Oliver Stone apologized for Telling the Truth

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 9:58AM Gilad Atzmon

There you go, Oliver Stone apologized for suggesting that the Jewish lobby controls Washington's foreign policy and that Hitler's actions should be put into context.

In fact, Stone’s apology confirms Stone’s argument. We are subject to constant assault by Jewish and Israeli gatekeepers who insist on controlling the political and historical discourse and defy any possible criticism of Jewish national affairs.

“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret,” Stone said in a statement released late Monday, the day after his remarks were published in a British newspaper.

JTA reported today that Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, was among the Jewish organizations and Israeli officials to condemn the remarks.

Steinberg in a statement said Stone's apology "was necessary and we accept it. But whether he acted out of sincerity or as a desperate response to the moral outcry at his comments is an open question," he added. "He must be judged by his future words and deeds.”

Steinberg demands “sincerity” and future subservience. I would actually expect him to join Stone and be slightly more enthusiastic about historical research and contextual thinking.

Israel's propaganda minister’, Yuli Edelstein, was also among those who had condemned Stone's remarks early Monday. "They are nauseating, anti-Semitic and racist, Not only is he showing ignorance, he is demonizing Jews for no reason and returning to the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'

Interesting indeed. Stone doesn’t refer to race. There is nothing anti Semitic in his remark whatsoever unless telling the truth is a form of anti Semitism. Moreover, Stone didn’t demonize Jews for being Jews, he described some actions committed by Jewish institutional lobbies, actions that are now academically documented and studied. He did it for a good reason. Stone is probably patriotic or pragmatic enough to gather that peace is important.

"When a man of Stone's stature speaks in this way”, said Edelstein, “it can bring waves of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment, and may even damage Jewish communities and individuals." Edelstein is almost correct. Stone was brave enough to tell the truth about Jewish power, he probably wasn’t courageous enough to stand for it, which is understandable. However, Edelstein and other Jewish leaders better realise that Stone is far from being mad, anti Semitic or racist. Stone told the truth as we all see it.

Instead of silencing criticism, Edelstein, Steinberg and others better look in the mirror because the time is running out for Israel and its supporters

Update: Haim Saban to CBS: Cancel Oliver Stone's Showtime Series

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/exclusive-haim-saban-stone-should-join-mel-gibson-retirement-19614

The New Yorker reported last month that at a conference last fall, Saban described his pro-Israeli formula, outlining “three ways to be influential in American politics…make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.” ...

Coming Soon- David Cameron apologizes for telling the truth about Gaza being a prison Camp.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-oliver-stone-apologized-for-telling-the-truth.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook





Two dead and four children injured in Israeli nail bomb attack in Beit Hanoun, Gaza

