The investigation was conducted by Col. Itzik Turgeman with the objective of thoroughly examining claims regarding 13 incidents in which facilities, structures and vehicles associated with the United Nations (UN) or other international organizations were damaged.
The majority of the incidents that were investigated were detailed in the complaints submitted to the IDF by the UN during Operation Cast Lead and thereafter, while other incidents were discovered during the process of investigatingThe investigation showed that the IDF took numerous measures to avoid hitting facilities and vehicles affiliated with the UN, Red Cross and other international organizations. These facilities were marked on IDF maps in advance according to the information provided by the international organizations. Clear orders were given stating that the hitting of facilities and vehicles of this sort must be avoided. Coordination between the IDF and the UN, the Red Cross and the international organizations was done via a special Civil Administration situation room and a center for humanitarian coordination that was established in order to allow day to day humanitarian aid coordination.
Investigation shows that Hamas and the other terror organizations operating in the Gaza Strip placed the facilities used by the UN and other international organizations in substantial danger. With the knowledge that the IDF limits its operations in the vicinity of such facilities, the terror organizations intentionally launched rockets and mortar shells adjacent to them. Similarly, Hamas and other terrorist organizations located headquarters, bases, weapon storage facilities and other terrorist infrastructure close to the sensitive facilities of the UN, Red Cross and other international organizations.
Below are the findings of the investigation with regard to some of the prominent incidents that were investigated:
A. Claims about the Incident at the UNRWA school in Jabaliya ("Fahoura" School)
The incident occurred near the UNRWA school ("Fahoura" School) in Jabaliya on January 6th, 2009. Hamas operatives used a site located only 80 meters away from the school to launch mortar shells at IDF forces. The shells exploded next to an IDF force operating in the area, and represented a grave threat to the soldiers. The previous day thirty IDF soldiers were wounded by Hamas mortar fire. The mortar fire presented a very significant threat to the lives of IDF forces.
Following a confirmed and cross-referenced identification of the source of the fire, the soldiers under attack responded with minimal and proportionate retaliatory fire, using the most precise weapon available to them, with the purpose of stopping the Hamas fire. The return fire hit the Hamas operatives who were firing the mortars and stopped their fire. All of the shells fired by the force landed outside of the school grounds (contrary to claims made by Hamas). Sadly, due to the fact that Hamas was firing from a populated area, the return fire also resulted in unintentional harm to civilians in the vicinity.
Despite the fact that the incident took place outside the UNRWA school grounds, Hamas was quick to accuse Israel of intentionally hitting the UN Facility. The investigation showed unequivocally that those claims were false. This was reinforced by the UN in a press release published subsequent to the operation. Additionally, the investigation showed that a cell of five terror operatives and seven civilians outside of the school grounds were hit, contrary to the 42 deaths that were reported by Hamas inside the school grounds.
B. Claims made Regarding Damage to the UNRWA Headquarters and to a Building which turned out to be a Red Cross Pharmaceutical Storage facility in Tel El-Hawa
Two incidents were investigated that took place on January 15th 2009 during fierce fighting in the Hamas' stronghold in the Tel El-Hawa neighborhood in Gaza city. Hamas deployed anti-tank squads near sensitive facilities in the neighborhood, intending to deliver a strategic blow to the IDF (e.g. by hitting an IDF tank).
Damage to a structure that turned out to be a pharmaceutical storage facility– The investigation showed that during the battle, IDF forces came under fire from both anti-tank and small arms fire by terrorists located next to a structure that was later discovered to contain a Red Cross pharmaceutical storage facility.
The IDF returned fire towards the source of fire only after an IDF armored bulldozer suffered a direct hit from anti-tank fire. During the ensuing exchange of fire, which included the IDF's responsive firing, it appears that the structure containing the storage facility was hit. The IDF was not provided with the location of the storage facility in question by the Red Cross prior to the operation and therefore was not marked on the IDF's maps, unlike other Red Cross facilities. No one was injured during the incident.
Damage to the storage facility in the UNRWA headquarters compound – Concurrently, in the same general area, the IDF deployed a smoke screen in order to protect a tank force operating in the neighborhood from Hamas anti-tank crews who had positioned themselves adjacent to the UNRWA headquarters. The smoke screen was intended to block the terrorists' field of view. Information received by the IDF shows that the smoke screen did assist in protecting the force and prevented precise anti-tank fire against IDF forces. The smoke projectiles were fired at an area a considerable distance from the UNRWA headquarters, and were not intended to cause damage to either person or property. However, it appears that fragments of the smoke projectiles did hit a warehouse located in the headquarters, causing it to catch fire.
During the incident, claims were also made that an explosive shell or shrapnel hit the UNRWA headquarters. The investigation showed that these were shells, or shell fragments that were fired at military targets within the battle zone.
The damage caused to the UNRWA headquarters during the fighting in the Tel El-Hawwa neighborhood is the unfortunate result of the type of warfare that Hamas forced upon the IDF, involving combat in the Gaza Strip's urban spaces and adjacent to facilities associated with international organizations. These results could not be predicted.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the forces did not intend, at any stage, to hit a UN facility. Following UN complaints that an explosive shell had hit the headquarters, the forces were ordered to cease firing explosive shells in the region in question. Following the receipt of reports about the fire in the warehouse, all firing in the area was stopped. The entry of fire-fighting trucks to the area was coordinated with the IDF in order to assist in extinguishing the fire.
C. Terrorist Use of UN Vehicles
The investigation also looked into a complaint that an UNRWA vehicle was fired on in the Tel El Hawa neighborhood on January 14th 2009. The investigation reached the conclusion that during the incident a vehicle was fired upon, which it was later claimed belonged to the UN, but the vehicle did not bear UN markings. The vehicle was traveling in an area that international organizations had been clearly informed was forbidden for the movement of vehicles. The vehicle was carrying a Palestinian anti-tank squad. It was fired upon only after it had unloaded the terrorist squad and advanced towards the forces in a manner creating a genuine concern that it was a Hamas car bomb.
D. IDF-UN Coordination
During the operation, the IDF constantly coordinated with the UN and other international organizations operating in the Gaza Strip. Coordination included the movement of 500 vehicles and convoys and the transfer of a continuous supply of food and humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. Many other problems were efficiently solved in real time. However, despite the thorough coordination, the investigation showed that during certain incidents there were failures in coordination.
In one instance, an IDF force fired upon a UN truck, which did not bear UN markings, on a journey that had not been coordinated ahead of time with the IDF. The investigation showed that closer coordination of the movement of UN vehicles is required, with an emphasis on precise routes and schedules.
The investigation concluded that the IDF did not, at any time, fire with the deliberate intention to hit a UN vehicle or facility in any of the 13 incidents investigated. In one instance the IDF targeted a group of people who were present in a UN-affiliated school late at night, at a time in which there were no classes taking place in the school, following specific intelligence and relying on the suspicion that led to the conclusion that they were participating in terrorist operations. In another incident, IDF forces attacked a UN vehicle which was being used for terrorist operations.
The IDF made sure not to hit facilities and vehicles associated with the UN and other international organizations and operated with extreme caution in order not to harm more than 1800 sensitive facilities located in the Gaza Strip. The IDF also coordinated almost 500 different vehicle movements during the fighting. However, as noted, in a very small number of incidents facilities and vehicles were unintentionally hit.
In relation to the scale of fighting and the threat posed by Hamas, the damage caused to UN facilities and vehicles was relatively limited as a result of the various precautionary measures taken by the IDF. The small number of incidents where damage was unfortunately caused occurred first and foremost as a result of Hamas' doctrine. Hamas as well as other terrorist organizations chose to fight under the cover of sensitive humanitarian facilities.
It should be noted that in one incident where it was found that a UN vehicle was fired upon in a breach of the IDF’s rules of engagement, the soldier in question was court-martialed.
The IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, was presented with the conclusions of the investigation. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi also emphasized the importance of avoiding harm to UN and other international facilities. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi emphasized how important it is that IDF forces on all levels are familiarized with the locations of sensitive facilities within their assigned combat zone. He ordered that the regulations regarding safety-distances from sensitive facilities be highlighted, specifically with regard to the use of artillery. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi also ordered that steps be taken to improve the coordination between the IDF and UN organizations working in the field, in the areas where it was lacking.
It should be noted that the incidents which were investigated by the IDF were also examined by the UN Board of Inquiry appointed by the UN Secretary General for the investigation of damage caused to UN facilities in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead. Despite the fact that the investigation by the IDF was initiated prior to the decision by the Secretary General to set up a UN committee of investigation, Israel cooperated with the UN committee and presented it with the findings of its investigation.
Annex B:
Primary Conclusions:
Claims regarding incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles and crews
The investigation was conducted by Col. Erez Katz, and looked into claims that the IDF fired on or attacked medical crews, facilities, structures and vehicles. Some of these claims were described in a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court during the operation. During the investigation, additional claims were identified and the investigation was expanded to also include these incidents.
The investigation showed that the Hamas systematically used medical facilities, vehicles and uniforms as cover for terrorist operations. This included the extensive use of ambulances to transport terror operatives and weaponry; the use of ambulances to “evacuate” terrorists from the battlefield and the use of hospitals and medical infrastructure as headquarters, situation-rooms, command centers, and hiding places.
For example, Ismail Haniyeh decided to place his central command center in one of the Shifa Hospital units, while the senior leaders (both military and political) stationed themselves in another unit. On the ground floor of the hospital's main building, an entire wing was closed off and was solely used by Hamas terror operatives. At the wing's entrance, terror operatives prevented entrance to all uninvolved civilians.
In other instances, Hamas terror operatives seized control sections of Al-Shafa Hospital. Hamas also took control of a Red Crescent medical clinic in Khan Yunis, converting it into a prisoner detention facility.
In testimony by an ambulance driver published in the Italian newspaper Corriere de la Serra the driver claimed that he was forced by Hamas to extract terror operatives from the fighting zone, with the knowledge that he could coordinate with the IDF to temporarily hold fire so that he could safely evacuate the wounded. Several instances were reported in which ambulances were witnessed carrying armed Hamas terror operatives alongside the medical crews.
This illegitimate and illegal use of medial facilities sometimes resulted in damage being caused to them.
After investigating the incidents it became clear that of the seven casualties reported during the incidents in question, five were Hamas operatives. In addition, it was determined that in some of the incidents in which medical vehicles were damaged, the vehicles were driven in a suspicious manner, without prior coordination with IDF forces and in some cases without being clearly marked (such as using flashing lights) . This caused, in some cases, the vehicle to be incorrectly identified, and aroused the suspicions of the forces that the vehicle might be used for a suicide attack.
In one example an IDF force sheltering in a structure in the Gaza Strip received a concrete warning that terrorist elements intend to execute an attack against the force. Following the warning, the force identified an ambulance driving speedily towards the structure, bypassing a roadblock. The force took a number of warning measures (including the firing of warning shots in the air) which failed to bring the ambulance to a halt. The ambulance continued to progress towards the structure and reached the threatening distance of 50 meters from the structure, at which point the force fire in towards it. Only then did the vehicle turn around and drive off in the other direction.
In a separate incident, an ambulance was identified driving towards a shelter occupied by IDF forces, late at night, without any prior coordination, clear markings or flashing lights, raising suspicion that it was a car bomb. The force fired warning shots into the air, followed by warning shots near the vehicle. When the vehicle was only 100 meters away from the force, constituting a serious threat to the force, the force opened fire on it. In this incident as well, only then did the vehicle halt, turn around and drive away in the other direction.
In two of the incidents investigated (which were both mentioned in the Supreme Court appeal), it turned out that members of the medical crew who were supposedly "hit" in the incident – are alive and well. With regards to other incidents, the investigation could not find any evidence that they took place (likewise, at the time of some of the alleged incidents the, IDF was not operating at the location in question).
The investigation looked into an incident in which a building containing a mother-and-child clinic was attacked by the IDF. It became clear that Hamas used the same building as a weapons storage facility. The attack was aimed against the weapons storage facility. The investigation further showed that the clinic was not signposted in a way that made it possible to identify that building contained a medical facility. Nevertheless, the investigation clarified that the residents of the building were given a warning prior to the attack. Given that the IDF was not aware that there was a clinic located there, there was no intention to hit it.
