March 1, 2012
February 27, 2012
WikiLeaks posts email claiming Israel struck Iran nuclear sites
Global intelligence firm Stratfor
circulates e-mail citing “confirmed Israeli intelligence agent” saying
that Israeli commandos and Kurdish forces destroyed most of Iran’s
nuclear infrastructure “weeks ago” • Email also says that attack on Iran
would be “so destructive that Iran will be unable to retaliate.”
Israeli commandos have already
targeted a number of underground nuclear facilities in Iran, claims an
email circulated within the U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor which
was posted on the whistleblower website WikiLeaks on Monday.
The email, leaked by an organization that aims
to publish private, secret and classified media from anonymous sources,
was dated Nov. 14, two days after one of Iran’s top commanders was
killed in a mysterious explosion in a missile base outside Tehran.
In the chain email, a Stratfor employee cited a
“confirmed Israeli intelligence agent” as saying that “the Israelis
already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground
weeks ago.”
When Stratfor employees asked the source to
clarify, he responded, according to the email, that “Israeli commandos
in collaboration with Kurd forces destroyed [a] few underground
facilities mainly used for the Iranian defense and nuclear research
projects.”
The source was further cited as saying that he
thought reports that Israel was preparing to launch an attack on Iran
were “a diversion.”
“The current ‘let’s bomb Iran’ campaign was
ordered by the EU leaders to divert the public attention from their
financial problems at home,” the email said.
The email also touched on a military
intervention in Syria. “Despite the reports in the media and against any
public knowledge, the promoter of a massive Israeli attack on Syria is
the axis India-Russia-Turkey-Saudi Arabia. The axis
U.S.-Germany-France-China is against such an attack [for] obvious
reasons,” the email said. “Not many people know that Russia is one of
Israel’s largest military partners and India is Israel’s largest
client.”
The information in the email runs counter to
recent warnings and actions by Russian officials in opposition to a
military intervention in Syria or an attack on Iran.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on
Monday defended a Russia-China veto of a U.N. resolution condemning
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown on protests, saying that
Moscow would not allow a reprise of what happened in Libya, where NATO
airstrikes helped Libya’s rebels oust Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.
“If a direct conflict between Iran and Israel
erupts, Russia and Saudi Arabia will gain the advantages of increasing
oil prices,” the Stratfor email said. “On the other hand, China and
Europe are expected to lose from an oil crisis as a result of a
conflict.”
The email also cited the Israeli intelligence
source as saying, “Based on Israeli plans, the attack on Iran will last
only 48 hours but will be so destructive that Iran will be unable to
retaliate or recover and the government will fall.”
This statement also seems to contradict a
recent New York Times report suggesting that U.S. defense officials
believe Israel would not be able to successfully strike Iran on its own.
Such a strike would require much more than the surgical strike Israel
carried out against Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and the 2007 attack on
a nuclear reactor in Syria that foreign media have attributed to
Israel, the New York Times said.
The Stratfor email added that “even if the
Israelis have the capabilities and are ready to attack by air, sea and
land, there is no need to attack the nuclear program at this point after
the commandos destroyed a significant part of it.”
Purim Costumes? (Raising Kvell)
Did you know that Purim
is already almost upon us? It starts on the evening of Wednesday, March
7, which means you’ve got just under two weeks to prepare. How does one
prepare for Purim, you ask?
Besides baking (or buying) hamantaschen and stocking up on liquor (because you are supposed to get drunk), the best way to get you and the kids into the Purim spirit is to prepare some costumes. You could go with a classic like Queen Esther or King Ahasueros, or go with your own thing. It’s Purim, anything goes! Check out these tips from Mayim Bialik on how to make your own Purim costume on the cheap, and then let us know:
What are your costume ideas for this Purim?
If you’ve got pictures from last year or a sneak peak of this year’s costume, send them to info@kveller.com and we’ll be sure to share with the Kveller community. Also be on the lookout for our 2nd annual Purim Costume Contest, all the more reason to take this whole costume thing very seriously!
Click to see more
Raising Kvell
Besides baking (or buying) hamantaschen and stocking up on liquor (because you are supposed to get drunk), the best way to get you and the kids into the Purim spirit is to prepare some costumes. You could go with a classic like Queen Esther or King Ahasueros, or go with your own thing. It’s Purim, anything goes! Check out these tips from Mayim Bialik on how to make your own Purim costume on the cheap, and then let us know:
What are your costume ideas for this Purim?
If you’ve got pictures from last year or a sneak peak of this year’s costume, send them to info@kveller.com and we’ll be sure to share with the Kveller community. Also be on the lookout for our 2nd annual Purim Costume Contest, all the more reason to take this whole costume thing very seriously!
Click to see more
Raising Kvell
February 26, 2012
What Happens After Israel Attacks Iran
Public Debate Can Prevent a Strategic Disaster
Ehud Eiran
Since its birth in 1948, Israel has launched numerous preemptive military strikes against its foes. In 1981 and 2007, it destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria, operations that did not lead to war. But now, Israelis are discussing the possibility of another preemptive attack -- against Iran -- that might result in a wider conflict.
The public debate in Israel about whether Jerusalem should order a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is surprisingly frank. Politicians and policymakers often discuss the merits of an attack in public; over the past year, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have sparred regularly and openly with former Mossad director Meir Dagan, the most prominent opponent of an Israeli operation. But much of the conversation is focused on whether Israel should strike, not on what might happen if it does -- in other words, the result on the “day after.”
Indeed, the analysis in Israel about the possible effects of a bombing campaign against Iran is limited to a small, professional elite, mostly in government and behind closed doors. This intimate circle that does consider scenarios of the “day after” concentrates almost exclusively on what an Iranian response, direct or through proxies, might look like. This is not surprising, given that Israel must worry first and foremost about the immediate military implications of an Iranian counterattack. But in doing so, Israeli policymakers are ignoring several of the potential longer-term aspects of a strike: the preparedness of Israel’s home front; the contours of an Israeli exit strategy; the impact on U.S.-Israel relations; the global diplomatic fallout; the stability of world energy markets; and the outcome within Iran itself. Should Israel fail to openly debate and account for these factors in advance of an attack, it may end up with a strategic debacle, even if it achieves its narrow military goals.
Israeli officials have thought extensively about how the first moves of a military conflict between Jerusalem and Tehran might play out. Ephraim Kam, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and deputy head of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), reflected the general consensus in the security establishment when he wrote in the Institute’s 2010 strategic assessment that Iran may respond in two possible ways to an Israeli operation: missile strikes on Israel, either directly or through allied organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas; or terror attacks, likely on Israeli targets abroad by Iranians or those proxy groups.
A direct Iranian response would involve a missile barrage from Iran onto Israeli territory, similar to the volley of rockets launched at Israel by Iraq during the first Gulf War. Only one Israeli citizen died then, and it seems that Israeli officials estimate that the damage of a similar Iranian strike would be greater, but still limited. This past November, Ehud Barak, referring to possible direct and proxy-based Iranian retaliation, said that “There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed -- and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead.” Barak’s calm also reflects Israel’s previous experience in preempting nuclear threats. Iraq did not respond when Israel destroyed its nuclear facility in 1981, disproving the doomsday predictions made by several Israeli experts prior to the strike, and Syria remained silent when Israel bombed its nascent reactor in 2007.
Israeli policymakers also do not seem particularly concerned about the prospect of a proxy response. They recognize that Hezbollah, as it did in 2006, can target Israel with a large number of rockets. Yet in an interview [2] with Ronen Bergman in The New York Times late last month, several Israeli experts argued that, regardless of a potential battle with Iran, the probability of an extended conflict with Hezbollah is already high. According to this logic, an attack on Iran would merely hasten the inevitable and might actually be easier to sustain before, not after, Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In addition, the new constraints now operating against Hezbollah -- the ongoing revolt in Syria chief among them -- might even limit the ability of the organization to harm Israel in a future conflict. Indeed, over the past several months, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has emphasized the group’s independence, saying on February 7 that “the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On [the day of an Israeli attack on Iran], we will sit, think, and decide what we will do.”