International Solidarity Movement

Sammah Eid El-Massry, 9, in a 'semi-critical' condition in hospital/ ISM, July 22, 2010 "She came in through and it wasn’t clear she was injured. Suddenly a lot of blood came from her nose and she vomited. All of the family saw this – her little brothers were very scared. She had just been playing in the front of the house." This is a mother describing to us her daughter, 9-year-old Sammah as she came in to her home at 4pm after the Israeli army reportedly shelled and fired four bombs into and around a residential area in Beit Hanoun, Northern Gaza. She is now in a semi-critical condition in hospital, suffering extensive blood loss and very low haemoglobin. She was hit by shrapnel and 'flechettes’ from a nail bomb that landed 100m away, causing internal bleeding to the chest, severe head trauma and nails embedded in her body. Shells containing flechettes are illegal under international law if fired into densely populated civilian areas and SamahEid El-Massry is one of four children injured in the attack yesterday, July 21st. Two young men were killed: Mohammad Al-Kafarneh, 23, from severe shrapnel injuries in his back and chest and Kasim Al-Shinbary, 19, caused by injuries from nails embedded in his skull and shrapnel wounds to the back. It was unclear earlier whether they were resistance fighters or if they were civilians – the Israeli Occupation Force called them 'militants’ – just as they called the four children, aged between 4 and 11, who were left hospitalised by their injuries 'militants’. Their parents could be found weeping over their loved ones in Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City last night. We first visited Haitham Thaer Qasem a four year old boy and a first and only child. He was sleeping on the hospital bed, occasionally gasping for breath through the strapping around his nose. He had suffered deep nasal trauma, and flechette darts from the nail bomb were still embedded in his tiny body, where they had pierced his back, right elbow and right leg. He was 200m from the impact of the bomb. In his hospital ward his mother was standing to one side crying quietly and another relative at Haitham’s bedside explained what had happened. "We had asked Haitham to get shopping for her from the market…then we heard the bombings and somebody came to our home and told our family that he was in the hospital and was injured in the bombing. We came quickly to the hospital." Four-year-old Haitham Thaer Qasem, injured by an Israeli nail bomb In a nearby ward we then visited 9-year-old Sammah Eid El-Massry who was in a worse state. The doctor told us she was in a 'semi-critical’ condition with severe chest, head and abdominal pain. Her blood-loss was a major concern, arriving at the hospital with 7.5 haemoglobin levels, 4-6 below the normal levels, the problem exacerbated by the fact that she, like three of her brothers, already suffered from a blood condition known as Thalassemia for which the drug Exjade is in extremely short supply due to the Israeli blockade. She was clearly in pain and confused, trying to remove the nasal tubes. Her mother showed us the bandages on her chest. "She was in a very bad condition when she arrived – it’s difficult for children and very traumatic to insert a chest tube. Very painful. Blood was mainly coming from the chest. We will have to perform surgery and we will further explore her abdominal pain", the doctor tells us. This is not the first time the family was attacked, Sammah’s 4-year-old brother Ryad Eid El-Massry was injured during Operation Cast Lead, the three week Israeli assault over the New Year of 2009 period, during which over 400 Palestinian children were killed. "Our house was hit during the war, a neighbour sheltering inside was killed and our son suffered severe head injuries. He wasn’t able to access the care he needed and because of this his sight is now permanently damaged." As we left Sammah, she had begun to cry, moaning in serious discomfort and confusion. There were two more injured children in the hospital following the attack: Azzam Mohammed El-Massry (aged 11) has a severely fractured left elbow and Ebrahim Wasseem El-Massry (aged 4) has light injuries to his abdomen. It’s not just the siege. Criminal Israeli violence continues unabated, resulting in Palestinians in Gaza – children like Sammah, Haitham, Azzam and Ebrahim – and their families experiencing horrific pain and suffering. Last week it was the Abu Said family, attacked in their home on the border East of Gaza city; they lost Nema, a 33-year-old mother of five as she went outside to look frantically for her youngest son. Three more family members were also injured, again by the thousands of 'flechette’ darts unleashed by the nail bomb assault. Many of these darts will remain permanently embedded in their bodies. Palestinians remain incredulous to the idea of justice. They will remain so as long as they’re allowed to be dismissed as footnotes by those supporting, or blindly ignoring, what has happened to them and is being done to them. But those who meet them like we did yesterday will never forget what they go through. And people of conscience around the world are beginning to open their eyes instead of turning their backs and acting against these ongoing atrocities.

:: Article nr. 68173 sent on 22-jul-2010 23:31 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=68173

Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability?

By Jeff Blankfort, DissidentVoice / July 23rd, 2010

When Noam Chomsky was stopped at Jordan’s Allenby Bridge and prevented from entering the Palestinian West Bank by Israeli occupation forces in May, the widespread condemnation of that action extended even into the mainstream media which in the past has paid little attention to his comings and goings and even less to what he has had to say. Chomsky, who has visited Israel on a number of occasions and lived on a kibbutz in the 1950s, had been invited to give a lecture at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah and had also arranged to meet with Salam Fayyad, the unelected prime minister of the Palestine Authority and a favorite of both Washington and Israel and, it would appear, of Chomsky. The negative publicity arising from the incident caused the Israeli government to reverse its position, blaming its refusal to admit Chomsky on an administrative error. Chomsky was not mollified and decided to forego the trip to the West Bank and present his talk to the Bir Zeit students by video from Amman. When interviewed by phone the following day from New York by Democracy Now! on which he is a familiar presence, Chomsky noted that “I was going to meet with the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, I couldn’t. But his office called me here in Amman this morning, and we had a long discussion. He is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground. It’s almost – I think it’s probably a conscious imitation of the early Zionist policies, establishing facts on the ground and hoping that the political forms that follow will be determined by them. And the policies sound to me like sensible and sound ones.” Unfortunately, Chomsky was not questioned about his support for the nation building priorities of the earlier Zionists nor if he considered the Palestine Authority’s endorsement of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, of its attempts to suppress a UN investigation of the Goldstone Report, and of the role played by its US-trained militia in protecting Israel, to be also “sensible and sound.” Missing from the discussion about what was made to appear a blunder on Israel’s part was a much more important issue: Why had Chomsky been invited to speak at Bir Zeit in the first place? For those puzzled by that question, be assured that it is meant to be taken quite seriously.

