly.
"Hizbullah defended its positions," the report said. "Hamas frequently
retreated. Hizbullah had advanced ATGMs and used them to good effect; Hamas
seems not to have had many and used few, if any, relying mainly on small
arms, RPGs, mortars, rockets, IEDs, and mines. Finally, Operation Cast Lead
[Israeli war against Hamas] was a relatively small-scale operation for the
Israeli Army, involving only a handful of brigades, one division, and the
Southern Command."
See more on this at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