Meanwhile, the Israeli security establishment remains confident that Iran and its proxies will have trouble staging large-scale attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets abroad. Iran and Hezbollah have done so successfully in the past, most notably in response to Israel’s assassination, in 1992, of Hezbollah’s first secretary general (they are strongly suspected to have directed suicide bombings against the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, respectively). Israeli experts such as Kam agree that similar attacks could occur again in the wake of a strike on Iran, but argue that Tehran’s ability to respond is limited, likely due to its own handicaps and the restrictions posed by the post-9/11 global effort against terrorism. They gained support for their theory in mid-February, when, according to preliminary evidence, Iranian agents staged clumsy, botched attacks on Israeli targets in Georgia, India, and Thailand, injuring only one person in New Delhi and ending in humiliation in Bangkok, with one operative accidentally blowing off his legs.
Balanced against these threats is the expected benefit of an Israeli bombing campaign. According to Bergman, the Israeli defense community estimates that it can inflict a three-to-five-year delay on the Iranian nuclear project. But in its optimistic estimation about the success of an attack and about Israel’s ability to deter any response, it has failed to address, at least publicly, several crucial factors.
Although Israel has buttressed its home-front preparedness since its 2006 war with Hezbollah, it seems that it must do much more to ready the country for the rocket and missile attacks that it is expected to endure after a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. In a move that Israelis are now sardonically mocking, the former minister for home front defense, Matan Vilnai, left his post in February to become Israel’s ambassador to China. Before departing, Vilnai staged an angry outburst during a Knesset subcommittee meeting on February 7 over the lack of homeland preparedness, creating such a stir that the chairman had to end the meeting. Data presented at the session reveal the source of Vilnai’s frustration: a quarter of all Israelis do not have the most basic physical shelter needed to weather sustained rocket fire. Gas masks, a basic safety measure against a chemical attack, are available to only 60 percent of the population. And Vilnai’s former ministry lacks the bureaucratic muscle to win the resources and funds necessary to improve the situation. When the Netanyahu administration established the ministry early last year, the Israeli journalist Ofer Shelah called it “the big lie” because it “has no authority, no independent budget, and no ability to affect national priorities.”
The lack of readiness within Israel is all the more worrisome in light of the fact that Israeli analysts have spent little time discussing an exit strategy. An Israeli strike might follow a version of the previous attacks against the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs, which did not lead to conflict. Or, following the example of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it might spark a prolonged war. That operation, intended to remove the threat of armed Palestinian groups within two days, instead lasted 18 years, and contributed to the evolution of a new enemy in Hezbollah. Similarly, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon in 2006 had no clear exit strategy and lasted an unexpected 33 days, ending in confusion. Without serious public discussion about the possibility of a long war with Iran, Israel could enter an extended conflict unprepared to provide for and defend its citizens.
Israeli leaders have also failed to address in public the effect of an Israeli strike on U.S.-Israel relations. There is, of course, much conversation about whether the United States and Israel agree on the need for a strike, and, if so, when it should occur. So far, it seems, Jerusalem and Washington remain united in their opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, but are not yet in agreement about the time for military action; indeed, Israel has refused to commit to warning Washington in advance of an attack. Should Israel bomb Iran, it could easily provoke a crisis even if it did first warn the United States, especially if the Obama administration has to intervene. Once again, Israeli strategic thinking on the issue is likely informed by the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The attack infuriated the White House, which condemned it and, in punishment, suspended the delivery of some aircraft to Israel. Yet Washington retroactively approved of the strike and restored and even strengthened its relationship with Jerusalem -- a process that Netanyahu may expect to repeat itself. The prime minister might also be calculating that, in an election year, Obama would prefer to avoid openly criticizing Israel after an attack.
In addition, the broader diplomatic impact of an Israeli strike has also received little open attention. The former Mossad director Meir Dagan has raised the possibility that an attack might disrupt the existing international pressure on Iran, which is now beginning to place severe strain on the regime, and make it harder for that coalition to re-form in the event that Iran restarts its program. On the whole, however, Israeli leaders have not confronted that possibility, seeming to place faith in the efficacy of the three-to-five year delay that they hope a strike will achieve.
Also largely missing from Israel’s public analysis is the question of how a bombing campaign would affect worldwide energy markets. As a small country with a limited global perspective, Israel rarely needs to consider the international impact of its actions. The few Israeli analysts who have looked into this question have tended to underplay Iran’s intention, and capability, of acting on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Last month, for example, Amos Yadlin, the former director of Israel's military intelligence, and Yoel Guzansky, the former head of the Iran desk of Israel’s national security council, argued in a paper [3] for the INSS that it is highly doubtful that Iran would block the waterway.
That lack of perspective extends to what might happen inside of Iran after a strike. The public discourse about an attack rarely includes any consideration of whether a bombing campaign would galvanize Iranians to rally around the current leadership, ruining any chance of the regime change that might ultimately be necessary to end the threat of a nuclear program. Israel remains unwilling to estimate whether a strike would hurt or help the cause of the dissidents; its failure to predict the Arab Spring has humbled its proclivity for making such forecasts.
And so there is a gap in Israel's debate about Iran. Although Israeli experts focus heavily on the immediate implications of the “day after,” they neglect, with a few exceptions, the broader repercussions of an attack. Ironically, then, at the core of the elite, scientific calculations regarding an attack on Iran and its aftermath stands a certain kind of fatalism. It is based on the traditional trust that Israelis place in their leaders, and on their sense that open conversation might in fact harm Israeli interests. But the lack of public debate may, in the event of an attack, leave Israel handicapped both in its ability to strike and to defend itself.
In particular, a lack of open discussion leaves the Israel Defense Forces as the primary source of information and analysis on a strike. The IDF, given its narrow focus on the military aspects of an attack, may fail to fully consider its potential political and diplomatic impact. A more public debate might strengthen those in the bureaucracy who are urging the Israeli government to weigh those other factors as carefully as the military planning. The elevation of those voices could then prevent Israeli leaders from operating on the basis of limited information and faulty assumptions. If history is any guide, Israeli policymakers could benefit from such an expansion of the conversation. Israel’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982 began with a war plan that the public had not vetted. The operation ended after overwhelming pressure from civil society, a process that took nearly two decades. To avoid a similar strategic blunder in confronting Iran’s nuclear program -- either as a result of an attack, or a failure to do so -- Israel should give the public a stake in the debate about the “day after” much sooner than that.
EHUD EIRAN is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of International Relations at the University of Haifa in Israel and a faculty affiliate of the Middle East Negotiation Initiative at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. He is a former Israeli government official and a former research fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Ehud Eiran
Since its birth in 1948, Israel has launched numerous preemptive military strikes against its foes. In 1981 and 2007, it destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria, operations that did not lead to war. But now, Israelis are discussing the possibility of another preemptive attack -- against Iran -- that might result in a wider conflict.
The public debate in Israel about whether Jerusalem should order a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is surprisingly frank. Politicians and policymakers often discuss the merits of an attack in public; over the past year, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have sparred regularly and openly with former Mossad director Meir Dagan, the most prominent opponent of an Israeli operation. But much of the conversation is focused on whether Israel should strike, not on what might happen if it does -- in other words, the result on the “day after.”
Indeed, the analysis in Israel about the possible effects of a bombing campaign against Iran is limited to a small, professional elite, mostly in government and behind closed doors. This intimate circle that does consider scenarios of the “day after” concentrates almost exclusively on what an Iranian response, direct or through proxies, might look like. This is not surprising, given that Israel must worry first and foremost about the immediate military implications of an Iranian counterattack. But in doing so, Israeli policymakers are ignoring several of the potential longer-term aspects of a strike: the preparedness of Israel’s home front; the contours of an Israeli exit strategy; the impact on U.S.-Israel relations; the global diplomatic fallout; the stability of world energy markets; and the outcome within Iran itself. Should Israel fail to openly debate and account for these factors in advance of an attack, it may end up with a strategic debacle, even if it achieves its narrow military goals.
Israeli officials have thought extensively about how the first moves of a military conflict between Jerusalem and Tehran might play out. Ephraim Kam, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and deputy head of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), reflected the general consensus in the security establishment when he wrote in the Institute’s 2010 strategic assessment that Iran may respond in two possible ways to an Israeli operation: missile strikes on Israel, either directly or through allied organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas; or terror attacks, likely on Israeli targets abroad by Iranians or those proxy groups.