Once upon a time Prof. Chomsky was considered by many to be the most important spokesperson for the Palestinian cause. It was a position he attained largely on the basis of his writings and activism in opposing the Vietnam War and US intervention in Central America in which, unlike the case with Israel, he had no personal vested interest. That Chomsky has maintained that position despite the presence in the US of a number of distinguished Palestinian professors, among them the late Edward Said, who were and are more knowledgeable about the subject and could speak from personal experience that does not include prior service as “a Zionist youth leader” – Chomsky’s background – is a reflection of the political culture of the American Left which was and remains substantially if not predominantly Jewish, particularly in its leadership positions. Support for Israel had become so ingrained and fear of anti-Semitism so deeply embedded in the psyche of American Jewish Leftists in the aftermath of World War 2, that if the Jewish state was to be criticized it had to be by someone from within the tribe who unequivocally supported its existence. Unfortunately, to the detriment of the Palestinians and the building of a viable Palestinian solidarity movement within the United States, that mindset persists to this day and largely explains why Chomsky maintains his reputation despite public utterances over the past half dozen years that have done more to undermine the Palestinian cause than to help it.

I examined Chomsky’s history in some detail in an article that I wrote for Left Curve in 2005 that called attention to the destructive role he has played regarding the Palestinian-based boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign targeting Israel and the equally destructive impact of his dismissal of the pro-Israel lobby as an influential force in shaping US Middle East policy. That he is still at it, and that his influence among what are considered “progressives” has lessened only imperceptibly, requires another look at the professor’s fierce and unyielding opposition to the BDS campaign launched by the leading organizations of Palestinian civil society. This movement has been gaining support in the world that exists outside of the United States, particularly among trade unions, a fact that is causing considerable concern within Israel and among its lobbyists/agents around the world who claim it is a campaign to “delegitimize” the Jewish state.

Within the United States, however, this campaign challenging Israel has frequently and in certain instances, intentionally, been confused with a vastly different, US-centered, campaign that avoids penalizing Israel while targeting US companies that provide goods and services that assist Israel in maintaining the occupation. This latter campaign Chomsky does support as does the leading Jewish peace group, Jewish Voice for Peace which has recently been conducting a drive to get 10,000 signatures for its campaign to pressure Caterpillar to stop selling bulldozers to the Israel military which it has used to destroy Palestinian homes. While this is a worthy endeavor, does anyone seriously think that a refusal by Caterpillar to halt its sales to Israel would change the current situation for the Palestinians in any significant way? Or are we seeing something else here on the part of both Prof. Chomsky and JVP with their competing campaign, namely, damage control on Israel’s behalf?

One might certainly draw that conclusion from comments Chomsky has made over the past several years and most recently in interviews with Israeli television (clip1) and with Alison Weir of If Americans Knew, the newly appointed president of the Council for National Interest (CNI), on Jerusalem Calling, the CNI’s online radio program. In the interview with Alison Weir, Chomsky not only repeatedly attacks advocates of an Israeli boycott as being hypocritical, he accuses them of doing damage to the Palestinian cause. “What I have opposed,” says Chomsky, “is BDS proposals that harm Palestinians. If we are serious about BDS or any other tactic, we want to ask what the consequences are for the victims. We have to distinguish always in tactical judgments between what you might call ‘feel good’ tactics and ‘do good’ tactics. There are tactics that may make people feel good in doing something, but maybe they harm the victims.” Pushed on the subject by Weir, he repeats that a boycott of Israel is “harmful to Palestinians and the reason is harmful is very obvious.” And what is obvious about it, Chomsky tells us in the very next sentence. “It is so hypocritical that it discredits the whole effort. I mean,” he says, “why boycott Israel and not boycott the United States? The US has a much worse record.”