The investigation also showed that IDF forces at all levels were directed to take extra caution to avoid harming medical crews and facilities, and in many cases ceased to operate when there was a medical vehicle or medical staff present in their area of operation. The forces took extraordinary care, as obliged by international law and in some incidents even refrained from attacking “medical vehicles” even when it was clear that they were in fact being used by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the fighting. The investigation clearly showed that the forces were well aware of, and respected the special status given to medical crews, vehicles, structures and facilities. In addition, the orders relating to the use of force near medical vehicles were strengthened during the operation, making the IDF regulations stricter than those obliged by international law.
In addition, the investigation noted that the IDF operated a medical situation room in the Gaza District Coordination and Liaison, which coordinated the evacuation of bodies, the wounded and trapped civilians from the combat zone. During the operation, the medical situation room coordinated 150 different requests.
The IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, accepted the recommendations made by the Head of the investigation, stating that the awareness of the importance of preventing harm to medical crews, facilities and vehicles must be preserved. These issues should be practiced by all forces in "incidents and responses" drills. Finally, the Chief of the General Staff ordered an examination of the operation of the humanitarian corridor which was opened for the benefit of the local population during the fighting.
Towards the conclusion of the investigation, the IDF received additional claims relating to allegations of firing upon medical facilities and vehicles. These claims are currently being investigated.
Annex C:
Claims regarding incidents in which many uninvolved civilians were harmed
The investigation was conducted by Col. Tamir Yidai and looked into seven incidents in which it was claimed, civilians were harmed by the IDF. This is a highly sensitive matter, for any loss of human life is unfortunate. This is especially true for the IDF, an ethical army that emphasizes the values of human life and the purity of arms. The investigation reached the conclusion that that in all of the incidents which were examined, IDF forces did not intentionally attack civilians who were not involved in the fighting.
In circumstances where there existed the risk of unintentionally harming uninvolved civilians, the IDF took many measures to minimize this risk, including the use of precise intelligence and providing warnings prior to the attack.
During the incidents in question, IDF operations did cause harm to uninvolved civilians. However, the results of this investigation make it clear that this was not intentional, but the result of circumstances beyond the control of the forces or due to unexpected operational mistakes. A significant proportion of the incidents occurred as a result of Hamas' illegitimate use of its own civilians. The Hamas took cover amongst the civilian population and used civilians facilities and structures as part of its terrorist operation against Israel.
The incidents which were investigated:
· The attack on the house of senior Hamas operative Nazar Ri'an (January 4th, 2009) - The investigation showed that Ri'an's house was attacked due to its use by Hamas for storing large quantities of sophisticated weapons. Prior to the attack, the forces took a long series of measures to avoid harming uninvolved civilians (It must be stressed that Ri'an could have been considered a legitimate military target due to his central role in the planning and executing terror attacks, was not the target of the attack. The target was the weapons storage facility located in his home). These measures included a phone call notifying of the planned attack, the firing of preliminary warning shots using light weapons, waiting a sufficient period of time to allow the residents of the house to evacuate, and the identification of a group of people exiting the house. Only at that point, after all indications led to the conclusion that the building was empty, was the house targeted. It was later discovered that for unknown reasons, Ri'an and his family stayed in the building in spite of the many warnings and lengthy period of time allowed for their evacuation. Secondary explosions were clearly visible following the attack, proving that the building was used as for weapons storage.
· The attack on the house of Dr. Abu el Eish (January 17th, 2009) – The investigation showed that an IDF force identified suspicious figures on the third floor of the building, raising suspicions that the figures were observing IDF forces in order to direct sniper fire from another building. This was a method of action used by Hamas throughout the operation. Prior to firing at the snipers and the spotters, the regional commander took a series of measures to ensure that the suspicious figures were gunmen and that no civilians would be endangered by the attack. Accordingly, the commander waited 20 minutes before ordering the attack. Unfortunately, despite all the efforts made, four women who were in the same house as the spotters were hit.
It should be noted that Israeli security forces urged Dr. Abu el Eish to leave his house and the combat zone in the days prior to the incident, but he chose to remain in his house in spite of the clear risk.
· Truck apparently carrying oxygen tanks (December 29th, 2008) – the truck was targeted after the accumulation of information which indicated convincingly that it was carrying rockets between a known Hamas rocket manufacturing facility to a known rocket launching site. The attack was carried out near a known Hamas rocket manufacturing site and after a launch. It was only later discovered that the truck was carrying oxygen tanks (similar in appearance to Grad Missiles) and not rockets. The strike killed four Hamas operatives and four uninvolved civilians. It is important to note that the oxygen tanks being carried in the truck were likely to be used by Hamas for rocket manufacturing.
· The Al-Daia family residence in the Zeitoun neighborhood in the city of Gaza (January 6th, 2009) – the incident in question was a result of an operational error with unfortunate consequences. The investigation concluded that the IDF intended to attack a weapons storage facility that was located in the building next to the Al-Daia family residence. It appears that following an error, the structure that was planned to be attacked was the Al-Daia residence rather than the building containing the weapons. The house that was actually attacked (the Al-Daia residence) did receive a number of warnings beforehand, including the preliminary firing of ammunition which causes little damage and the use of the "Knock on the Roof" special warning method. However, due to the mistake in identifying the building, the warning phone call was received prior the attack by the residents of the building containing the weapons storage, not the Al-Daia residence. This may have been the reason that the Al Daia family did not leave the house before it was mistakenly hit it. This is a highly unfortunate event with severe consequences. It was ultimately caused by a professional mistake of the type that can take place during intensive fighting in a crowded environment against an enemy that uses civilians as cover for its operations.
In addition to the abovementioned incidents, the head of the investigation looked into two incidents in which it was claimed that attacks directed at mosques lead to the deaths of uninvolved civilians. With regard to the first incident, relating to a strike against the "Maqadme" mosque in Beit-Lehiya on January 3rd, 2009, it was discovered that as opposed to the claims, the mosque was not attacked at all. Furthermore, it was found that the supposed uninvolved civilians who were the casualties of the attack were in fact Hamas operatives killed while fighting against the IDF. The second incident, regarding a supposed strike that hit the "Rabat" mosque in Bet Lehiya on January 9th, 2009 – no testimony of any IDF forces operating in the area was found. The mosque is still standing unharmed.
In all of the incidents investigated, there were no breaches of international law, and in some of them it was clear that the actions of the IDF were in fact stricter than those demanded under international law. As in any combat situation, and specifically when fighting a terrorist organization that uses its own people as human shields, the investigation discovered isolated failures, some of which lead to the harming of civilians.
The IDF Chief of the General Staff determined that even in those unfortunate incidents in which the investigation showed that the IDF operated in a way that caused harm to uninvolved civilians, the harm was not intentional and was caused despite measures that were taken to prevent it. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi ordered that clear regulations and orders be made on the basis of the conclusions of the investigation.
It must be added that the IDF is currently looking into a series of additional claims that were made against it. Upon the completion of an initial inquiry into these events, it will be decided whether they will be further investigated, in accordance with the facts and IDF investigations policy.
Annex D:
The use of weaponry containing phosphorous components
This investigation, which was conducted by Col. Shai Alkalai, focused on the use of munitions containing phosphorous components in Operation Cast Lead throughout the duration of the operation.
The investigation found that IDF forces used two different types of munitions containing white phosphorous.
It was found that during the operation, a very limited amount of the first type was used by ground and naval forces. The munitions included mortar shells fired by ground forces (not artillery shells) and 76mm rounds fired from naval vessels. These munitions contained phosphorous as the active ingredient and are not intended to create smoke screens.
The use of such munitions is legal under international law subject to certain limitations derived from their incendiary capabilities. The investigation showed that use of these munitions was done so in accordance with these limitations – they were only fired at open areas and were used for marking and range-finding rather than in an anti-personnel capacity. In one single incident, in an open uninhabited area, ammunition containing phosphorous was used to uncover tunnel entrances.
Let it be reemphasized that no phosphorus munitions were used on built-up areas or for anti-personnel purposes.
As a precautionary measure, even though international law does not prohibit the use of such means, as of January 7th 2009, it was decided that in order to further minimize the risk to civilians from munitions containing phosphorous, the IDF would cease to use the munitions containing larger quantities of phosphorous (i.e. those not used for smoke screening). All IDF forces were directed to act accordingly.
The investigation discovered that phosphorous munitions which contained phosphorous intended for purposes other than smoke screening were used after January 7th 2009 on two occasions, by ground forces and the Israel Navy respectively, for marking purposes. These two exceptions were looked into during the investigation, which found that on both the incidents there was no breach of any of the rules of international law.
It must be stressed that the ammunition containing phosphorous used by the IDF is standard, legal and is used by other western militaries worldwide, including states who are signatories of the Third Protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The investigation showed that the use of white phosphorous made by the IDF was in accordance with Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law and more specifically, the obligations with regard to munitions with incendiary characteristics.
Most of the munitions containing phosphorus which were used during the operation were of a second type, and contained pieces of felt dipped in phosphorous in a manner that is not intended to cause injuries and which are non-incendiary, and are used exclusively to create smoke screens. Moreover, these are munitions which conform in full, with international law. In addition, the limitations under international law on the use of "incendiary munitions” do not apply to this type of munitions.
In this context is should be emphasized that the Third Protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which defines specific limitations on the use of “incendiary munitions”, clearly states that smoke obscurants are not considered "incendiary munitions". Israel is not a party to the Third Protocol, but it should be noted that even states that are a party to the Protocol make use of smoke shells which contain a small quantity of phosphorous for the purpose of smoke obscuration.
The use made by the IDF of obscurant smoke shells was for military requirements only (e.g. camouflaging armored forces from anti-tank squads deployed by Hamas in Gaza's urban areas). This use was in accordance with international law, while balancing between operational and humanitarian considerations. The use of smoke obscurants proved to be a very effective means and in many cases prevented the need to use explosive munitions whose impact would have been considerably more dangerous.
After having being presented with the conclusions of the investigation, the Chief of the General Staff emphasized the importance of a clear doctrine and commands on the issue of various munitions which contain phosphorous. In addition, Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi ordered that any use of phosphorous for purposes other than smoke obscuration be treated as exceptional.
Annex E:
Primary Conclusions:
Damage to infrastructure and destruction of buildings by ground forces
This investigation, carried out by Col. Adam Zusman, focused on issues relating to the infrastructure operations and the demolishing of structures by the IDF forces during the ground operations phase of Operation Cast Lead. During the investigation the commanders of the forces that participated in the operation were questioned in relation to the issues being investigated. In addition, the investigation gathering data from relevant institutions and examined the relevant military orders.
The investigation showed that Hamas based its main line of defense on civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip (i.e. buildings, infrastructure, agricultural lands etc.), and specifically on booby trapped structures (mostly residential), the digging of explosive tunnels and tunnels intended for the moving of people and weaponry. This created an above ground and underground deployment in the Gaza Strip's urban areas by Hamas. During the operation, IDF forces were forced not only to fight the gunmen themselves, but to also deal with the physical terrorist infrastructure prepared by the Hamas and other terrorist organizations in advance. As part of this challenge, the forces demolished structures that threatened the forces and had to be removed – houses which were used by the enemy; other structures used by the enemy for terrorist activity; structures that prevented the forces from moving from one area to another (given that many of the roads were booby trapped); structures that were used to protect Israeli soldiers; agricultural elements used as cover for enemy tunnels and infrastructure; and infrastructure next to the security fence used by Hamas for operations against IDF forces or for digging tunnels into Israeli territory.
IDF operations which were intended to demolish booby trapped or structures rigged with explosives (and other similar operations) successfully prevented the enemy from detonating these structures while IDF forces were in them, despite the enormous efforts made by Hamas and other terrorist organizations, who rigged a substantial number of buildings to explode in the areas where the IDF operated.
The investigation shows that in all the areas of operation, the decision to authorize the demolishing of houses was only made by high ranking officers. In addition, the destruction of buildings was only initiated after it was determined by the forces that they were vacant. As a result, as far as the investigation was able to determine, no uninvolved civilians were harmed during the demolition of infrastructure and buildings by IDF forces.
The investigation showed that in many cases, the preparations made by Hamas and other terrorist organizations were responsible for the significant damage caused to houses. This was due to the secondary explosions caused by the detonation of explosive devices or weaponry placed by Hamas within the structures. This was illustrated by an incident which was investigated, in which a building in one of Gaza's northern neighborhoods was fired upon, resulting in the unexpected detonation of a chain of explosive devices planted by Hamas, damaging many other buildings in the neighborhood.