A direct Iranian response would involve a missile barrage from Iran onto Israeli territory, similar to the volley of rockets launched at Israel by Iraq during the first Gulf War. Only one Israeli citizen died then, and it seems that Israeli officials estimate that the damage of a similar Iranian strike would be greater, but still limited. This past November, Ehud Barak, referring to possible direct and proxy-based Iranian retaliation, said that “There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed -- and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead.” Barak’s calm also reflects Israel’s previous experience in preempting nuclear threats. Iraq did not respond when Israel destroyed its nuclear facility in 1981, disproving the doomsday predictions made by several Israeli experts prior to the strike, and Syria remained silent when Israel bombed its nascent reactor in 2007.
Israeli policymakers also do not seem particularly concerned about the prospect of a proxy response. They recognize that Hezbollah, as it did in 2006, can target Israel with a large number of rockets. Yet in an interview [2] with Ronen Bergman in The New York Times late last month, several Israeli experts argued that, regardless of a potential battle with Iran, the probability of an extended conflict with Hezbollah is already high. According to this logic, an attack on Iran would merely hasten the inevitable and might actually be easier to sustain before, not after, Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In addition, the new constraints now operating against Hezbollah -- the ongoing revolt in Syria chief among them -- might even limit the ability of the organization to harm Israel in a future conflict. Indeed, over the past several months, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has emphasized the group’s independence, saying on February 7 that “the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On [the day of an Israeli attack on Iran], we will sit, think, and decide what we will do.”
Meanwhile, the Israeli security establishment remains confident that Iran and its proxies will have trouble staging large-scale attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets abroad. Iran and Hezbollah have done so successfully in the past, most notably in response to Israel’s assassination, in 1992, of Hezbollah’s first secretary general (they are strongly suspected to have directed suicide bombings against the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, respectively). Israeli experts such as Kam agree that similar attacks could occur again in the wake of a strike on Iran, but argue that Tehran’s ability to respond is limited, likely due to its own handicaps and the restrictions posed by the post-9/11 global effort against terrorism. They gained support for their theory in mid-February, when, according to preliminary evidence, Iranian agents staged clumsy, botched attacks on Israeli targets in Georgia, India, and Thailand, injuring only one person in New Delhi and ending in humiliation in Bangkok, with one operative accidentally blowing off his legs.
Balanced against these threats is the expected benefit of an Israeli bombing campaign. According to Bergman, the Israeli defense community estimates that it can inflict a three-to-five-year delay on the Iranian nuclear project. But in its optimistic estimation about the success of an attack and about Israel’s ability to deter any response, it has failed to address, at least publicly, several crucial factors.
Although Israel has buttressed its home-front preparedness since its 2006 war with Hezbollah, it seems that it must do much more to ready the country for the rocket and missile attacks that it is expected to endure after a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. In a move that Israelis are now sardonically mocking, the former minister for home front defense, Matan Vilnai, left his post in February to become Israel’s ambassador to China. Before departing, Vilnai staged an angry outburst during a Knesset subcommittee meeting on February 7 over the lack of homeland preparedness, creating such a stir that the chairman had to end the meeting. Data presented at the session reveal the source of Vilnai’s frustration: a quarter of all Israelis do not have the most basic physical shelter needed to weather sustained rocket fire. Gas masks, a basic safety measure against a chemical attack, are available to only 60 percent of the population. And Vilnai’s former ministry lacks the bureaucratic muscle to win the resources and funds necessary to improve the situation. When the Netanyahu administration established the ministry early last year, the Israeli journalist Ofer Shelah called it “the big lie” because it “has no authority, no independent budget, and no ability to affect national priorities.”
The lack of readiness within Israel is all the more worrisome in light of the fact that Israeli analysts have spent little time discussing an exit strategy. An Israeli strike might follow a version of the previous attacks against the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs, which did not lead to conflict. Or, following the example of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it might spark a prolonged war. That operation, intended to remove the threat of armed Palestinian groups within two days, instead lasted 18 years, and contributed to the evolution of a new enemy in Hezbollah. Similarly, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon in 2006 had no clear exit strategy and lasted an unexpected 33 days, ending in confusion. Without serious public discussion about the possibility of a long war with Iran, Israel could enter an extended conflict unprepared to provide for and defend its citizens.
Israeli leaders have also failed to address in public the effect of an Israeli strike on U.S.-Israel relations. There is, of course, much conversation about whether the United States and Israel agree on the need for a strike, and, if so, when it should occur. So far, it seems, Jerusalem and Washington remain united in their opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, but are not yet in agreement about the time for military action; indeed, Israel has refused to commit to warning Washington in advance of an attack. Should Israel bomb Iran, it could easily provoke a crisis even if it did first warn the United States, especially if the Obama administration has to intervene. Once again, Israeli strategic thinking on the issue is likely informed by the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The attack infuriated the White House, which condemned it and, in punishment, suspended the delivery of some aircraft to Israel. Yet Washington retroactively approved of the strike and restored and even strengthened its relationship with Jerusalem -- a process that Netanyahu may expect to repeat itself. The prime minister might also be calculating that, in an election year, Obama would prefer to avoid openly criticizing Israel after an attack.
In addition, the broader diplomatic impact of an Israeli strike has also received little open attention. The former Mossad director Meir Dagan has raised the possibility that an attack might disrupt the existing international pressure on Iran, which is now beginning to place severe strain on the regime, and make it harder for that coalition to re-form in the event that Iran restarts its program. On the whole, however, Israeli leaders have not confronted that possibility, seeming to place faith in the efficacy of the three-to-five year delay that they hope a strike will achieve.
Also largely missing from Israel’s public analysis is the question of how a bombing campaign would affect worldwide energy markets. As a small country with a limited global perspective, Israel rarely needs to consider the international impact of its actions. The few Israeli analysts who have looked into this question have tended to underplay Iran’s intention, and capability, of acting on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Last month, for example, Amos Yadlin, the former director of Israel's military intelligence, and Yoel Guzansky, the former head of the Iran desk of Israel’s national security council, argued in a paper [3] for the INSS that it is highly doubtful that Iran would block the waterway.
That lack of perspective extends to what might happen inside of Iran after a strike. The public discourse about an attack rarely includes any consideration of whether a bombing campaign would galvanize Iranians to rally around the current leadership, ruining any chance of the regime change that might ultimately be necessary to end the threat of a nuclear program. Israel remains unwilling to estimate whether a strike would hurt or help the cause of the dissidents; its failure to predict the Arab Spring has humbled its proclivity for making such forecasts.
And so there is a gap in Israel's debate about Iran. Although Israeli experts focus heavily on the immediate implications of the “day after,” they neglect, with a few exceptions, the broader repercussions of an attack. Ironically, then, at the core of the elite, scientific calculations regarding an attack on Iran and its aftermath stands a certain kind of fatalism. It is based on the traditional trust that Israelis place in their leaders, and on their sense that open conversation might in fact harm Israeli interests. But the lack of public debate may, in the event of an attack, leave Israel handicapped both in its ability to strike and to defend itself.
In particular, a lack of open discussion leaves the Israel Defense Forces as the primary source of information and analysis on a strike. The IDF, given its narrow focus on the military aspects of an attack, may fail to fully consider its potential political and diplomatic impact. A more public debate might strengthen those in the bureaucracy who are urging the Israeli government to weigh those other factors as carefully as the military planning. The elevation of those voices could then prevent Israeli leaders from operating on the basis of limited information and faulty assumptions. If history is any guide, Israeli policymakers could benefit from such an expansion of the conversation. Israel’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982 began with a war plan that the public had not vetted. The operation ended after overwhelming pressure from civil society, a process that took nearly two decades. To avoid a similar strategic blunder in confronting Iran’s nuclear program -- either as a result of an attack, or a failure to do so -- Israel should give the public a stake in the debate about the “day after” much sooner than that.