When reminded by Weir that “Palestinian civil society issued a call, signed by dozens of diverse organizations calling for a boycott of Israel,” Chomsky was dismissive and condescending. “There are groups who call themselves Palestinian civil society who are calling for a boycott,” he responds, “and I think they are making a mistake and I’ve explained why. I’m not going to take, adopt positions which have already been and will continue to be quite harmful to Palestinians.” “If you want to, then do it,” Chomsky adds, upbraiding Weir and by implication, the Palestinian people themselves, “but it’s clear why the call for a boycott [of Israel] has been harmful for Palestinians and will continue to be.” “The reason,” he repeated, “is very simple. It’s so utterly hypocritical that it’s basically a gift to the hardliners. They can say, ‘Look, you’re calling for a boycott of Israel, but you’re not calling for a boycott of the United States which has a much worse record, in fact, it’s even responsible for most of Israel’s crimes. (My emphasis) “So therefore, if your position,” and from his tone of voice he is clearly jabbing a verbal finger at Weir, “is that hypocritical, how can we even take you seriously? That’s like giving a gift to the hard-line elements.

One might be forgiven for thinking that when Chomsky says “we” and refers to “hard-line elements” he is speaking of himself. He seems to confirm that later when, continuing his attack, he tells Weir:

I find your commitment to harming Palestinians surprising. It is quite obvious why a call for a boycott of Israel is a gift to AIPAC. It’s a gift because they can point out that it is utterly hypocritical” and again, like a well rehearsed mantra he repeats, “We are not boycotting the United States, for example, which has a much worse record and is responsible for a lot of Israel’s criminal behavior.

“I can give you cases if you want [but he doesn't offer any] where the calls like the one you’re advocating have, in fact, for good reasons, harmed Palestinians,” and he repeats once again that Weir’s “support for the efforts which are basically gifts to the hardliners…”

Let’s stop a moment before going on and ask ourselves some questions about what Chomsky has been saying. One, shifting blame for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians to the US (the Nakba?, the 1967 capture of the West Bank and Gaza?) he argues that rather than calling for a boycott of Israel, Palestinians should be calling for a boycott of the United States. Apart from the failure patently inherent in such a campaign, what does Prof. Chomsky believe would be the response of the majority of Americans to a call by Palestinians for such a boycott? Or, for that matter, a call by supporters of the Palestinians in the United States for a boycott of their own country? Beneficial for the Palestinians, Professor Chomsky, or harmful? Or just plain stupid? Since the answer to that question is obvious, genuine supporters of the Palestinian struggle who still see Chomsky as an ally need to ask themselves why he would call for a campaign that would bring further disaster down upon the heads of the Palestinians.

Now think about his main argument that boycotting Israel as opposed to the United States is hypocritical; that the “hardliners,” in which he specifically includes AIPAC – which otherwise he dismisses – will use this against the Palestinians by pointing out that the US has committed far greater crimes than Israel. While there are some Jewish American settlers who have taken this position, referring to the Vietnam and Iraq wars, does Chomsky seriously believe that AIPAC or any major American Jewish organization would make this argument and compare America’s crimes to Israel’s? Again, the answer is obvious. But why does Chomsky insult our intelligence by asking us to believe such a fatuous claim? Why do those who know better let him get away with it? The answer to the first question was given by Prof. Chomsky to the interviewer from Israel’ Channel Two television station who paid him a visit in Amman on May 19, two days after he was turned back at the Allenby Bridge.

When challenged about statements he had made strongly criticizing Israel, Chomsky responded, “I don’t regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself as a supporter of Israel.” Chomsky, who, in certain circles likes to boast of his early Zionist activities did so for both his Israeli interviewer and for Alison Weir. Noting that he had opposed the notion of a Jewish state in favor of a bi-national state, “once Israel was formed in 1948, my position has consistently been that Israel should have all the rights of every state in the international system, no more and no less. ” He would repeat exactly the same words when speaking with Weir six weeks later. Chomsky volunteered to his Israeli interviewer that up to five or six years ago, he had considered living there as an alternative to the United States and in the 1950s, “we had considered staying there, in fact.” In other words, he seems to have no problem with the Jewish “right of return” to what, until 1948, was Palestine, but considers a similar demand by the Palestinians who were actually born there to be not only unrealistic but potentially dangerous.