The investigation showed that the orders and directions given with regard to damage to property during the operation, at all levels, emphasized that all demolition operations should be carried out in a manner which would minimize to the greatest extent possible the damage caused to any property not used by Hamas and other terror organizations in the fighting. During the investigation it was apparent that that this issue was not stressed sufficiently in the written plans for the operation. However, the investigation clearly showed that the forces in the field understood in which circumstances structures or infrastructure could be demolished as well as the limitations relating to demolitions.
The investigations did not identify any instances of intentional harm done to civilian infrastructure and with the exception of a single incident (which was immediately halted by the relevant Brigade Commander, and was dealt with using disciplinary measures) it didn't find any incidents in which structures or property were damaged as "punishment" or without an operational justification. In all of the areas in which the IDF operated, the level of damage to the infrastructure was proportional, and did not deviate from that which was required to fulfill the operational requirements.
Overall, the extent of damage caused to buildings was a direct result of the extensive use by Hamas of those same buildings for terrorist purposes and targeting IDF forces.
The IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi accepted the recommendation made by the head of the investigation to create clear regulations and orders with regard to the issue of demolition of infrastructure and structures as well as a clear combat doctrine. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi also accepted the recommendation that the combat doctrine should include a definition of relevant "incidents and responses" to be distributed amongst all combat forces. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi also accepted the recommendation to create a clear procedure of documentation and reporting for such operations. The conclusion that the extent of the demolished infrastructure and building was proportionate, in light of the operational requirements, was also approved by the IDF Chief of the General Staff.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama Launches His 'New Mideast'
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu Obama Launches His 'New Mideast'
U.S. President Barack Obama launched his personal Middle East initiative Tuesday by hosting Jordanian King Abdullah II, who separately met with Christian, Muslim and Reform Jewish leaders for support for a Palestinian Authority state. President Obama told King Abdullah that Israel and the PA “cannot talk forever” and demanded that both sides show “goodwill.” He specifically said that Netanyahu government leaders are “going to have to solidify their position."
While saying that both sides must show “gestures of good faith,” the president did not specify want he expected from the PA. He officially invited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for separate talks in the next few weeks.
Continuing another American attempt to create a "New Middle East," a term coined by former President Bill Clinton, he stated that both Israel and the PA “must step back from the abyss.” The president made it clear that the 18-year-long dispute will be his administration’s priority. The U.S. was instrumental in pressuring Israel to attend the Madrid Conference in 1991, which was the first diplomatic forum in which the PA and the Jewish state engaged each other.
Jordan was the first Arab country to be hosted by President Obama, who two weeks ago visited Turkey, where he stated, "The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.”
Before meeting with President Obama, King Abdullah conferred with Islamic Center of America leader Hassan Qaswini and National Council of Churches general secretary Michael Kinnamon.
Palestinian State: Deal-Breaker
Yoram Ettinger
(IsraelNN.com) The Palestinian issue was a deal-breaker during Israel-Egypt peace negotiation. In defiance of Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski - the "Palestine Firsters" - and in spite of Palestinian terrorist threats, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat introduced a Palestinian-bypass, thus concluding a peace accord. Their determination to overcome White House and Foggy Bottom preoccupation with the Palestinian issue as, supposedly, the root core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Middle East violence produced a peace treaty. It has lowered the prospect of an Arab-Israeli war, has decreased regional tension and has advanced US interests.
The Israel-Egypt precedent documents that the road to peace goes through Arab capitals and not through Ramallah or Gaza; that the Palestinian issue does not constitute the crown jewel of Arab politics; that the Palestinians do not possess veto power over Arab policy-making; that the Palestinian issue has not been the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict; and that the Palestinian issue has been employed by Middle Eastern radicals as fuel - and not as water - for the regional fire.
During the October 1998 Israel-Jordan peace ceremony, Jordan's top military command impressed upon their Israeli colleagues the need to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, since "it would constitute a death-sentence for the Hashemite regime." They expressed their disillusionment with Palestinian commitments, "which are signed in the morning and violated in the evening."
The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties have withstood Palestinian opposition and have prevailed, despite an ongoing Israeli war against Palestinian PLO and Hamas terrorism.
A dramatic departure from the roadmap of the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace treaties was taken in the 1993 Oslo Accords and their derivatives: the Hebron and Wye Accords; the Camp David II and Sharm El-Sheikh conferences; the "Disengagement"; the Zinni and Mitchell Plans; and the Quartet's Road Map toward a two-state solution. Never has a "peace process" yielded so much failure, hate education, terrorism and bloodshed and no success.
Oslo and its byproducts have subordinated Israel-Arab peace, Israel's national security and US vital interests to the resolution of the Palestinian issue. Switching focus from the Israel-Arab track to the Israel-Palestinian track, and irrespective of Western and Israeli good intentions, the Oslo Accords and their offspring have played into the hands of Middle Eastern rogue regimes and terrorists.
The "Palestine First" approach has produced dozens of initiatives, conferences, summits, agreements and ceasefire episodes, which have yielded a series of short-lived illusions of peace and a false sense of security. The agreements have been promptly and systematically violated and crashed - since 1993 - by an unprecedented wave of Palestinian hate education, which is the manufacturing line of generic terrorism and homicide bombing.
The "two-state solution" is based on a series of erroneous assumptions, ignoring documented precedents, and therefore constitutes an erroneous policy. "Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace" - while the PLO and Hamas have been engaged in a horrific civil war, while there has not been inter-Arab peace during the last 1,400 years, while there has not been inter-Arab compliance with most inter-Arab agreements during the last 1,400 years, while there has not been a single Arab democracy during the last 1,400 years? The "two-state solution" has exacerbated regional turbulence, has fueled terrorism, has promoted war and has reduced the prospects for peace, thus undermining the national security of both the US and Israel.
Finally, drafting demography to the cause of the two-state solution constitutes either a dramatic mistake or an outrageous act of misleading the public (please see my discussion of the demographic issue here).
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
(IsraelNN.com) The Palestinian issue was a deal-breaker during Israel-Egypt peace negotiation. In defiance of Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski - the "Palestine Firsters" - and in spite of Palestinian terrorist threats, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat introduced a Palestinian-bypass, thus concluding a peace accord. Their determination to overcome White House and Foggy Bottom preoccupation with the Palestinian issue as, supposedly, the root core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Middle East violence produced a peace treaty. It has lowered the prospect of an Arab-Israeli war, has decreased regional tension and has advanced US interests.
The Israel-Egypt precedent documents that the road to peace goes through Arab capitals and not through Ramallah or Gaza; that the Palestinian issue does not constitute the crown jewel of Arab politics; that the Palestinians do not possess veto power over Arab policy-making; that the Palestinian issue has not been the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict; and that the Palestinian issue has been employed by Middle Eastern radicals as fuel - and not as water - for the regional fire.
During the October 1998 Israel-Jordan peace ceremony, Jordan's top military command impressed upon their Israeli colleagues the need to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, since "it would constitute a death-sentence for the Hashemite regime." They expressed their disillusionment with Palestinian commitments, "which are signed in the morning and violated in the evening."
The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties have withstood Palestinian opposition and have prevailed, despite an ongoing Israeli war against Palestinian PLO and Hamas terrorism.
A dramatic departure from the roadmap of the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace treaties was taken in the 1993 Oslo Accords and their derivatives: the Hebron and Wye Accords; the Camp David II and Sharm El-Sheikh conferences; the "Disengagement"; the Zinni and Mitchell Plans; and the Quartet's Road Map toward a two-state solution. Never has a "peace process" yielded so much failure, hate education, terrorism and bloodshed and no success.
Oslo and its byproducts have subordinated Israel-Arab peace, Israel's national security and US vital interests to the resolution of the Palestinian issue. Switching focus from the Israel-Arab track to the Israel-Palestinian track, and irrespective of Western and Israeli good intentions, the Oslo Accords and their offspring have played into the hands of Middle Eastern rogue regimes and terrorists.
The "Palestine First" approach has produced dozens of initiatives, conferences, summits, agreements and ceasefire episodes, which have yielded a series of short-lived illusions of peace and a false sense of security. The agreements have been promptly and systematically violated and crashed - since 1993 - by an unprecedented wave of Palestinian hate education, which is the manufacturing line of generic terrorism and homicide bombing.
The "two-state solution" is based on a series of erroneous assumptions, ignoring documented precedents, and therefore constitutes an erroneous policy. "Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace" - while the PLO and Hamas have been engaged in a horrific civil war, while there has not been inter-Arab peace during the last 1,400 years, while there has not been inter-Arab compliance with most inter-Arab agreements during the last 1,400 years, while there has not been a single Arab democracy during the last 1,400 years? The "two-state solution" has exacerbated regional turbulence, has fueled terrorism, has promoted war and has reduced the prospects for peace, thus undermining the national security of both the US and Israel.
Finally, drafting demography to the cause of the two-state solution constitutes either a dramatic mistake or an outrageous act of misleading the public (please see my discussion of the demographic issue here).
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
Obama expects gestures from Israel, PA
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPost correspondent, washington , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged Israelis and Palestinians to take concrete steps toward peace, saying that "we can't talk forever," and that he expected to see progress on the ground in the coming months. "What we want to do is to step back from the abyss," he told reporters at a White House press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan. "It's going to require that we create some concrete steps that all parties can take that are evidence of that resolution. And the United States is going to deeply engage in this process to see if we can make progress."
Obama declined to detail what measures he had in mind, saying merely that "the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures."
But he did say that "at some point, steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground. And that will be something that we will expect to take place in the coming months and we will help hopefully to drive a process where each side is willing to build confidence."
Many Israeli observers have been concerned that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to freeze settlement growth, take down road blocks and even open the border with the Gaza Strip, despite the government's unwillingness to do so for political and security reasons.
Since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office, there have also been differences with the US over the prospect of reaching a settlement with the Palestinians, as the new prime minister has been reluctant to endorse a Palestinian state.
In keeping with recent statements by American officials, Obama said, "I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution. I have articulated that publicly and I will articulate that privately."
At the same time, he made an oblique reference to Netanyahu's difficult political position, in which his heavily right-wing coalition imposes constraints on how far he can go in reaching out to the Palestinians.
"The Israelis now have had a government for a few weeks and it was a very complicated process for them to put a coalition together," Obama said, adding that "more listening still needs to be done" by his envoy, George Mitchell.
Obama also noted that he expected to have meetings in the United States soon, when Netanyahu visits.
Abdullah was the first Middle East leader to be received by Obama, and the White House has invited Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to come for separate meetings over the coming weeks, spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
Abdullah welcomed Obama's involvement in the Middle East peace process and his support for the Arab peace plan.
He also praised his outreach to Arabs and Muslims.
"It has gone on extremely well and really begins, I believe, a new page of mutual respect and mutual understanding between cultures," he said.
Abdullah's visit came as a representative of a united Arab front seeking progress on the Arab-Israeli conflict, including a reaffirmation of the Arab League peace plan offering a comprehensive peace.
Obama spoke warmly of the plan following his meeting with Abdullah, noting, "We have gone out of our way to complement the efforts of those Arab states that were involved in formulating the Arab Peace Initiative as a very constructive start."
The meeting also touched on the economic crisis, the war in Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism and Iran.
Asked about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile words toward Israel at the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism in Geneva Monday, where he called the Jewish state a "most cruel and oppressive, racist regime," Obama strongly condemned his comments.
"I found many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad made, particularly those directed at Israel, to be appalling and objectionable," he said.
But he added that they wouldn't affect his policy of engagement toward Teheran, even as he suggested that Ahmadinejad's speech had set back Iran's cause.
"There's no doubt that the kind of rhetoric you saw from Ahmadinejad is not helpful. In fact, it is harmful - but not just with respect to the possibility of US-Iranian relations; I think it actually undermines Iranians' position in the world as a whole," Obama said. "But we are going to continue to take an approach that tough, direct diplomacy has to be pursued without taking a whole host of other options off the table."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710751747&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: Let us see now, Obama has been in office 90 days or so and says "We can't talk forever."-What "we " did he refer to? If he meant he is part of the "we" then you see the first "micro-wave" President and understand his arrogance. Pay attention world!