EHUD EIRAN is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of International Relations at the University of Haifa in Israel and a faculty affiliate of the Middle East Negotiation Initiative at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. He is a former Israeli government official and a former research fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
February 25, 2012
Is Israel losing Temple Mount war?
Ynetnews
special: Why is Israeli government covering up Muslim effort to erase
any trace of Jewish history on Temple Mount? Archeology expert:
Excavations barbaric, a crime
Amir Shoan
Ira Pasternack couldn't believe his eyes. The tractor's huge blade was lifted high up and then brought down with great force, shattering the ancient floors on Temple Mount. The large clods of earth exposed by the work were cast aside by the mustachioed driver. Yet even an amateur archaeologist could spot the priceless remnants of Jewish, Christian and Muslim history being cast away.
A few hours earlier, on a steaming July day in 2007, Pasternack was sent to Temple Mount in his role as an Israel Antiquities Authority inspector, in order to supervise excavation works at the holy site, which in the past boasted two Jewish Temples. This marked the first such project at the site since the 1967 Six-Day War, as the area's sensitivity could prompt a political and diplomatic flare-up, thereby discouraging any such work.
According to specific Antiquities Authority instructions, any digging at the site was not allowed to exceed 60 centimeters (roughly two feet) and was not to be undertaken using mechanical equipment. However, reports drafted by Pasternnack and other sources, exposed for the first time by Yedioth Ahronoth Friday, indicate that workers largely ignored the instructions.
Much of the work was done using a tractor, continued during the night with the help of a flashlight, reached deeper than the permit allowed for. Moreover, the clods of earth removed from the site, which apparently comprised valuable remnants from the two Jewish Temples, were thrown away to an improvised garbage dump by members of the Waqf (the administrative Muslim body in charge of Temple Mount.)
Archeology expert Dr. Gabai Barkai, a world-renowned expert on Temple era excavations, was shocked by the reported work: "How could one dig up such sensitive area at night? How could one dig using mechanical equipment? Every such move is a crime. This is first-rate barbarity."
Mideastern affairs expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar says these acts are undertaken in the framework of an Arab practice known as "erasing the signs," aimed at eliminating the remnants of any civilization that preceded Islam.
Members of the State Comptroller's Office launched an investigation into the affair four years ago and drafted a report about it. However, the Knesset's State Control Committee decided to impose a gag order on the report for "security reasons."
However, Israeli intelligence officials told Yedioth Ahronoth there is no reason to prevent the report's publication. A senior Shin Bet Security Service official said following the Committee's session on the matter: "I'm ashamed. This is akin to cheapening national security to the lowest point possible."
Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan has also questioned the gag order. "There is no connection whatsoever between the failure to publish the report and national security. As far as I know, both Mossad and Shin Bet said there is no reason not to publish the report…apparently there are other considerations here, pertaining to political motives."
Conversations and interviews held with dozens of officials involved in drafting the State Comptroller's secret report indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is among the senior officials interested in shelving the document. Attorney Yisrael Caspi, who represents a group fighting the destruction on Temple Mount, says the PM is unequivocally responsible for the ongoing failure.
"One cannot underestimate the prime minister's responsibility for the state of affairs on Temple Mount; one can only refer to it as absolute responsibility," he said. "We know with certainty that nothing happens on Temple Mount without the advance knowledge and permission of the Prime Minister's Office and its head. All the criticism, all the negligence, all the failures, the entire cover-up and the helplessness in dealing with the matter - and therefore all the historical responsibility - are his."
Caspi says Netanyahu does not want to be reminded of the "historical scandal" of handing over the holy site known in Judaism as Solomon's Stables to the Waqf during the PM's first term in office, in the 1990s. "This turned Solomon's Stables, an amazing archeological site…into a place that Jews are not allowed to enter and into the largest mosque in the State of Israel," he says.
"These days too, three tractors are being used on Temple Mount," Caspi says. "Construction materials are also continuing to be brought into Temple Mount in violation of police pledges…Temple Mount looks today like a construction materials' warehouse…materials being brought in today will be used for illegal works tomorrow."
In another disturbing case, a ministerial committee approved the use of two giant generators on Temple Mount. "At times you're just stunned by the lack of wisdom in our conduct on Temple Mount," Attorney Caspi says. "You can't believe these things are happening. We are playing into our enemies' hands and shooting ourselves in the foot, because these generators can provide enough electricity for half the city. Why are they needed?"
"Now, there is a regular supply of electricity to Temple Mount. The State of Israel has no interest whatsoever in allowing the Muslims the possibility to riot and barricade themselves there."
Two years later, the Waqf inaugurated another mosque, this time below the al-Aqsa Mosque nearby. As part of the work, the Waqf cleared great amounts of soil from the area, built a new floor and installed new pipes, while drilling into ancient stones. Moreover, Waqf members painted over rare Jewish works at the site. All this work was undertaken without Israeli supervision, and one can only imagine the kinds of cultural, historical and religious treasures lost in the process.
In 1999, the Waqf went a step further and dug a hole in the Temple Mount plaza, arguing that it needed to build an emergency exit for the mosque. The work was done by tractors, with some 250 trucks removing about 12,000 tons of soil replete with archeological findings from the site. The soil was dumped at a city garbage dump and also near the Kidron River.
Archeologists Gabi Barkai and Zachi Zweig are now sifting through the latter pile as part of a special project, and have already discovered priceless findings attesting to the administrative work undertaken in the first Temple. The archeologists also found decorated utensils from the King Solomon era, as well as coins and clay dating back to the second Temple. Hundreds of artifacts have already been put on show for the benefit of the general public.
Dr.
Ayelet Mazar, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center's Jewish archeology
Institute, witnessed the digging at the Temple Mount plaza in 1999. "For
me as an archeologist it was a shock; it was like performing heart
surgery with a hoe. The Waqf's objective is to not only turn Temple
Mount into a holy compound, but to turn it into a 'built up Aqsa' for
Muslims only," she says. "One need not be an archeologist to understand
there's destruction here."
The Prime Minister's Office issued the following response to the story: "As opposed to the claims, the body that imposed a gag order on the (State Comptroller's) report was not the government, but rather, the sub-committee of the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affair's Committee…any argument alleging that the report is not being published as result of irrelevant reasons is baseless and disconnected from reality."
The Waqf issued the following response: "The Waqf's management was sorry to hear the claims made in the story pertaining to the Waqf's policy on Temple Mount. In the Waqf management's view, all these claims are baseless and constitute false charges. Our official policy is to preserve and respect any human heritage. You are invited to visit the mosque and see for yourself well preserved Roman, Byzantine and Crusader artifacts, among other items."
Amir Shoan
Ira Pasternack couldn't believe his eyes. The tractor's huge blade was lifted high up and then brought down with great force, shattering the ancient floors on Temple Mount. The large clods of earth exposed by the work were cast aside by the mustachioed driver. Yet even an amateur archaeologist could spot the priceless remnants of Jewish, Christian and Muslim history being cast away.
A few hours earlier, on a steaming July day in 2007, Pasternack was sent to Temple Mount in his role as an Israel Antiquities Authority inspector, in order to supervise excavation works at the holy site, which in the past boasted two Jewish Temples. This marked the first such project at the site since the 1967 Six-Day War, as the area's sensitivity could prompt a political and diplomatic flare-up, thereby discouraging any such work.
According to specific Antiquities Authority instructions, any digging at the site was not allowed to exceed 60 centimeters (roughly two feet) and was not to be undertaken using mechanical equipment. However, reports drafted by Pasternnack and other sources, exposed for the first time by Yedioth Ahronoth Friday, indicate that workers largely ignored the instructions.
Much of the work was done using a tractor, continued during the night with the help of a flashlight, reached deeper than the permit allowed for. Moreover, the clods of earth removed from the site, which apparently comprised valuable remnants from the two Jewish Temples, were thrown away to an improvised garbage dump by members of the Waqf (the administrative Muslim body in charge of Temple Mount.)
Archeology expert Dr. Gabai Barkai, a world-renowned expert on Temple era excavations, was shocked by the reported work: "How could one dig up such sensitive area at night? How could one dig using mechanical equipment? Every such move is a crime. This is first-rate barbarity."
Why is report secret?