US President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged Israelis and Palestinians to take concrete steps toward peace, saying that "we can't talk forever," and that he expected to see progress on the ground in the coming months. "What we want to do is to step back from the abyss," he told reporters at a White House press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan. "It's going to require that we create some concrete steps that all parties can take that are evidence of that resolution. And the United States is going to deeply engage in this process to see if we can make progress."
Obama declined to detail what measures he had in mind, saying merely that "the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures."
But he did say that "at some point, steps have to be taken so that people can see progress on the ground. And that will be something that we will expect to take place in the coming months and we will help hopefully to drive a process where each side is willing to build confidence."
Many Israeli observers have been concerned that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to freeze settlement growth, take down road blocks and even open the border with the Gaza Strip, despite the government's unwillingness to do so for political and security reasons.
Since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office, there have also been differences with the US over the prospect of reaching a settlement with the Palestinians, as the new prime minister has been reluctant to endorse a Palestinian state.
In keeping with recent statements by American officials, Obama said, "I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution. I have articulated that publicly and I will articulate that privately."
At the same time, he made an oblique reference to Netanyahu's difficult political position, in which his heavily right-wing coalition imposes constraints on how far he can go in reaching out to the Palestinians.
"The Israelis now have had a government for a few weeks and it was a very complicated process for them to put a coalition together," Obama said, adding that "more listening still needs to be done" by his envoy, George Mitchell.
Obama also noted that he expected to have meetings in the United States soon, when Netanyahu visits.
Abdullah was the first Middle East leader to be received by Obama, and the White House has invited Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to come for separate meetings over the coming weeks, spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
Abdullah welcomed Obama's involvement in the Middle East peace process and his support for the Arab peace plan.
He also praised his outreach to Arabs and Muslims.
"It has gone on extremely well and really begins, I believe, a new page of mutual respect and mutual understanding between cultures," he said.
Abdullah's visit came as a representative of a united Arab front seeking progress on the Arab-Israeli conflict, including a reaffirmation of the Arab League peace plan offering a comprehensive peace.
Obama spoke warmly of the plan following his meeting with Abdullah, noting, "We have gone out of our way to complement the efforts of those Arab states that were involved in formulating the Arab Peace Initiative as a very constructive start."
The meeting also touched on the economic crisis, the war in Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism and Iran.
Asked about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile words toward Israel at the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism in Geneva Monday, where he called the Jewish state a "most cruel and oppressive, racist regime," Obama strongly condemned his comments.
"I found many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad made, particularly those directed at Israel, to be appalling and objectionable," he said.
But he added that they wouldn't affect his policy of engagement toward Teheran, even as he suggested that Ahmadinejad's speech had set back Iran's cause.
"There's no doubt that the kind of rhetoric you saw from Ahmadinejad is not helpful. In fact, it is harmful - but not just with respect to the possibility of US-Iranian relations; I think it actually undermines Iranians' position in the world as a whole," Obama said. "But we are going to continue to take an approach that tough, direct diplomacy has to be pursued without taking a whole host of other options off the table."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710751747&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: Let us see now, Obama has been in office 90 days or so and says "We can't talk forever."-What "we " did he refer to? If he meant he is part of the "we" then you see the first "micro-wave" President and understand his arrogance. Pay attention world!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
"Where to Begin?"
On Sunday, a group of former Partisans (essentially, guerilla fighters against the Nazis) visited an Israeli Air Force Base, where they met with pilots and saw a pair of jets take off in a drill.
One woman, with numbers tattooed on her arm, asked an officer if his pilots could reach Iran.
"They can reach anywhere," he told her. Another woman, in a wheel chair, said, "What I ask of you is to make sure there will not be another Holocaust."
~~~~~~~~~~
I now have a list of the nations who walked out on Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday in Geneva -- 23 EU nations and two others. They are listed at the bottom of this posting
I had indicated yesterday that they returned to continue participation. And, indeed, in the main they did, the French envoy, for example, claiming that dialogue is in and of itself valuable.
But the Czech Republic -- bravo! -- has left for good.
~~~~~~~~~~
Much is being made of the fact that Ahmadinejad made an adjustment in his talk in Farsi yesterday, cutting out a denial of the Holocaust that had been in the print version distributed by the Iranian government.
Are we supposed to be satisfied that instead he "just" said that we used the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression again Palestinians and that ours was the “most cruel and racist regime,” which must be "eradicated"?
Representatives of the Vatican are saying they were able to remain through the talk, since there was no Holocaust denial, this apparently being their only red line. (Our relationship with the Vatican leaves a good deal to be desired right now.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General of Durban 2, while labeling Ahmadinejad's remarks "totally objectionable," defended his right to make them.
"...everybody has a right to speak, and more especially a head of state. And that was his right."
I find this fascinating. For one of the issues of contention within the preparatory meetings of the conference was that of free speech. The Arab/Muslim states are attempting to muzzle criticism of radical Islam, calling such criticism unacceptable Islamophobia. Their position, essentially, is that it is wrong to make any connection between Jihad/terrorism and dedication of the Jihadists/terrorists to Islam, in whose name they act.
~~~~~~~~~~
As some of you reading this know, in response to the comment of one reader who told me things are even worse than what I described the other day with regard to Obama, I've been engaged in dialogue with a handful of people, seeking a broad and thoughtful picture of the situation.
Here, briefly, I summarize, acknowledging that the situation (or my perception of it) may well shift:
The biggest worry with regard to Obama is not what he'll do to Israel directly, but what he's doing to the US and generating in world dynamics. We here in Israel must learn to stand on our own feet and know when and how to say 'no.'
As would be expected, there is some difference of opinion regarding how effective Congress can and will be in blocking Obama, and there are different perspectives on the development of a grass roots protest movement -- a backlash, with the tea parties possibly the beginning.
At least one savvy and well-connected individual I communicated with believes that saner and wiser heads in the Democrat party rein in Obama from time to time -- convincing him, for example, not to attend Durban 2.
Another experienced activist made what I thought an astute observation: that "he is still so impressed with the way so much of the American public views him with adulation that he has the naive impression that he can win over our enemies, too, by the force of his personality!"
Obama's approval ratings are slowly dropping but, indeed, the majority of Americans are still for him, and seem to have no clue. They are not focused on the Middle East and are shockingly oblivious to the dangers of Iran.
Mainstream media are not telling the story. The major critique of Obama is coming from right-wing radio talk shows and Fox news (and right wing Internet sites and blogs) -- and what I wonder is if they are preaching to the choir.
One thing I had not mentioned before, and should, is the attempt by US Homefront Security to label right wing protesters as a dangerous threat to the country. This is a serious and worrisome business, suggesting a diminution of civil liberties.
~~~~~~~~~~
Part of what is troubling about Obama is not what he's already done (although there's plenty of that) but rather an intuitive feeling he generates in his critics regarding where he's coming from and what he's about. There is a recognition that traditional American values are being abandoned wholesale and that the nation is being led who-knows-where.
This is a function of a number of things, including whom Obama appoints, who his mentors and financial supporters have been, as well as his eagerness to go an "international" route and his aforementioned courting of the Muslim world. There is an unsettling arrogance about him that rings bells, and an authoritarian approach that is anti-democratic.
~~~~~~~~~~
Analyst Barry Rubin, in a recent piece, shared thought on some of these issues. While he is more sanguine than I, he makes some interesting points.
Obama's position on Iran presents dangers to Israel, says Rubin, as does an approach that "emboldens radical, terrorist, Islamist forces and demoralizes relatively moderate Arab regimes." But his position on Israel and the "two state solution" actually is not that different from that of his predecessors. Bush pushed Annapolis and Condoleezza was constantly pressuring us for concessions.
Obama, Rubin tells us, is inherently anti-Israel, but has learned that "he could insult large sections of the American people and abandon the most basic assumptions of American patriotism and get away with it. In contrast, he learned that it is politically costly to attack Israel."
Most significantly, according to Rubin -- and I've addressed this numerous times -- the Palestinians are not ready to make even the smallest concession or compromise in the interests of achieving that "two state solution." This makes Obama considerably less dangerous than he would be if the Palestinians cooperated. No matter what he wishes, he cannot achieve the impossible.
~~~~~~~~~~
There has been much said regarding PM Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, and whether he's back-tracked on this. (I don't think he has.)
He made a statement about this at the Cabinet meeting yesterday:
We don't know yet what the nature of a settlement we might offer to the Palestinians will be, as this is currently being formulated. We want them to rule over themselves except for powers that threaten our security and existence. [Note: He does not say we will give them a state.] However, one thing is clear:
"We insist that the Palestinians - in any diplomatic settlement with us - will recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people.
"...The entire international community demands that we recognize the principle of two states for two peoples and we are discovering that this is two states but not for two peoples but two states for one people, or two states for a people-and-a-half. That is to say there is no doubt that we are being asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the national state for the Palestinian people but...it is clear...that the Palestinians have no intention of recognizing the national state of the Jewish People. Of course, this is completely unacceptable.
"...we insist that they recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People. (Emphasis added)
"...We have never conditioned the start and existence of talks on advance agreement about this but neither can we see progress on a future settlement without their agreement to this condition. Therefore, not only have we
not backtracked from it, we stand behind it strongly and I think that in this regard, we reflect a very broad consensus, not only around this table but among the entire nation, a great part of the nation, and rightly so."
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43426
~~~~~~~~~~
Those who walked out on Ahmadinejad's talk:
Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden -- all EU nations, plus Morocco, and St. Kitts and Nevis (a federated two-island nation in the Caribbean).
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
One woman, with numbers tattooed on her arm, asked an officer if his pilots could reach Iran.
"They can reach anywhere," he told her. Another woman, in a wheel chair, said, "What I ask of you is to make sure there will not be another Holocaust."
~~~~~~~~~~
I now have a list of the nations who walked out on Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday in Geneva -- 23 EU nations and two others. They are listed at the bottom of this posting
I had indicated yesterday that they returned to continue participation. And, indeed, in the main they did, the French envoy, for example, claiming that dialogue is in and of itself valuable.
But the Czech Republic -- bravo! -- has left for good.
~~~~~~~~~~
Much is being made of the fact that Ahmadinejad made an adjustment in his talk in Farsi yesterday, cutting out a denial of the Holocaust that had been in the print version distributed by the Iranian government.
Are we supposed to be satisfied that instead he "just" said that we used the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression again Palestinians and that ours was the “most cruel and racist regime,” which must be "eradicated"?
Representatives of the Vatican are saying they were able to remain through the talk, since there was no Holocaust denial, this apparently being their only red line. (Our relationship with the Vatican leaves a good deal to be desired right now.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General of Durban 2, while labeling Ahmadinejad's remarks "totally objectionable," defended his right to make them.
"...everybody has a right to speak, and more especially a head of state. And that was his right."
I find this fascinating. For one of the issues of contention within the preparatory meetings of the conference was that of free speech. The Arab/Muslim states are attempting to muzzle criticism of radical Islam, calling such criticism unacceptable Islamophobia. Their position, essentially, is that it is wrong to make any connection between Jihad/terrorism and dedication of the Jihadists/terrorists to Islam, in whose name they act.
~~~~~~~~~~
As some of you reading this know, in response to the comment of one reader who told me things are even worse than what I described the other day with regard to Obama, I've been engaged in dialogue with a handful of people, seeking a broad and thoughtful picture of the situation.
Here, briefly, I summarize, acknowledging that the situation (or my perception of it) may well shift:
The biggest worry with regard to Obama is not what he'll do to Israel directly, but what he's doing to the US and generating in world dynamics. We here in Israel must learn to stand on our own feet and know when and how to say 'no.'
As would be expected, there is some difference of opinion regarding how effective Congress can and will be in blocking Obama, and there are different perspectives on the development of a grass roots protest movement -- a backlash, with the tea parties possibly the beginning.
At least one savvy and well-connected individual I communicated with believes that saner and wiser heads in the Democrat party rein in Obama from time to time -- convincing him, for example, not to attend Durban 2.
Another experienced activist made what I thought an astute observation: that "he is still so impressed with the way so much of the American public views him with adulation that he has the naive impression that he can win over our enemies, too, by the force of his personality!"
Obama's approval ratings are slowly dropping but, indeed, the majority of Americans are still for him, and seem to have no clue. They are not focused on the Middle East and are shockingly oblivious to the dangers of Iran.
Mainstream media are not telling the story. The major critique of Obama is coming from right-wing radio talk shows and Fox news (and right wing Internet sites and blogs) -- and what I wonder is if they are preaching to the choir.
One thing I had not mentioned before, and should, is the attempt by US Homefront Security to label right wing protesters as a dangerous threat to the country. This is a serious and worrisome business, suggesting a diminution of civil liberties.
~~~~~~~~~~
Part of what is troubling about Obama is not what he's already done (although there's plenty of that) but rather an intuitive feeling he generates in his critics regarding where he's coming from and what he's about. There is a recognition that traditional American values are being abandoned wholesale and that the nation is being led who-knows-where.
This is a function of a number of things, including whom Obama appoints, who his mentors and financial supporters have been, as well as his eagerness to go an "international" route and his aforementioned courting of the Muslim world. There is an unsettling arrogance about him that rings bells, and an authoritarian approach that is anti-democratic.
~~~~~~~~~~
Analyst Barry Rubin, in a recent piece, shared thought on some of these issues. While he is more sanguine than I, he makes some interesting points.
Obama's position on Iran presents dangers to Israel, says Rubin, as does an approach that "emboldens radical, terrorist, Islamist forces and demoralizes relatively moderate Arab regimes." But his position on Israel and the "two state solution" actually is not that different from that of his predecessors. Bush pushed Annapolis and Condoleezza was constantly pressuring us for concessions.
Obama, Rubin tells us, is inherently anti-Israel, but has learned that "he could insult large sections of the American people and abandon the most basic assumptions of American patriotism and get away with it. In contrast, he learned that it is politically costly to attack Israel."
Most significantly, according to Rubin -- and I've addressed this numerous times -- the Palestinians are not ready to make even the smallest concession or compromise in the interests of achieving that "two state solution." This makes Obama considerably less dangerous than he would be if the Palestinians cooperated. No matter what he wishes, he cannot achieve the impossible.
~~~~~~~~~~
There has been much said regarding PM Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, and whether he's back-tracked on this. (I don't think he has.)
He made a statement about this at the Cabinet meeting yesterday:
We don't know yet what the nature of a settlement we might offer to the Palestinians will be, as this is currently being formulated. We want them to rule over themselves except for powers that threaten our security and existence. [Note: He does not say we will give them a state.] However, one thing is clear:
"We insist that the Palestinians - in any diplomatic settlement with us - will recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people.
"...The entire international community demands that we recognize the principle of two states for two peoples and we are discovering that this is two states but not for two peoples but two states for one people, or two states for a people-and-a-half. That is to say there is no doubt that we are being asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the national state for the Palestinian people but...it is clear...that the Palestinians have no intention of recognizing the national state of the Jewish People. Of course, this is completely unacceptable.
"...we insist that they recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People. (Emphasis added)
"...We have never conditioned the start and existence of talks on advance agreement about this but neither can we see progress on a future settlement without their agreement to this condition. Therefore, not only have we
not backtracked from it, we stand behind it strongly and I think that in this regard, we reflect a very broad consensus, not only around this table but among the entire nation, a great part of the nation, and rightly so."
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43426
~~~~~~~~~~
Those who walked out on Ahmadinejad's talk:
Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden -- all EU nations, plus Morocco, and St. Kitts and Nevis (a federated two-island nation in the Caribbean).
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Sign in Kfar Akeb boasting of 'American gift' to Palestinian Authority
WND
JERUSALEM
– Sections of Jerusalem have essentially been forfeited on the ground to the Palestinian Authority, while Jews, including local landowners, are barred from
entering parts of Israel's capital, a WND investigation has found.
The probe further determined the U.S. has been aiding the Palestinians in
developing infrastructure in Jerusalem.
Also, it has emerged, the Israeli government has failed to stop Arabs from
illegally building thousands of housing projects on Jerusalem land purchased and
owned by a U.S. Jewish group for the express purpose of Jewish settlement,
culminating in an Arab majority in the neighborhoods.
The situation has been unfolding in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of
Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, which are close to the Jewish neighborhoods
of Neve Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev in Israel's capital. Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and
Samir Amis are located entirely within the Jerusalem municipality.
A tour of the three Jerusalem neighborhoods in question finds some surprising
developments. Official PA logos and placards abound, including one glaring red
street sign at the entrance to the neighborhoods warning Israelis to keep out.
Get Aaron Klein's classic book on Mideast radicals: "Schmoozing with
Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans
– to a Jew!"
Another official sign, this one in Kfar Akeb in Jerusalem, reads in English,
"Ramallah-Jerusalem Road. This project is a gift form (sic) the American people
to the Palestinian people in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and
PECDAR. 2007." The sign bears the emblems of the American and PA governments and
of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The displays were
not present during a previous WND tour of the neighborhoods in 2006.
Some local schools in the Jerusalem neighborhoods are officially run by the PA
– some in conjunction with the U.N. – with many teachers drawing PA salaries.
Civil disputes are usually settled not in Israeli courts but by the PA judicial
system, although at times Israeli courts are used depending on the matter.
U.N. school for Palestinians illegally built on Jewish property (WND photo)
Councils governed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization oversee
some municipal matters. USAID provides the PA funds for road and infrastructure
projects.
Israeli security officials said the local Jerusalem police rarely operate in
Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis; instead security has been turned over to
the Israel Defense Forces and Border Police, who work almost daily with PA
security forces. The PA police operate in the Jerusalem neighborhoods in
coordination with Israel.
Shmulik Ben Ruby, spokesman for the Jerusalem police, confirmed the
arrangement.
"If there are fights between some local families, sometimes we involve the PA
police to make peace between the families," he told WND. "Yes, the PA police can
operate in these neighborhoods in coordination with the IDF and Border Police."
Jews barred from sections of Jerusalem
In another recent development, Israeli Jews, including local property owners,
have been almost entirely barred from entering Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir
Amis, while Israeli Arabs can freely enter.
Aryeh King, a nationalist activist who holds the power of attorney to some Kfar
Akeb land owned by an Israeli Jew, told WND he was barred several times during
the past few months from entering the neighborhood to administer to the land,
upon which local Arabs illegally constructed apartments.
Police spokesman Ben Ruby explained this new arrangement is due to security
concerns.
"It's quite dangerous to be there alone, so if they don't have to be there it's
not allowed, because they might find themselves in danger if they go in," said
Ben Ruby.
In 2002, in response to the outbreak one year earlier of the Palestinian
intifada, or terrorist war against the Jewish state, the Israeli government
constructed its security barrier blocking off the West Bank from Jewish
population zones. The route of the fence also cut into northern and eastern
Jerusalem, incorporating=2
0Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis on the so-called
Palestinian side.
Israel recaptured northern and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and
the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six-Day War. The
Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About
244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total
population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.
Jews lived in Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis years before the
establishment of Israel in 1948, but they were violently expelled during deadly
Arab riots in 1929.
Jordan, together with other Arab countries, attacked Israel after its founding
in 1948 and administered the three Jerusalem neighborhoods as well as all of
eastern Jerusalem following an armistice agreement. In 1967, Jordan attacked
again and Israel liberated the entire city of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War.
During the period of Jordanian control, some new construction took place,
including in areas previously purchased by Jews.
The recent barring of Jews from northern Jerusalem sections seems to coincide
with an Israeli government decision the past year to allow the PA some presence
in Jerusalem.
Last June, WND exclusively reported Prime Minister Ehud Olmert allowed the PA
to hold an official meeting in Jerusalem to discuss dealing with expected
Palestinian sovereignty over key sections of the city. Dmitri Ziliani , a
spokesman for the Jerusalem section of PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party,
confirmed to WND the meeting was related to the activities and structure of
Fatah's local command in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
"We were covering the best ways to improve our performance on the street and
how we can be of service to the community," Ziliani said.
Ziliani said the regular PA meetings in Jerusalem are, in part, held in
anticipation of a future Palestinian state encompassing all of eastern
Jerusalem.
"Our political program as Fatah dictates there will be no Palestinian state if
these areas – all of east Jerusalem – are not included," Ziliani told WND.
According to Israeli law, the PA cannot officially meet in Jerusalem. The PA
previously maintained a de facto headquarters in Jerusalem, called Orient House,
but the building was closed down by Israel in 2001 following a series of suicide
bombings in Jerusalem. Israel said it had information indicating the House was
used to plan and fund terrorism.
Thousands of documents and copies of bank certificates and checks captured by
Israel from Orient House – including many documents obtained by WND – showed the
offices were used to finance terrorism, including direct payments to the Al Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades terror group
U.S. Jewish group to blame for 'division' of Jerusalem? Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned=20by a U.S. Jewish group that over
the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land,
resulting in the current Arab majority.
The Jewish National Fund, or JNF, purchased the land in the early 1920s using
Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement.
The JNF lands have been utilized for the illegal construction of dozens of Arab
apartment buildings, a refugee camp and a U.N. school.
A previous tour of Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb found dozens of Arab apartment
complexes, a Palestinian refugee camp and a U.N. school for Palestinians
constructed on the land.
According to officials in Israel's Housing Ministry, Arabs first constructed
facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to
the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of
Jerusalem.
Qalandiya, still owned by JNF, came under the management of the Israeli
government's Land Authority in the late 1960s.
Ministry officials say the bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya
occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment
complexes taking place in just the past two years.
Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the
illegal building, which continues today with at least one apartment complex in
Qalandiya under construction.
Land in another Jerusalem' neighborhood, Shoafa t, which has an estimated value
of $3 million, was also purchased by JNF in the early 1900s and fell under the
management of the Israel Land Authority about 40 years ago. Much of the illegal
Arab construction in Shoafat took place in the past 15 years, with some
apartment complexes built as late as 2004.
In Qalandiya and Shoafat, Israel's security fence cordons off the Arab sections
of the JNF lands from the rest of Jewish Jerusalem.
Internal JNF documents obtained by WND outline illegal Arab construction on the
Jewish-owned land. A December 2000 survey of Qalandiya summarized on JNF
stationery and signed by a JNF worker states, "In a lot of the plots I find
Arabs are living and building illegally and also working the JNF land without
permission."
The JNF survey goes on to document illegal construction of Arab apartment
complexes and the U.N. school under the property management of Israel's Land
Authority.
Group misleading donors?
In response to a previous WND exclusive report on the JNF's alleged
mismanagement of the properties, JNF CEO Russell Robinson sent statements to
concerned donors that the illegal construction occurred during periods the
Jerusalem land was occupied by Jordan.
1991 photo of Shoafat shows region entirely forest land
"During that time the Jordanian government oversaw all activities, including
the U.N. building. Under international law, this makes matters pe rtaining to the
land more complicated than what [WND describes]," states Robinson's letter.
But WND obtained aerial photos of the two JNF sites in question, Shoafat and
Qalandiya, which Robinson claimed were illegally built upon prior to 1967.
1967 aerial photo of Qalandiya region
A photo taken in 1991 of Shoafat shows the entire area was a forest – meaning
all illegal Arab construction took place after 1967 while the land was under
Jewish control.
An aerial photo taken in 1967 of the second site, Qalandiya, which is now a
large Arab town, finds construction of a U.N. building but few other sites,
indicating the vast majority of Arab construction – dozens of large apartment
complexes – occurred under JNF control. WND originally reported some of the
construction took place prior to 1967, but the bulk of the building occurred the
past few years, under Jewish management.
JERUSALEM
– Sections of Jerusalem have essentially been forfeited on the ground to the Palestinian Authority, while Jews, including local landowners, are barred from
entering parts of Israel's capital, a WND investigation has found.
The probe further determined the U.S. has been aiding the Palestinians in
developing infrastructure in Jerusalem.
Also, it has emerged, the Israeli government has failed to stop Arabs from
illegally building thousands of housing projects on Jerusalem land purchased and
owned by a U.S. Jewish group for the express purpose of Jewish settlement,
culminating in an Arab majority in the neighborhoods.
The situation has been unfolding in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of
Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, which are close to the Jewish neighborhoods
of Neve Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev in Israel's capital. Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and
Samir Amis are located entirely within the Jerusalem municipality.
A tour of the three Jerusalem neighborhoods in question finds some surprising
developments. Official PA logos and placards abound, including one glaring red
street sign at the entrance to the neighborhoods warning Israelis to keep out.