An investigative report by Yedioth Ahronoth revealed the ongoing failure of various Israeli authorities in safeguarding the rare archeological treasures found on Temple Mount. Information elicited by the newspaper showed that the Waqf is consistently erasing any trace of Jewish history at the site.Mideastern affairs expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar says these acts are undertaken in the framework of an Arab practice known as "erasing the signs," aimed at eliminating the remnants of any civilization that preceded Islam.
Members of the State Comptroller's Office launched an investigation into the affair four years ago and drafted a report about it. However, the Knesset's State Control Committee decided to impose a gag order on the report for "security reasons."
However, Israeli intelligence officials told Yedioth Ahronoth there is no reason to prevent the report's publication. A senior Shin Bet Security Service official said following the Committee's session on the matter: "I'm ashamed. This is akin to cheapening national security to the lowest point possible."
Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan has also questioned the gag order. "There is no connection whatsoever between the failure to publish the report and national security. As far as I know, both Mossad and Shin Bet said there is no reason not to publish the report…apparently there are other considerations here, pertaining to political motives."
Conversations and interviews held with dozens of officials involved in drafting the State Comptroller's secret report indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is among the senior officials interested in shelving the document. Attorney Yisrael Caspi, who represents a group fighting the destruction on Temple Mount, says the PM is unequivocally responsible for the ongoing failure.
"One cannot underestimate the prime minister's responsibility for the state of affairs on Temple Mount; one can only refer to it as absolute responsibility," he said. "We know with certainty that nothing happens on Temple Mount without the advance knowledge and permission of the Prime Minister's Office and its head. All the criticism, all the negligence, all the failures, the entire cover-up and the helplessness in dealing with the matter - and therefore all the historical responsibility - are his."
Caspi says Netanyahu does not want to be reminded of the "historical scandal" of handing over the holy site known in Judaism as Solomon's Stables to the Waqf during the PM's first term in office, in the 1990s. "This turned Solomon's Stables, an amazing archeological site…into a place that Jews are not allowed to enter and into the largest mosque in the State of Israel," he says.
"These days too, three tractors are being used on Temple Mount," Caspi says. "Construction materials are also continuing to be brought into Temple Mount in violation of police pledges…Temple Mount looks today like a construction materials' warehouse…materials being brought in today will be used for illegal works tomorrow."
In another disturbing case, a ministerial committee approved the use of two giant generators on Temple Mount. "At times you're just stunned by the lack of wisdom in our conduct on Temple Mount," Attorney Caspi says. "You can't believe these things are happening. We are playing into our enemies' hands and shooting ourselves in the foot, because these generators can provide enough electricity for half the city. Why are they needed?"
"Now, there is a regular supply of electricity to Temple Mount. The State of Israel has no interest whatsoever in allowing the Muslims the possibility to riot and barricade themselves there."
Waqf denies 'false charges'
After the opening of the Western Wall Tunnels in 1996 and the subsequent riots at the site, then-PM Netanyahu agreed to unilateral Waqf steps in the area. The Waqf almost immediately embarked on excavation work, and two months after the tunnels were opened the Islamic body inaugurated the largest mosque in Israel at the large space associated with Solomon's stables, thereby banning Jews from entering the site.Two years later, the Waqf inaugurated another mosque, this time below the al-Aqsa Mosque nearby. As part of the work, the Waqf cleared great amounts of soil from the area, built a new floor and installed new pipes, while drilling into ancient stones. Moreover, Waqf members painted over rare Jewish works at the site. All this work was undertaken without Israeli supervision, and one can only imagine the kinds of cultural, historical and religious treasures lost in the process.
In 1999, the Waqf went a step further and dug a hole in the Temple Mount plaza, arguing that it needed to build an emergency exit for the mosque. The work was done by tractors, with some 250 trucks removing about 12,000 tons of soil replete with archeological findings from the site. The soil was dumped at a city garbage dump and also near the Kidron River.
Archeologists Gabi Barkai and Zachi Zweig are now sifting through the latter pile as part of a special project, and have already discovered priceless findings attesting to the administrative work undertaken in the first Temple. The archeologists also found decorated utensils from the King Solomon era, as well as coins and clay dating back to the second Temple. Hundreds of artifacts have already been put on show for the benefit of the general public.
The Prime Minister's Office issued the following response to the story: "As opposed to the claims, the body that imposed a gag order on the (State Comptroller's) report was not the government, but rather, the sub-committee of the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affair's Committee…any argument alleging that the report is not being published as result of irrelevant reasons is baseless and disconnected from reality."
The Waqf issued the following response: "The Waqf's management was sorry to hear the claims made in the story pertaining to the Waqf's policy on Temple Mount. In the Waqf management's view, all these claims are baseless and constitute false charges. Our official policy is to preserve and respect any human heritage. You are invited to visit the mosque and see for yourself well preserved Roman, Byzantine and Crusader artifacts, among other items."
February 23, 2012
Muslims Stone Police on Temple Mount!
For
the second time this week, Muslims stoned Israeli police who were
escorting Jewish and Christian pilgrims on the Temple Mount.
Gavriel Queenann
Muslims hurled stones and shoes at police escorting Jewish and Christian visitors on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City on Tuesday.
"An officer was slightly wounded and treated at the scene," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said, adding that two Arabs were arrested.
Police say officers had been put on high alert earlier in the day after receiving reports Jewish and Muslim groups were set to clash at the site, preceded by.various Muslim groups posting calls online urging people to head to the compound to "protect" it from a group of Jewish pilgrims planning to ascend to Judaism's holiest site.
Police were deployed around the Temple Mount and throughout the Old City "following various calls on different Internet sites by terrorist groups calling on people to go protect the compound after calls from the extreme right to come today," Police spokeswoman Liba Samri said.
Over a dozen vans filled with riot police were reportedly parked by the Dung Gate, an entrance to the Western Wall plaza where the Mughrabi ramp ascends up to the Temple Mount.
On Sunday, police used tear gas to disperse Muslims who were throwing stones at tourists and police inside the compound. In that incident police arrested 18 people.
A similar protest took place last week when a group of Jewish worshippers sought access to the site.
Police say it "was not clear" why the "disturbances" broke out, but one local Arab told an AFP reporter stone throwers were targeting religious Jews who entered the site with a group of Christian tourists.
However, it was reported earlier on Tuesday that the Al-Aqsa Center had released a report, denied by Israel, that Israeli authorities planned to allow Jews free access to the Temple Mount.
According to the report, Jews would be able to perform "Talmudic rituals" (i.e., pray) on the Temple Mount. At present, Jews are allowed to ascend at certain times, under heavy supervision, but may not pray there - for fear of "disturbing the peace".
The Al Aqsa report goes on to say that Israeli police plan to use the new arrangement to "cleanse the Temple Mount of Muslims under flimsy pretexts."
According to another plan "revealed" by the Al Aqsa Center, Jews will "freely enter the mosque" between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m., between Muslim prayer times. These alleged plans will be implemented this year.
The Temple Mount is the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (705 CE). However, way before that, it was the site of the the First Holy Temple, built by King Solomon (stood from ~950 BCE to 587 BCE) and the Second Holy Temple (517 BCE to 70CE) and is indisputably Judaism's most sacred site. The Western Wall, where Jews are allowed to pray, is merely a remnant of an outside compound wall of Herodian days and not part of the Temples.
The Muslim Waqf, the religious Muslim authority, has systematically attempted to destroy all archaeological evidence of earlier Jewish presence on the Mount, illegally excavating and destroying priceless and irreplaceable relics. Israeli archaeologists and volunteers sift painstakingly through the debris of the excavations, finding artifacts that are then transferred to Israeli museums.
The Muslim Waqf was allowed to manage the site after Israel succeeded liberating the Temple Mount in 1967 at the suggestion of then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. It maintains a discriminatory policy seeking to bar Jews entry to the site. The Israeli police, afraid of riots, allow the Jewish worshippers to be discriminated against to the point of not being allowed to even whisper prayers on the Mount.