Get Aaron Klein's classic book on Mideast radicals: "Schmoozing with
Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans
– to a Jew!"
Another official sign, this one in Kfar Akeb in Jerusalem, reads in English,
"Ramallah-Jerusalem Road. This project is a gift form (sic) the American people
to the Palestinian people in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and
PECDAR. 2007." The sign bears the emblems of the American and PA governments and
of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The displays were
not present during a previous WND tour of the neighborhoods in 2006.
Some local schools in the Jerusalem neighborhoods are officially run by the PA
– some in conjunction with the U.N. – with many teachers drawing PA salaries.
Civil disputes are usually settled not in Israeli courts but by the PA judicial
system, although at times Israeli courts are used depending on the matter.
U.N. school for Palestinians illegally built on Jewish property (WND photo)
Councils governed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization oversee
some municipal matters. USAID provides the PA funds for road and infrastructure
projects.
Israeli security officials said the local Jerusalem police rarely operate in
Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis; instead security has been turned over to
the Israel Defense Forces and Border Police, who work almost daily with PA
security forces. The PA police operate in the Jerusalem neighborhoods in
coordination with Israel.
Shmulik Ben Ruby, spokesman for the Jerusalem police, confirmed the
arrangement.
"If there are fights between some local families, sometimes we involve the PA
police to make peace between the families," he told WND. "Yes, the PA police can
operate in these neighborhoods in coordination with the IDF and Border Police."
Jews barred from sections of Jerusalem
In another recent development, Israeli Jews, including local property owners,
have been almost entirely barred from entering Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir
Amis, while Israeli Arabs can freely enter.
Aryeh King, a nationalist activist who holds the power of attorney to some Kfar
Akeb land owned by an Israeli Jew, told WND he was barred several times during
the past few months from entering the neighborhood to administer to the land,
upon which local Arabs illegally constructed apartments.
Police spokesman Ben Ruby explained this new arrangement is due to security
concerns.
"It's quite dangerous to be there alone, so if they don't have to be there it's
not allowed, because they might find themselves in danger if they go in," said
Ben Ruby.
In 2002, in response to the outbreak one year earlier of the Palestinian
intifada, or terrorist war against the Jewish state, the Israeli government
constructed its security barrier blocking off the West Bank from Jewish
population zones. The route of the fence also cut into northern and eastern
Jerusalem, incorporating=2
0Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis on the so-called
Palestinian side.
Israel recaptured northern and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and
the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six-Day War. The
Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About
244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total
population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.
Jews lived in Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis years before the
establishment of Israel in 1948, but they were violently expelled during deadly
Arab riots in 1929.
Jordan, together with other Arab countries, attacked Israel after its founding
in 1948 and administered the three Jerusalem neighborhoods as well as all of
eastern Jerusalem following an armistice agreement. In 1967, Jordan attacked
again and Israel liberated the entire city of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War.
During the period of Jordanian control, some new construction took place,
including in areas previously purchased by Jews.
The recent barring of Jews from northern Jerusalem sections seems to coincide
with an Israeli government decision the past year to allow the PA some presence
in Jerusalem.
Last June, WND exclusively reported Prime Minister Ehud Olmert allowed the PA
to hold an official meeting in Jerusalem to discuss dealing with expected
Palestinian sovereignty over key sections of the city. Dmitri Ziliani , a
spokesman for the Jerusalem section of PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party,
confirmed to WND the meeting was related to the activities and structure of
Fatah's local command in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
"We were covering the best ways to improve our performance on the street and
how we can be of service to the community," Ziliani said.
Ziliani said the regular PA meetings in Jerusalem are, in part, held in
anticipation of a future Palestinian state encompassing all of eastern
Jerusalem.
"Our political program as Fatah dictates there will be no Palestinian state if
these areas – all of east Jerusalem – are not included," Ziliani told WND.
According to Israeli law, the PA cannot officially meet in Jerusalem. The PA
previously maintained a de facto headquarters in Jerusalem, called Orient House,
but the building was closed down by Israel in 2001 following a series of suicide
bombings in Jerusalem. Israel said it had information indicating the House was
used to plan and fund terrorism.
Thousands of documents and copies of bank certificates and checks captured by
Israel from Orient House – including many documents obtained by WND – showed the
offices were used to finance terrorism, including direct payments to the Al Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades terror group
U.S. Jewish group to blame for 'division' of Jerusalem? Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned=20by a U.S. Jewish group that over
the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land,
resulting in the current Arab majority.
The Jewish National Fund, or JNF, purchased the land in the early 1920s using
Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement.
The JNF lands have been utilized for the illegal construction of dozens of Arab
apartment buildings, a refugee camp and a U.N. school.
A previous tour of Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb found dozens of Arab apartment
complexes, a Palestinian refugee camp and a U.N. school for Palestinians
constructed on the land.
According to officials in Israel's Housing Ministry, Arabs first constructed
facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to
the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of
Jerusalem.
Qalandiya, still owned by JNF, came under the management of the Israeli
government's Land Authority in the late 1960s.
Ministry officials say the bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya
occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment
complexes taking place in just the past two years.
Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the
illegal building, which continues today with at least one apartment complex in
Qalandiya under construction.
Land in another Jerusalem' neighborhood, Shoafa t, which has an estimated value
of $3 million, was also purchased by JNF in the early 1900s and fell under the
management of the Israel Land Authority about 40 years ago. Much of the illegal
Arab construction in Shoafat took place in the past 15 years, with some
apartment complexes built as late as 2004.
In Qalandiya and Shoafat, Israel's security fence cordons off the Arab sections
of the JNF lands from the rest of Jewish Jerusalem.
Internal JNF documents obtained by WND outline illegal Arab construction on the
Jewish-owned land. A December 2000 survey of Qalandiya summarized on JNF
stationery and signed by a JNF worker states, "In a lot of the plots I find
Arabs are living and building illegally and also working the JNF land without
permission."
The JNF survey goes on to document illegal construction of Arab apartment
complexes and the U.N. school under the property management of Israel's Land
Authority.
Group misleading donors?
In response to a previous WND exclusive report on the JNF's alleged
mismanagement of the properties, JNF CEO Russell Robinson sent statements to
concerned donors that the illegal construction occurred during periods the
Jerusalem land was occupied by Jordan.
1991 photo of Shoafat shows region entirely forest land
"During that time the Jordanian government oversaw all activities, including
the U.N. building. Under international law, this makes matters pe rtaining to the
land more complicated than what [WND describes]," states Robinson's letter.
But WND obtained aerial photos of the two JNF sites in question, Shoafat and
Qalandiya, which Robinson claimed were illegally built upon prior to 1967.
1967 aerial photo of Qalandiya region
A photo taken in 1991 of Shoafat shows the entire area was a forest – meaning
all illegal Arab construction took place after 1967 while the land was under
Jewish control.
An aerial photo taken in 1967 of the second site, Qalandiya, which is now a
large Arab town, finds construction of a U.N. building but few other sites,
indicating the vast majority of Arab construction – dozens of large apartment
complexes – occurred under JNF control. WND originally reported some of the
construction took place prior to 1967, but the bulk of the building occurred the
past few years, under Jewish management.
The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror
MICHAEL HAYDEN and MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
The Obama administration has declassified and released opinions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) given in 2005 and earlier that analyze the legality of interrogation techniques authorized for use by the CIA. Those techniques were applied only when expressly permitted by the director, and are described in these opinions in detail, along with their limits and the safeguards applied to them.The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.
Proponents of the release have argued that the techniques have been abandoned and thus there is no point in keeping them secret any longer; that they were in any event ineffective; that their disclosure was somehow legally compelled; and that they cost us more in the coin of world opinion than they were worth. None of these claims survives scrutiny.
Soon after he was sworn in, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that suspended use of these techniques and confined not only the military but all U.S. agencies -- including the CIA -- to the interrogation limits set in the Army Field Manual. This suspension was accompanied by a commitment to further study the interrogation program, and government personnel were cautioned that they could no longer rely on earlier opinions of the OLC.
Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.
Moreover, disclosure of the details of the program pre-empts the study of the president's task force and assures that the suspension imposed by the president's executive order is effectively permanent. There would be little point in the president authorizing measures whose nature and precise limits have already been disclosed in detail to those whose resolve we hope to overcome. This conflicts with the sworn promise of the current director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who testified in aid of securing Senate confirmation that if he thought he needed additional authority to conduct interrogation to get necessary information, he would seek it from the president. By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack.
Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.
Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don't work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal. This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who organized the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, among others, and who has boasted of having beheaded Daniel Pearl, could eventually have felt pressed to provide a false confession. But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation.
The terrorist Abu Zubaydah (sometimes derided as a low-level operative of questionable reliability, but who was in fact close to KSM and other senior al Qaeda leaders) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S. Details of these successes, and the methods used to obtain them, were disclosed repeatedly in more than 30 congressional briefings and hearings beginning in 2002, and open to all members of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress beginning in September 2006. Any protestation of ignorance of those details, particularly by members of those committees, is pretense.
The techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA. Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations.
Nor was there any legal reason compelling such disclosure. To be sure, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of these and other memoranda, but the government until now has successfully resisted such lawsuits. Even when the government disclosed that three members of al Qaeda had been subjected to waterboarding but that the technique was no longer part of the CIA interrogation program, the court sustained the government's argument that the precise details of how it was done, including limits and safeguards, could remain classified against the possibility that some future president may authorize its use. Therefore, notwithstanding the suggestion that disclosure was somehow legally compelled, there was no legal impediment to the Justice Department making the same argument even with respect to any techniques that remained in the CIA program until last January.
There is something of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the claim that our interrogation of some unlawful combatants beyond the limits set in the Army Field Manual has disgraced us before the world. Such a claim often conflates interrogation with the sadism engaged in by some soldiers at Abu Ghraib, an incident that had nothing whatever to do with intelligence gathering. The limits of the Army Field Manual are entirely appropriate for young soldiers, for the conditions in which they operate, for the detainees they routinely question, and for the kinds of tactically relevant information they pursue. Those limits are not appropriate, however, for more experienced people in controlled circumstances with high-value detainees. Indeed, the Army Field Manual was created with awareness that there was an alternative protocol for high-value detainees.
In addition, there were those who believed that the U.S. deserved what it got on Sept. 11, 2001. Such people, and many who purport to speak for world opinion, were resourceful both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks in crafting reasons to resent America's role as a superpower. Recall also that the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the punctiliously correct trials of defendants in connection with those incidents, and the bombing of the USS Cole took place long before the advent of CIA interrogations, the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or the many other purported grievances asserted over the past eight years.
The effect of this disclosure on the morale and effectiveness of many in the intelligence community is not hard to predict. Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable. Any president who wants to apply such techniques without such a binding and durable legal opinion had better be prepared to apply them himself.
Beyond that, anyone in government who seeks an opinion from the OLC as to the propriety of any action, or who authors an opinion for the OLC, is on notice henceforth that such a request for advice, and the advice itself, is now more likely than before to be subject after the fact to public and partisan criticism. It is hard to see how that will promote candor either from those who should be encouraged to ask for advice before they act, or from those who must give it.
In his book "The Terror Presidency," Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon we are now experiencing, and its inevitable effect, referring to what he calls "cycles of timidity and aggression" that have weakened intelligence gathering in the past. Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity. He calls these cycles "a terrible problem for our national security." Indeed they are, and the precipitous release of these OLC opinions simply makes the problem worse.
Gen. Hayden was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009. Mr. Mukasey was attorney general of the United States from 2007 to 2009.
The Obama administration has declassified and released opinions of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) given in 2005 and earlier that analyze the legality of interrogation techniques authorized for use by the CIA. Those techniques were applied only when expressly permitted by the director, and are described in these opinions in detail, along with their limits and the safeguards applied to them.The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.
Proponents of the release have argued that the techniques have been abandoned and thus there is no point in keeping them secret any longer; that they were in any event ineffective; that their disclosure was somehow legally compelled; and that they cost us more in the coin of world opinion than they were worth. None of these claims survives scrutiny.
Soon after he was sworn in, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that suspended use of these techniques and confined not only the military but all U.S. agencies -- including the CIA -- to the interrogation limits set in the Army Field Manual. This suspension was accompanied by a commitment to further study the interrogation program, and government personnel were cautioned that they could no longer rely on earlier opinions of the OLC.
Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.
Moreover, disclosure of the details of the program pre-empts the study of the president's task force and assures that the suspension imposed by the president's executive order is effectively permanent. There would be little point in the president authorizing measures whose nature and precise limits have already been disclosed in detail to those whose resolve we hope to overcome. This conflicts with the sworn promise of the current director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who testified in aid of securing Senate confirmation that if he thought he needed additional authority to conduct interrogation to get necessary information, he would seek it from the president. By allowing this disclosure, President Obama has tied not only his own hands but also the hands of any future administration faced with the prospect of attack.
Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.
Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don't work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal. This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who organized the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, among others, and who has boasted of having beheaded Daniel Pearl, could eventually have felt pressed to provide a false confession. But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation.
The terrorist Abu Zubaydah (sometimes derided as a low-level operative of questionable reliability, but who was in fact close to KSM and other senior al Qaeda leaders) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S. Details of these successes, and the methods used to obtain them, were disclosed repeatedly in more than 30 congressional briefings and hearings beginning in 2002, and open to all members of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress beginning in September 2006. Any protestation of ignorance of those details, particularly by members of those committees, is pretense.
The techniques themselves were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA. Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations.
Nor was there any legal reason compelling such disclosure. To be sure, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of these and other memoranda, but the government until now has successfully resisted such lawsuits. Even when the government disclosed that three members of al Qaeda had been subjected to waterboarding but that the technique was no longer part of the CIA interrogation program, the court sustained the government's argument that the precise details of how it was done, including limits and safeguards, could remain classified against the possibility that some future president may authorize its use. Therefore, notwithstanding the suggestion that disclosure was somehow legally compelled, there was no legal impediment to the Justice Department making the same argument even with respect to any techniques that remained in the CIA program until last January.
There is something of the self-fulfilling prophecy in the claim that our interrogation of some unlawful combatants beyond the limits set in the Army Field Manual has disgraced us before the world. Such a claim often conflates interrogation with the sadism engaged in by some soldiers at Abu Ghraib, an incident that had nothing whatever to do with intelligence gathering. The limits of the Army Field Manual are entirely appropriate for young soldiers, for the conditions in which they operate, for the detainees they routinely question, and for the kinds of tactically relevant information they pursue. Those limits are not appropriate, however, for more experienced people in controlled circumstances with high-value detainees. Indeed, the Army Field Manual was created with awareness that there was an alternative protocol for high-value detainees.
In addition, there were those who believed that the U.S. deserved what it got on Sept. 11, 2001. Such people, and many who purport to speak for world opinion, were resourceful both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks in crafting reasons to resent America's role as a superpower. Recall also that the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the punctiliously correct trials of defendants in connection with those incidents, and the bombing of the USS Cole took place long before the advent of CIA interrogations, the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or the many other purported grievances asserted over the past eight years.
The effect of this disclosure on the morale and effectiveness of many in the intelligence community is not hard to predict. Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable. Any president who wants to apply such techniques without such a binding and durable legal opinion had better be prepared to apply them himself.
Beyond that, anyone in government who seeks an opinion from the OLC as to the propriety of any action, or who authors an opinion for the OLC, is on notice henceforth that such a request for advice, and the advice itself, is now more likely than before to be subject after the fact to public and partisan criticism. It is hard to see how that will promote candor either from those who should be encouraged to ask for advice before they act, or from those who must give it.
In his book "The Terror Presidency," Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon we are now experiencing, and its inevitable effect, referring to what he calls "cycles of timidity and aggression" that have weakened intelligence gathering in the past. Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity. He calls these cycles "a terrible problem for our national security." Indeed they are, and the precipitous release of these OLC opinions simply makes the problem worse.
Gen. Hayden was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009. Mr. Mukasey was attorney general of the United States from 2007 to 2009.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Study: Iran to Attack US, Israel
Malkah Fleisher Study: Iran to Attack US, Israel
Just two days after US President Barack Hussein Obama shared a controversial and landmark handshake with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has released a study analyzing the flowering alliance between the increasingly anti-Western Latin America and the virulently anti-Israel Iran. The study was conducted at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC), a non-governmental organization dedicated to Israeli intelligence and terrorism issues.
According to the study, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is using anti-Western Hugo Chavez as a springboard into several Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, where he intends to establish a religious, terrorist, political and economic foothold in South America. Iran has already made major inroads in its relationship with Venezuela and Bolivia, largely based on shared anti-American sentiments.
Iran will utilize this developing relationship to challenge the United States, parts of Asia, and Africa, said the study.
The Islamic Republic will also leverage petrodollars and Muslim operatives positioned throughout key Latin American countries to implement a radical anti-Western agenda, fight America's anti-nuclear policy, and to slash international economic sanctions according to the IICC.
In addition, the report warns that Iran may launch anti-American and anti-Israel terror attacks through intelligence and terror networks in South American countries.
Ahmadinejad, who hosted a "World Without Zionism" conference in 2005, promoting his goal to "wipe Israel off the map", has already succeeded in wounding Israeli diplomatic relations in the region, with Israel's diplomatic core being forced out of Chavez's Venezuela and Bolivia during the anti-terror Operation Cast Lead in January 2009.
Khomeini-inspired Shi'ite Islamic and Iranian revolutionary propaganda is being exported by Iran into non-Muslim and Muslim communities in Latin America, in large part through its terror proxy, Hizbullah, which is raising funds for operation by uniting with South American drug and crime cartels.
The IICC report cites several U.S. intelligence and military officials expressing concern over rising Iranian activity in Latin America, and increasing numbers of converts in the region to Islam.
Chavez and Obama exchanged a warm greeting on Friday, and again on Saturday, at which time Chavez presented Obama with a book on American and European imperialism in South America.
Chavez, who said being in Iran's capital city of Tehran made him feel "like arriving at one's own home", told reporters he shared a good moment with Obama, who he called "intelligent." The Venezuelan dictator once referred to former US President George W. Bush as "the devil" at a meeting of the United Nations.
Venezuela and Israel enjoyed a strong relationship in the past, with Venezuela voting in favor of Jewish statehood at the United Nations on November 27, 1947.
EU decides on Durban II
'Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn't believe in,' says US president of decision to shun UN racism summit. Germany, Sweden also pull out. Swiss president, meanwhile, has dinner with Durban keynote speaker, Iranian President Ahmadinejad
News agencies
Israel News
The United Nations opens its first global racism conference in eight years on Monday with the US and at least five other countries boycotting the event out of concern that Islamic countries will demand that in denounce Israel and ban criticism of Islam. The administration of President Barack Obama announced Saturday that it would boycott "with regret" the weeklong meeting in Geneva, which already is experiencing much of the bickering and political infighting that marred the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa.
The Netherlands and Germany declared their boycott Sunday, while Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy already have said they would not attend.
"I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe," Obama said in Trinidad on Sunday after attending the Summit of the Americas.
But he said the language of the UN's draft declaration "raised a whole set of objectionable provisions" and risked a reprise Durban, "which became a session through which folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive."
"We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that's not something we can sign up for," Obama said.
"Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn't believe in."
UN: Shocked by US decision
Some European countries are still deciding whether to attend the UN conference.
Germany's government says it was concerned the venue could be "abused as a platform for other interests." German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Sunday that he made the decision after consulting with other European Union nations, and he urged those attending the conference to "stand up for the effective fight against racism and ethnic discrimination."
Britain said it will send diplomats, despite concerns the meeting could become a forum for Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic attacks.
At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI said the conference is needed to eliminate racial intolerance around the world.
A British Foreign Office spokesman said Britain doesn't want to see countries such as Iran debating about whether the Holocaust occurred.
The pullout of Germany would be significant as it has played a leading role in UN anti-racism efforts as a result of its troubled historical legacy. In recent meetings, it has expressed dismay about some governments' attempts to downplay the significance of the Holocaust.'
"I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States' decision not to attend," said UN human rights chief Navi Pillay, who is hosting the conference. She conceded some countries were focusing solely on one or two issues to the detriment of the fight against intolerance, but said it is essential that the issue of racism be tackled globally.
The major sticking points regarding the proposed final UN declaration are its implied criticism of Israel and an attempt by Muslim governments to ban all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.
A number of historical dates coincide with the conference, which is supposed to examine the various manifestations of racism, intolerance, discrimination and xenophobia around the world.
Tuesday marks this year's day for Holocaust Remembrance, while Monday's opening of the conference falls on the birthday of Nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler.
Iranian, Swiss presidents meet
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is slated to speak on the first day. He and Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz met on Sunday to discuss diplomatic issues including an eight-year jail sentence for a US-Iranian journalist convicted in Iran of spying.
The meeting focused mainly on "questions related to collaboration in the energy and economic sectors",the Swiss government said in a statement after they met at a Geneva hotel.
Switzerland has been representing US interests in Iran since 1980, because Washington has no direct diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic.
"Within the scope of this mandate undertaken by Switzerland as a protecting power, various unresolved cases of consular protection were discussed, including the sentencing of the American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi," the Swiss statement read. A spokeswoman declined to offer more details.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon expressed dismay about the Swiss-Iranian meeting, which he said "only harms and undermines the dignity of the one setting up the meeting".
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report
thanks YNET News
Sunday, April 19, 2009
"Deluded and Dangerous"
America has lost her way, and I sit here in Israel aghast at what I'm seeing. From the beginning of his candidacy it was clear that Obama was going to be bad news. But I confess that I never imagined quite how bad it would be. I never imagined that a turn-around -- from what America had been to what it now is -- was possible so quickly. The president of the United States grovels before tyrants and makes it possible for enemies of the free world to garner strength. He speaks without dignity as an American and courts Muslims who wish the Western world ill.
Incrementally, I've been writing about this -- about the demeaning bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example; the diminishing of requirements placed on Iran if there are to be face-to-face negotiations, so that the US is now to the left (!) of Europe; the patent foolishness of speaking of "moderate" Taliban with whom the US soldiers might connect. It goes on and on.
Not only would Obama diminish US stature in the world, he would reduce America's defensive capability, as he is in favor of cutting the US nuclear arsenal and reducing the American missile defense system. Could it possibly be that he imagines that US enemies, facing a kinder, gentler America, would opt to follow suit?
Can it possibly be that the US electorate will continue to sit still for this? According to commentator Caroline Glick, ultimately there will be a turn-around and the issue is one of preventing damage until that happens.
~~~~~~~~~~
From the perspective here, there are serious concerns about US positions that are not in Israel's best interest. That goes for pressure for a "two-state solution" and efforts to discourage or block Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. (There are many analysts who link the two issues.)
The ability of the Netanyahu government to stand strong right now -- and to make the best possible decisions for Israel -- is incredibly important.
~~~~~~~~~~
Today PM Netanyahu held the first of what will be a series of policy review forums on Israeli-Palestinian issues, in order to formulate policy before he meets with President Obama in a month. In attendance were Defense Minister Barak, Foreign Minister Lieberman, Uzi Arad – head of the National Security Council and the prime minister's national security advisor, and Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Security-Diplomatic Bureau.
What made news from that meeting was that Barak was pushing for an development of an Israeli peace plan based on the Arab "Peace Initiative" that would lead to a Palestinian state, but that would meet all Israeli demands for security and recognition as a Jewish state.
To put matters baldly, I don't know what the hell this man is talking about. For it is an impossibility to fashion a "peace plan" that meets legitimate Israeli demands and is also based on the Arab initiative -- which is a plan for Israeli destruction.
But -- even though I don't know what Netanyahu and the others said in response to this suggestion, and I am mindful that this is the press take on matters -- I begin to feel unease in the pit of my stomach.
~~~~~~~~~~
In response to a Netanyahu demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state, has come a resounding -- and not unexpected -- refusal to do so. Azzam al-Ahmed, a confidant of Abbas and senior Fatah official, declared yesterday that "We reject Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This demand illustrates the racist nature of its government..."
The Palestinians come out swinging every time, and expect the world to swallow their statements. But it behooves me to point out that the sanctimonious charges made here are from a representative of a political entity that wants to establish a state, based on Islam, that is totally Judenrein. Exactly who is racist?
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu has clarified his position on the matter. Despite press claims to the contrary, he says, he never refused to talk to the Palestinians before they recognize us as a Jewish state, rather, what he says is that any progress in talks will be dependent upon this. This felt to me like a back-tracking, but I checked it and indeed he seems to be telling it straight.