Lessons for Israel Apartheid Week - Yvette Alt Miller (AISH)
The dates are set. In February-March 2012, Israel Apartheid Week
will take place worldwide. Organizers say they're set to break last
year's record of 97 festivals. Events are planned on campuses and in
major metropolitan centers featuring demonstrations of Israeli
brutality (actors dressed up as Israeli soldiers manhandling
passers-by), pop-art posters of Israeli fists crushing Palestinians,
sit-ins, speeches and lectures.
One aim is to make people viscerally, passionately, angry at Israel, and in this respect the theatrics seem to work. At a London campus last year, a political argument devolved into fighting, when a Jewish student was bitten on the face by an Apartheid Week organizer.
"This is about the number of Palestinians being murdered," reads the description of Israel Apartheid Week at the University of Illinois. Ergo, if Israel is such a brutal place, people should shun it. Boycott Israel, divest from it, and batter it with sanctions. This so-called "BDS" movement is the take-home instruction of every Israel Apartheid Week.
Since I care deeply about human rights, I decided to take this call seriously. But I decided to go a step further; after all, why focus only on Israel? “Starting tomorrow morning, I will use only products made in countries with strong human rights records,” I announced.
Ah, China, where opposition parties are banned and critics of the government are imprisoned. China, where the “one-child law” is enforced with jail, fines, even forced abortions. China, which violently suppresses any expression of Tibetan political aspirations. No free press. No Internet freedom. No free trials. It’s government that Human Rights Watch called an "unreformed authoritarian system."
Okay, I couldn't use this toothbrush, and went hunting for another. Finally, in the back of a cabinet, I found a spare. Eagerly I took it down and read the handle. Thailand – where the laws of lese magesy (not criticizing the monarchy) are so strong that a reporter was jailed for 13 years for criticizing the king on a website.
Reluctantly, I put the toothbrush back, and opted for a natural alternative: baking soda.
Next, I went to find something to wear, and pulled on my favorite shirt: made in Bangladesh. Hmm. According to Amnesty International, the Bangladeshi Special Police Force has been involved in over 700 extrajudicial killings since its formation in 2005.
Alright, let’s try another shirt: made in El Salvador. That wouldn't do; there, human rights workers and independent journalists are attacked, even killed, with government forces either complicit or turning a blind eye.
A third shirt was made in Ukraine. Forget it: according to the U.S. State Department, suspects are routinely tortured by police.
I was running out of things to wear. Aha – my one sweater from France! Surely a western European country like France must be ethical. Maybe not. Unlike other countries (such as Israel, where Muslims enjoy freedom of religion), France tramples on the religious rights of its large Muslim minority, banning headscarves in schools and making Muslim face veils illegal. Its police also face charges of reacting with heavy-handed brutality to unrest in heavily Muslim neighborhoods.
Completely flummoxed (and still in my robe), I went into the kitchen for a cup of coffee. No dice. I had a choice of Ethiopian blend (Ethiopia, where one-party rule is maintained through widespread election fraud and violence, as well as the arrest of opposition leaders) or Columbian (where President Uribe's paramilitaries carry out brutal human rights abuses against the secessionist FARC terrorists hiding in Columbia's northern region).
Tea? Nope. My choices there were Chinese (see above) or Indian – a democracy where government forces engage in extrajudicial killings and torture of police suspects.
I drank a glass of water instead (that’s safe, right?), and headed out to drive carpool. Oh no! It's hard to tell where the gasoline in my car is from, but almost all of the major oil-producing countries in the world have horrendous human rights records.
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, is ruled by absolute monarch King Abdullah. All forms of political opposition are barred (opposition figures are routinely arrested and tortured), and the country recently instituted even more draconian laws against political speech. Gender apartheid laws prevent women from the right to drive or vote, Religious apartheid laws mean that certain roads and even entire cities are off-limits to non-Muslims; Christians are barred from practicing their religion, and Jews aren't even allowed into the country.
The world's second-largest oil producer is Russia, where opposition leaders and journalists have been murdered by killers linked to the government, where Prime Minister Putin and President Medved have consolidated power and intimidated opposition, and where the government is fighting several breakaway republics amid grotesque human rights violations.
Then there’s oil from Iran, where political protest is brutally silenced, and which – under the rule of Holocaust-denying, let’s-wipe-Israel-off-the-map President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – is racing to develop nuclear weapons in the face of international sanctions.
The world's sixth-largest oil producer, Venezuela, is ruled by strongman Hugo Chavez, who has rewritten the constitution to guarantee his dominance. Venezuela, where extrajudicial killings by security agents are common, where armed gangs control the prisons, and where critics of the government are targeted for criminal prosecution.
Nigeria, the world's tenth largest oil supplier, is home to massive vote-rigging, fraud and election-related violence that killed 800 last year alone. Police routinely arrest political opponents an without charge, and indiscriminately kill, torture, rape and imprison without trial. Child labor, slavery, religious discrimination and violence, and the killing of children suspected of witchcraft all take place routinely.
I told the kids: “Maybe we’ll plan out a bike route to school from now on. But for today, back in the house.”
Uh oh. Can I use it? I quickly looked up the U.S. State Department’s annual Human Rights Report.
The report spoke glowingly of Israel's multicultural liberal democracy. Political killings? No. Mysterious disappearances? No. Prisons that meet international standards? Yes. Fair trials? Yes. Freedom of speech: yes. Free press: yes. Internet freedom: yes. Free political assembly: yes. Freedom of religion: yes. Protection of refugees: yes. Periodic free and fair elections: yes. Universal suffrage: yes. Independent and respected court system? Yes. Full political and civil rights for all citizens, regardless of color, religion, or ethnicity? Yes!
I opened my siddur, wondering if someone could explain to me exactly what is the reason for Israel Apartheid Week…?
One aim is to make people viscerally, passionately, angry at Israel, and in this respect the theatrics seem to work. At a London campus last year, a political argument devolved into fighting, when a Jewish student was bitten on the face by an Apartheid Week organizer.
"This is about the number of Palestinians being murdered," reads the description of Israel Apartheid Week at the University of Illinois. Ergo, if Israel is such a brutal place, people should shun it. Boycott Israel, divest from it, and batter it with sanctions. This so-called "BDS" movement is the take-home instruction of every Israel Apartheid Week.
Since I care deeply about human rights, I decided to take this call seriously. But I decided to go a step further; after all, why focus only on Israel? “Starting tomorrow morning, I will use only products made in countries with strong human rights records,” I announced.
The Experiment
I awoke, rubbed the sleep from my eyes, and picked up my first consumer item of the day: my toothbrush. Made in China.Ah, China, where opposition parties are banned and critics of the government are imprisoned. China, where the “one-child law” is enforced with jail, fines, even forced abortions. China, which violently suppresses any expression of Tibetan political aspirations. No free press. No Internet freedom. No free trials. It’s government that Human Rights Watch called an "unreformed authoritarian system."
Okay, I couldn't use this toothbrush, and went hunting for another. Finally, in the back of a cabinet, I found a spare. Eagerly I took it down and read the handle. Thailand – where the laws of lese magesy (not criticizing the monarchy) are so strong that a reporter was jailed for 13 years for criticizing the king on a website.
Reluctantly, I put the toothbrush back, and opted for a natural alternative: baking soda.
Next, I went to find something to wear, and pulled on my favorite shirt: made in Bangladesh. Hmm. According to Amnesty International, the Bangladeshi Special Police Force has been involved in over 700 extrajudicial killings since its formation in 2005.
Alright, let’s try another shirt: made in El Salvador. That wouldn't do; there, human rights workers and independent journalists are attacked, even killed, with government forces either complicit or turning a blind eye.
A third shirt was made in Ukraine. Forget it: according to the U.S. State Department, suspects are routinely tortured by police.
I was running out of things to wear. Aha – my one sweater from France! Surely a western European country like France must be ethical. Maybe not. Unlike other countries (such as Israel, where Muslims enjoy freedom of religion), France tramples on the religious rights of its large Muslim minority, banning headscarves in schools and making Muslim face veils illegal. Its police also face charges of reacting with heavy-handed brutality to unrest in heavily Muslim neighborhoods.