The simple fact of the matter is that our prime minister is enduring incredible pressures. He is trying to walk a path that is in Israel's best interest without being so "in your face" that he incurs unnecessary international hostility.
What I implore Israelis reading this to do, then, is to contact Netanyahu, praise him for his positions, and let him know that the nation is behind him Please, also encourage others in Israel to do the same.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:
Telephone: 02-640-8456 Fax: 02-649-6659 E-mail: bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il
~~~~~~~~~~
And I urge all US citizens reading this to contact elected representatives there.
Those who should be contacted:
Howard Berman (D-CA 28th), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
E-mail restricted to constituents at http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/
Congressman Berman is a straight-talking man.
Ileana Ros-Lehtenin (FL 18th), Ranking Republican on House Foreign Affairs Committee
Phone: 202-225-3931 Fax: 202-225-5620
Unfortunately, her website is down as I write this and I cannot access e-mail contact information. You might try to secure this at: http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/
Ileana is one of the best friends we have in the House. She gets it and should hear that we appreciate her.
John Kerry (D-MA), Chair, Foreign Relations Committee
Phone: (202) 224-2742 Fax: (202) 224-8525
E-mail: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Let us say that Senator Kerry is not one of Israel's better friends.
Richard Lugar (IN), Ranking Republican on Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Phone: (202) 224-4814 Fax: (202) 228-0360
E-mail: http://lugar.senate.gov/contact/
Neither is Senator Lugar where we might hope he would be.
Your own Congressperson, found at: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Your own Senator, found at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The message is simple (please, stated in your own words as possible). Do not allow pressure to be placed on Israel with regard to a two-state solution. Such a solution is not even viable as there is no one partner with which Israel can negotiate, and the current situation represents a threat to Israeli security. What is more, Israel must be supported in her right to self-defense with regard to Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
One of the priorities listed by Likud as the new government was being formed was education. And we now have the first good news on that front. Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar has appointed Dr. Shimshon Shoshani to be Director-General of the Ministry. Shoshani has just announced a new program that will require all elementary and high school students in the country to visit Jerusalem and learn about the capital.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Durban 2 Forum begins in Geneva tomorrow. Along with Israel, Canada, the US, Italy, and now Australia and Holland, have decided not to participate. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, saying that this is a "hypocrisy forum," has called on more states to refuse to attend. "The fact that a racist like Ahmadinejad is the main speaker proves the true aim and nature of the conference."
According to YNet, it appears Germany may not attend, and other EU nations may stay away as well.
Over the last two days NGOs have been gearing up with anti-Israel activities preliminary to the main Forum. Yesterday, the Israel Review Conference, a coalition of anti-Israel NGOs, met. Today the global Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel held workshops.
Included was discussion of a European resistance movement, based on the concept "We are all Hezbollah, we are all Hamas. The world stopped Nazism, the world stopped Apartheid, we will stop Zionism."
This gives you an idea of precisely how obscene and hateful -- and terrorist-embracing -- this gathering is. Maybe some nations still considering their options will get the message.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Incrementally, I've been writing about this -- about the demeaning bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example; the diminishing of requirements placed on Iran if there are to be face-to-face negotiations, so that the US is now to the left (!) of Europe; the patent foolishness of speaking of "moderate" Taliban with whom the US soldiers might connect. It goes on and on.
Not only would Obama diminish US stature in the world, he would reduce America's defensive capability, as he is in favor of cutting the US nuclear arsenal and reducing the American missile defense system. Could it possibly be that he imagines that US enemies, facing a kinder, gentler America, would opt to follow suit?
Can it possibly be that the US electorate will continue to sit still for this? According to commentator Caroline Glick, ultimately there will be a turn-around and the issue is one of preventing damage until that happens.
~~~~~~~~~~
From the perspective here, there are serious concerns about US positions that are not in Israel's best interest. That goes for pressure for a "two-state solution" and efforts to discourage or block Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. (There are many analysts who link the two issues.)
The ability of the Netanyahu government to stand strong right now -- and to make the best possible decisions for Israel -- is incredibly important.
~~~~~~~~~~
Today PM Netanyahu held the first of what will be a series of policy review forums on Israeli-Palestinian issues, in order to formulate policy before he meets with President Obama in a month. In attendance were Defense Minister Barak, Foreign Minister Lieberman, Uzi Arad – head of the National Security Council and the prime minister's national security advisor, and Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Security-Diplomatic Bureau.
What made news from that meeting was that Barak was pushing for an development of an Israeli peace plan based on the Arab "Peace Initiative" that would lead to a Palestinian state, but that would meet all Israeli demands for security and recognition as a Jewish state.
To put matters baldly, I don't know what the hell this man is talking about. For it is an impossibility to fashion a "peace plan" that meets legitimate Israeli demands and is also based on the Arab initiative -- which is a plan for Israeli destruction.
But -- even though I don't know what Netanyahu and the others said in response to this suggestion, and I am mindful that this is the press take on matters -- I begin to feel unease in the pit of my stomach.
~~~~~~~~~~
In response to a Netanyahu demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state, has come a resounding -- and not unexpected -- refusal to do so. Azzam al-Ahmed, a confidant of Abbas and senior Fatah official, declared yesterday that "We reject Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This demand illustrates the racist nature of its government..."
The Palestinians come out swinging every time, and expect the world to swallow their statements. But it behooves me to point out that the sanctimonious charges made here are from a representative of a political entity that wants to establish a state, based on Islam, that is totally Judenrein. Exactly who is racist?
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu has clarified his position on the matter. Despite press claims to the contrary, he says, he never refused to talk to the Palestinians before they recognize us as a Jewish state, rather, what he says is that any progress in talks will be dependent upon this. This felt to me like a back-tracking, but I checked it and indeed he seems to be telling it straight.
The simple fact of the matter is that our prime minister is enduring incredible pressures. He is trying to walk a path that is in Israel's best interest without being so "in your face" that he incurs unnecessary international hostility.
What I implore Israelis reading this to do, then, is to contact Netanyahu, praise him for his positions, and let him know that the nation is behind him Please, also encourage others in Israel to do the same.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:
Telephone: 02-640-8456 Fax: 02-649-6659 E-mail: bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il
~~~~~~~~~~
And I urge all US citizens reading this to contact elected representatives there.
Those who should be contacted:
Howard Berman (D-CA 28th), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
E-mail restricted to constituents at http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/
Congressman Berman is a straight-talking man.
Ileana Ros-Lehtenin (FL 18th), Ranking Republican on House Foreign Affairs Committee
Phone: 202-225-3931 Fax: 202-225-5620
Unfortunately, her website is down as I write this and I cannot access e-mail contact information. You might try to secure this at: http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/
Ileana is one of the best friends we have in the House. She gets it and should hear that we appreciate her.
John Kerry (D-MA), Chair, Foreign Relations Committee
Phone: (202) 224-2742 Fax: (202) 224-8525
E-mail: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Let us say that Senator Kerry is not one of Israel's better friends.
Richard Lugar (IN), Ranking Republican on Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Phone: (202) 224-4814 Fax: (202) 228-0360
E-mail: http://lugar.senate.gov/contact/
Neither is Senator Lugar where we might hope he would be.
Your own Congressperson, found at: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Your own Senator, found at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The message is simple (please, stated in your own words as possible). Do not allow pressure to be placed on Israel with regard to a two-state solution. Such a solution is not even viable as there is no one partner with which Israel can negotiate, and the current situation represents a threat to Israeli security. What is more, Israel must be supported in her right to self-defense with regard to Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
One of the priorities listed by Likud as the new government was being formed was education. And we now have the first good news on that front. Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar has appointed Dr. Shimshon Shoshani to be Director-General of the Ministry. Shoshani has just announced a new program that will require all elementary and high school students in the country to visit Jerusalem and learn about the capital.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Durban 2 Forum begins in Geneva tomorrow. Along with Israel, Canada, the US, Italy, and now Australia and Holland, have decided not to participate. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, saying that this is a "hypocrisy forum," has called on more states to refuse to attend. "The fact that a racist like Ahmadinejad is the main speaker proves the true aim and nature of the conference."
According to YNet, it appears Germany may not attend, and other EU nations may stay away as well.
Over the last two days NGOs have been gearing up with anti-Israel activities preliminary to the main Forum. Yesterday, the Israel Review Conference, a coalition of anti-Israel NGOs, met. Today the global Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel held workshops.
Included was discussion of a European resistance movement, based on the concept "We are all Hezbollah, we are all Hamas. The world stopped Nazism, the world stopped Apartheid, we will stop Zionism."
This gives you an idea of precisely how obscene and hateful -- and terrorist-embracing -- this gathering is. Maybe some nations still considering their options will get the message.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Sharansky May Head Jewish Agency
Gil Ronen Sharansky May Head Jewish Agency
A7 News
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will recommend to the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Agency that Nathan Sharansky be appointed to head the agency in place of Zev Bielski, who recently resigned and was elected a Kadima Knesset Member. Sharansky was a symbol of the struggle of Jews to make Aliyah (immigrate to Israel) from the Soviet Union and spent nine years in jail and in labor camps. He was freed following sustained pressure by his wife Avital, activists and governments worldwide.
He is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center.
After his dramatic arrival in Israel in 1986, he formed the Yisrael B'Aliyah party and served at different times as the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Minister of Housing and Construction, Interior Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade. His final position in the government was Minister without Portfolio responsible for Jerusalem and Jewish Diaspora affairs.
Sharansky resigned from the cabinet in April 2005 in protest over the planned withdrawal from Gaza and the uprooting of the Jewish communities there. He was re-elected to the Knesset in March 2006 as a member of the Likud Party and resigned later that year to form the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.
Sharansky is also Chairman of the Board of Beit Hatefutsot, the Jewish Diaspora museum.
The Jewish Agency was established in 1923 and served as a quasi-government of the Jewish population in Israel until independence was declared in 1948. Since then, it has focused on bringing Olim (Jewish immigrants) to Israel.
It often has been criticized as an anachronistic body that pays its directors salaries that are equivalent to those of government ministers.
IDF preparing for escalations
Following weekend which included attempted attack in settlement, hurling of Molotov cocktails, Arab running over police officers and Palestinian killed in anti-fence riot, defense officials conclude Israel must be ready for radical developments
Hanan Greenberg
Israel News
The defense establishment is monitoring the rise in the number of terror attacks taking place in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Jerusalem in the past few weeks, and security officials admit that although there is no common denominator or "guiding hand", this trend must be addressed with extra caution in order to be prepared for more radical developments. A defense official told Ynet on Saturday night, "We see many actions in the outline of 'popular terror', which are seemingly insignificant, but this situation may point to distress and frustration among the Palestinians, and we must ensure constantly that things do not develop in undesired directions."
According to the source, a distinction must be made between the hundreds of acts of terror which took place during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip and the reality after the Israeli offensive.
Data collected by the defense establishment show that 50 terror attacks of various types were counted in January. February saw 124 terror attacks take place, including the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip, while March saw 132 such incidents.
A slight increase in the number of incidents has been recorded compared to previous years, but the IDF is particularly examining the sequence.
In terms of the Gaza Strip, military officials say, Hamas is not acting very effectively these days, with one of the reasons for this being the results of Operation Cast Lead. However, the Palestinian organization is engaged in renewing its power, both in terms of activists and by stockpiling weapons.
'Terror activists waking up'
The Israel Defense Forces is cautiously examining the situation in the West Bank in light of the fact that the many incidents which took place there are unlinked to each other and are not executed following instructions issued by a "guiding hand".
"We are well familiar with the popular terror, from previous years as well. It mostly constitutes a high percentage of all the incidents in the entire region. Although these are not major incidents, we must constantly examine what motivates what is happening," the source explained.
The defense official added that "it's too early to reach conclusions on what has happened in recent weeks, but we can definitely say that terror activists are waking up, not necessarily the senior ones and not necessarily incidents which were planned in an organized manner."
IDF officials note that the current wave of attacks may end soon, but are also preparing for an escalation, particularly in light of the fact that such acts of terror are more difficult to thwart, as they are mostly the result of a spontaneous organization by assailants acting alone.
"Our main goal is to prevent escalation," added the source. "Any incident may lead to additional incidents, which may be followed by an escalation, and therefore were examining this situation with extra caution."
Thanks YNET News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)