Completely flummoxed (and still in my robe), I went into the kitchen for a cup of coffee. No dice. I had a choice of Ethiopian blend (Ethiopia, where one-party rule is maintained through widespread election fraud and violence, as well as the arrest of opposition leaders) or Columbian (where President Uribe's paramilitaries carry out brutal human rights abuses against the secessionist FARC terrorists hiding in Columbia's northern region).
Tea? Nope. My choices there were Chinese (see above) or Indian – a democracy where government forces engage in extrajudicial killings and torture of police suspects.
I drank a glass of water instead (that’s safe, right?), and headed out to drive carpool. Oh no! It's hard to tell where the gasoline in my car is from, but almost all of the major oil-producing countries in the world have horrendous human rights records.
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, is ruled by absolute monarch King Abdullah. All forms of political opposition are barred (opposition figures are routinely arrested and tortured), and the country recently instituted even more draconian laws against political speech. Gender apartheid laws prevent women from the right to drive or vote, Religious apartheid laws mean that certain roads and even entire cities are off-limits to non-Muslims; Christians are barred from practicing their religion, and Jews aren't even allowed into the country.
The world's second-largest oil producer is Russia, where opposition leaders and journalists have been murdered by killers linked to the government, where Prime Minister Putin and President Medved have consolidated power and intimidated opposition, and where the government is fighting several breakaway republics amid grotesque human rights violations.
Then there’s oil from Iran, where political protest is brutally silenced, and which – under the rule of Holocaust-denying, let’s-wipe-Israel-off-the-map President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – is racing to develop nuclear weapons in the face of international sanctions.
The world's sixth-largest oil producer, Venezuela, is ruled by strongman Hugo Chavez, who has rewritten the constitution to guarantee his dominance. Venezuela, where extrajudicial killings by security agents are common, where armed gangs control the prisons, and where critics of the government are targeted for criminal prosecution.
Nigeria, the world's tenth largest oil supplier, is home to massive vote-rigging, fraud and election-related violence that killed 800 last year alone. Police routinely arrest political opponents an without charge, and indiscriminately kill, torture, rape and imprison without trial. Child labor, slavery, religious discrimination and violence, and the killing of children suspected of witchcraft all take place routinely.
I told the kids: “Maybe we’ll plan out a bike route to school from now on. But for today, back in the house.”
Search for Alternatives
It wasn't even eight o'clock and I was exhausted. I went over to the
bookshelf and took down my siddur (prayer book) which I had bought in
Israel.Uh oh. Can I use it? I quickly looked up the U.S. State Department’s annual Human Rights Report.
The report spoke glowingly of Israel's multicultural liberal democracy. Political killings? No. Mysterious disappearances? No. Prisons that meet international standards? Yes. Fair trials? Yes. Freedom of speech: yes. Free press: yes. Internet freedom: yes. Free political assembly: yes. Freedom of religion: yes. Protection of refugees: yes. Periodic free and fair elections: yes. Universal suffrage: yes. Independent and respected court system? Yes. Full political and civil rights for all citizens, regardless of color, religion, or ethnicity? Yes!
I opened my siddur, wondering if someone could explain to me exactly what is the reason for Israel Apartheid Week…?
This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/jw/s/Lessons_for_Israel_Apartheid_Week.html
February 22, 2012
Chamish intimates Feiglin was blackmailed and his son...
NETANYAHU IS ON THEIR SIDE
By Barry Chamish
Elad Pressman, to my mind, is Israel's leading deep investigative journalist. Two weeks ago I had him on my radio show and what he said disturbed me so much it influenced the questions I posed to this week's guest, Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Elad insisted he is satisfied that Israelis are waking up and getting noticeably smarter. Stage one of his proofs is the government cabinet; Stage 2, the Likud Party primaries.
First, the cabinet approved a bill permitting the vetting of justice selection for the Supreme Court by the Knesset. Believe it or not, right now the justices appoint their friends and no one can do a thing about it. And the situation won't change because Prime Minister Netanyahu tabled the proposed law, meaning, he made it go away for good. And believe it or not, that's legal in Israel.
Elad was thrilled the cabinet approved the bill anyway and was just as optimistic because of the next bill, severely restricting foreign contributions to Israeli political movements, a law that exists in every nation on earth...but, of course, Israel. The Ford Foundation, for example, was forced by its benefactors to stop all contributions to Israel because it was well proven that all the money went to undermining the nation through extreme left wing movements with no support within Israel. The Ford Foundation answered yes, we'll stop contributions to Israel in a year. But first, the foundation board found a spare $20m and in a private ceremony, handed the check over to chief of the Israeli Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish.
Honest, that is how low, immoral, unethical and criminal the Supreme Court is. And the cabinet approved a new law that demands restrictions on and registration of foreign money going to anti-Israel Israelis. But then, Netanyahu tabled the new law, never to be seen again.
Still, Elad was moved by the cabinet, at least, trying to do responsible governance. Somehow, Netanyahu opposing his cabinet and shelving the bills was not part of the mental equation. Not even when he rigged two important votes.
He began with a straw telephone poll of his cabinet to see who would be in favor of stripping, literally, all cities and towns in Judea and Samaria of their preferential zoning rights, like subsidized mortgages. In short, Netanyahu was polling his cabinet to squash the entire settlement community in one foul blow. And the final result? 15 for, 10 against, the rest abstained. Only one problem, the news site, Arutz Sheva called the cabinet and members who would have opposed the bill were never contacted. AND others who were contacted and voted NO, were listed as abstainers. Netanyahu had rigged the cabinet vote.
Netanyahu rigs every vote he doesn't like. In this month's party primaries, his opponent, Moshe Feiglin drew too many votes, so he fixed some better results by, for example, having 400 more voters than were eligible in Bet Shemesh, to vote for him. And Elad was in ecstasy that his candidate won some towns in Judea and Samaria. Again, according to his thinking, there was hope after all of electoral victory. It was then that I let him know about his boy, Moshe Feiglin. It began when I pointed out that Feiglin took 20th place in the previous Likud primary and was therefore elected to the Knesset. Within a few days, Netanyahu shelved Feiglin and announced he was now in 46th position, like it or not, and would not sit in the Knesset.
What Netanyahu did was illegal but, I asked Elad, why didn't Feiglin challenge him in a courtroom? Then Elad spewed the same old story about the Supreme Court being so corrupt and he wouldn't waste his money even trying there. But, But, But, I intervened, he could have sued in civil court. He was cheated and, in a fair trial, would have won.
No response from Elad...so I go right to the heart of his political belief system:
"Elad, Feiglin is playing the game by rules he outlined with the Likud. You don't remember how powerful Feiglin was in '96 when he headed Zo Artzeinu (this is our land). Israel was in chaos, roads were blocked, traffic was delayed for hours on end, the country was grinding to a halt, all in a movement to stop the Oslo Accord. With the movement growing by the day, while the government responded with increasing violence, Feiglin one morning announced he was disbanding Zo Artzeinu and joining the Likud. He had a massive change of heart and decided the only was to succeed was from within the system. In one stroke the Likud got rid of the protest movement and got a political opposition they could control."
I completed my analysis with a fact I had never publicized before. "Back then, I was not the only one to smell a Feiglin rat. One informer told me how the Likud blackmailed Feiglin. I couldn't confirm a word but it was half-way ugly and I never publicized it, even as known gossip. The game is serious. Feiglin's son was almost killed in a most suspicious car accident. Elad, for Israel's finest investigative journalist, you don't know half the game you're watching."
Elad made his last mistake. He said the settlers were endangered because of the Defense Minister Ehud Barak. That got me going:
"Netanyahu is the prime minister. He tells Barak what to do. You are falling for the basic good cop, bad cop routine. Netanyahu is staying in power because he shelves bills, rigs elections and removes settlers from their homes. And you know who he works for. Elad did.
Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu was spotted at MIT in 1973 and the grooming began there when
he was in his early twenties. After graduating, he received a high paying
job at Boston Consulting. His boss was Ira Magaziner (CFR). But he quit the
job in 1979, returned to Israel, staring selling furniture at the Rim company, then
organized an anti-terror convention. Inexplicably, the CFR sent a team of their
biggest guns including George Bush Sr., Richard Perle and George
Shultz to this unknown 27 year old's get-together. Once the convention was over,
Netanyahu returned to work selling home furniture for three years until 1982, when Washington
Ambassador Moshe Arens invited him to be his deputy. He claimed the choice
was indirectly made by those who came to his convention and "were impressed
with his performance." That means Bush and Shultz pressed Arens to bring
Bibi to Washington. From there, they pushed his career higher. In 1985,
Shultz chaired another anti-terror convention in Washington supposedly
organized by Netanyahu. By the time Bibi was UN Ambassador, Schultz visited
him every time he was in New York, and that was often.
Elad's refusal to see the whole picture, and to believe that Israel could be saved electorally, saddens me deeply. The IDF's Chief of Military Intelligence, Aviv Kochavi, in a rare public pronouncement, announced that Israel now had over 200,000 enemy rockets and missiles aimed at every corner of the land. He added 75,000 missiles over my information and made me understand that there is an Israeli threat at work. If not, well, Israel is ripe for the picking. Launching just half the missiles would put an end to the country in one day. Whatever threat is being used by Israel, it must be a beaut. To zoom in on the threat, Elad has to focus on the whole picture. That can't be done if you think you have any electoral say whatsoever.
I get letter after letter from people urging us to vote Ron Paul and save the nation. Now come on people, where would you vote for him? My conclusion is simply, don't vote. Dr. Corsi had his reason to vote: "We could start a write-in campaign." That's a thirties movie where the good folks win some point with a tremendous write-in campaign from every state in the union. Your throat may tighten as the public defeats the no-gooders but it won't get Ron Paul elected.
To those who vote, either in the US or Israel, and think they have electoral power...you don't. You'll have the find a solution elsewhere.
end
By Barry Chamish
Elad Pressman, to my mind, is Israel's leading deep investigative journalist. Two weeks ago I had him on my radio show and what he said disturbed me so much it influenced the questions I posed to this week's guest, Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Elad insisted he is satisfied that Israelis are waking up and getting noticeably smarter. Stage one of his proofs is the government cabinet; Stage 2, the Likud Party primaries.
First, the cabinet approved a bill permitting the vetting of justice selection for the Supreme Court by the Knesset. Believe it or not, right now the justices appoint their friends and no one can do a thing about it. And the situation won't change because Prime Minister Netanyahu tabled the proposed law, meaning, he made it go away for good. And believe it or not, that's legal in Israel.
Elad was thrilled the cabinet approved the bill anyway and was just as optimistic because of the next bill, severely restricting foreign contributions to Israeli political movements, a law that exists in every nation on earth...but, of course, Israel. The Ford Foundation, for example, was forced by its benefactors to stop all contributions to Israel because it was well proven that all the money went to undermining the nation through extreme left wing movements with no support within Israel. The Ford Foundation answered yes, we'll stop contributions to Israel in a year. But first, the foundation board found a spare $20m and in a private ceremony, handed the check over to chief of the Israeli Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish.
Honest, that is how low, immoral, unethical and criminal the Supreme Court is. And the cabinet approved a new law that demands restrictions on and registration of foreign money going to anti-Israel Israelis. But then, Netanyahu tabled the new law, never to be seen again.
Still, Elad was moved by the cabinet, at least, trying to do responsible governance. Somehow, Netanyahu opposing his cabinet and shelving the bills was not part of the mental equation. Not even when he rigged two important votes.
He began with a straw telephone poll of his cabinet to see who would be in favor of stripping, literally, all cities and towns in Judea and Samaria of their preferential zoning rights, like subsidized mortgages. In short, Netanyahu was polling his cabinet to squash the entire settlement community in one foul blow. And the final result? 15 for, 10 against, the rest abstained. Only one problem, the news site, Arutz Sheva called the cabinet and members who would have opposed the bill were never contacted. AND others who were contacted and voted NO, were listed as abstainers. Netanyahu had rigged the cabinet vote.
Netanyahu rigs every vote he doesn't like. In this month's party primaries, his opponent, Moshe Feiglin drew too many votes, so he fixed some better results by, for example, having 400 more voters than were eligible in Bet Shemesh, to vote for him. And Elad was in ecstasy that his candidate won some towns in Judea and Samaria. Again, according to his thinking, there was hope after all of electoral victory. It was then that I let him know about his boy, Moshe Feiglin. It began when I pointed out that Feiglin took 20th place in the previous Likud primary and was therefore elected to the Knesset. Within a few days, Netanyahu shelved Feiglin and announced he was now in 46th position, like it or not, and would not sit in the Knesset.
What Netanyahu did was illegal but, I asked Elad, why didn't Feiglin challenge him in a courtroom? Then Elad spewed the same old story about the Supreme Court being so corrupt and he wouldn't waste his money even trying there. But, But, But, I intervened, he could have sued in civil court. He was cheated and, in a fair trial, would have won.
No response from Elad...so I go right to the heart of his political belief system:
"Elad, Feiglin is playing the game by rules he outlined with the Likud. You don't remember how powerful Feiglin was in '96 when he headed Zo Artzeinu (this is our land). Israel was in chaos, roads were blocked, traffic was delayed for hours on end, the country was grinding to a halt, all in a movement to stop the Oslo Accord. With the movement growing by the day, while the government responded with increasing violence, Feiglin one morning announced he was disbanding Zo Artzeinu and joining the Likud. He had a massive change of heart and decided the only was to succeed was from within the system. In one stroke the Likud got rid of the protest movement and got a political opposition they could control."
I completed my analysis with a fact I had never publicized before. "Back then, I was not the only one to smell a Feiglin rat. One informer told me how the Likud blackmailed Feiglin. I couldn't confirm a word but it was half-way ugly and I never publicized it, even as known gossip. The game is serious. Feiglin's son was almost killed in a most suspicious car accident. Elad, for Israel's finest investigative journalist, you don't know half the game you're watching."
Elad made his last mistake. He said the settlers were endangered because of the Defense Minister Ehud Barak. That got me going:
"Netanyahu is the prime minister. He tells Barak what to do. You are falling for the basic good cop, bad cop routine. Netanyahu is staying in power because he shelves bills, rigs elections and removes settlers from their homes. And you know who he works for. Elad did.
Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu was spotted at MIT in 1973 and the grooming began there when
he was in his early twenties. After graduating, he received a high paying
job at Boston Consulting. His boss was Ira Magaziner (CFR). But he quit the
job in 1979, returned to Israel, staring selling furniture at the Rim company, then
organized an anti-terror convention. Inexplicably, the CFR sent a team of their
biggest guns including George Bush Sr., Richard Perle and George
Shultz to this unknown 27 year old's get-together. Once the convention was over,
Netanyahu returned to work selling home furniture for three years until 1982, when Washington
Ambassador Moshe Arens invited him to be his deputy. He claimed the choice
was indirectly made by those who came to his convention and "were impressed
with his performance." That means Bush and Shultz pressed Arens to bring
Bibi to Washington. From there, they pushed his career higher. In 1985,
Shultz chaired another anti-terror convention in Washington supposedly
organized by Netanyahu. By the time Bibi was UN Ambassador, Schultz visited
him every time he was in New York, and that was often.
Elad's refusal to see the whole picture, and to believe that Israel could be saved electorally, saddens me deeply. The IDF's Chief of Military Intelligence, Aviv Kochavi, in a rare public pronouncement, announced that Israel now had over 200,000 enemy rockets and missiles aimed at every corner of the land. He added 75,000 missiles over my information and made me understand that there is an Israeli threat at work. If not, well, Israel is ripe for the picking. Launching just half the missiles would put an end to the country in one day. Whatever threat is being used by Israel, it must be a beaut. To zoom in on the threat, Elad has to focus on the whole picture. That can't be done if you think you have any electoral say whatsoever.
I get letter after letter from people urging us to vote Ron Paul and save the nation. Now come on people, where would you vote for him? My conclusion is simply, don't vote. Dr. Corsi had his reason to vote: "We could start a write-in campaign." That's a thirties movie where the good folks win some point with a tremendous write-in campaign from every state in the union. Your throat may tighten as the public defeats the no-gooders but it won't get Ron Paul elected.
To those who vote, either in the US or Israel, and think they have electoral power...you don't. You'll have the find a solution elsewhere.
end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)