Although presented with an opportunity in both interviews to do so, Chomsky made no mention of the plight of the 750,000 Palestinians made refugees in the period of Israel’s founding nor of the more than 400 Palestinian villages that Israel purposely destroyed to wipe out their traces. In fact, that history and the situation of the now millions of Palestinian refugees today, is something he rarely, if ever mentions, unless asked about it. On one such occasion, when he was asked if the refugees would be obligated to give up their “right of return” under a “two-state solution,” Chomsky’s preferred outcome, he replied: “Palestinian refugees should certainly not be willing to renounce the right of return, but in this world – not some imaginary world we can discuss in seminars – that right will not be exercised, in more than a limited way, within Israel. Again, there is no detectable international support for it, and under the (virtually unimaginable) circumstances that such support would develop, Israel would very likely resort to its ultimate weapon, defying even the boss-man, to prevent it. In that case there would be nothing to discuss. The facts are ugly, but facts do not go out of existence for that reason. In my opinion, it is improper to dangle hopes that will not be realized before the eyes of people suffering in misery and oppression. (Emphasis added) Rather, constructive efforts should be pursued to mitigate their suffering and deal with their problems in the real world.” (Znet, 30 March 2004)

What Chomsky is saying to the refugees is that if they persist with their demand to return to Palestine, and should that demand, support for which is currently undetectable in Chomsky’s eyes, actually grow to the point where Israel feels threatened with an avalanche of returnees, it is likely to use its nuclear weapons and blow up the planet. So, for the sake of the “real world” that has ignored them and to keep Israel, a country that he unhesitatingly supports, from exercising the “Sampson Option,” the refugees should forget about going home and await some nebulous “constructive efforts… to mitigate their suffering.” I can imagine what most Palestinians would say to that but it is unprintable. When Weir asked if he had been aware of the Nakba in the days when he had been a Zionist youth leader, Chomsky acknowledged that he had been “well aware of that,” but rather than offer any opinion on it, he referred to his membership in Hashomir Hatzair which had supported a bi-national state and that he lived on a kibbutz which, prior to 1948, called for “Arab-Jewish cooperation in a socialist state.” He did not come to live on that kibbutz, however, until 1953, five years after the Nakba.

In speaking with Weir, Chomsky did not hesitate to defend Israel’s legitimacy.. “Within Israel,” he said, “within the so-called Green Line, the internationally recognized borders, it’s a democratic state in the sense of Western democracies. There are laws and more than laws, practices that assign second class citizenship to Palestinians. In that respect it is not different from the US and other Western democracies.” While there are few who will deny that racism exists in every Western (and non-Western) society and that it has often taken violent forms, Chomsky’s attempt to rationalize Israel’s ongoing discrimination of those Palestinians who remained after the Nakba, by lumping it together with the forms of racism practiced in the US and elsewhere, is too riddled with holes to analyze here but raises additional questions about on which side of the barricades he stands. The fact that he says “the occupation is simply criminal” as if Israel is not should not deceive us.

It should also be pointed out that Chomsky’s accusing Weir of harming the Palestinian cause is in keeping with the modus operandi he has employedwhen challenged from the Left regarding his stands on the Israel-Palestinian issue. With Alison Weir, it was the boycott of Israel, with Noah Cohen, in 2004, it was the latter’s advocacy of a single state and the Palestinian right of return. Chomsky accused Cohen of “serving the cause of the extreme hawks in Israel and the US, and bringing even more harm to the suffering Palestinians.”(Znet, 26 July 2004)

I have also been not immune from such an attack. On November 12, 2004, before writing my article for Left Curve and after I had written the professor, asking him a number of questions that I hoped would clarify his positions he responded in a letter thusly:

“I have never really understood why you consistently take positions that so severely undermine any hope of justice for the Palestinians, find truth so offensive, and work so hard to evade our own responsibilities in favor of the much more convenient stance of blaming others [Israel]. But that’s your business. I don’t write or speak about it.”

What we are dealing with in the case of Prof. Chomsky is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty parading as its opposite and the boycott issue has brought it to the fore.

A glaring but little known example of that came in a speech that Chomsky made to the Harvard Anthropology Dept. in 2003 shortly after the MIT and Harvard faculties issued a joint statement on divestment. It was gleefully reported in the Harvard Crimson by pro-Israel activist, David Weinfeld, under the headline “Chomsky’s Gift”:

MIT Institute Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky recently gave the greatest Hanukkah gift of all to opponents of the divestment campaign against Israel. By signing the Harvard-MIT divestment petition several months ago – and then denouncing divestment on Nov. 25 at Harvard – Chomsky has completely undercut the petition.

At his recent talk for the Harvard anthropology department, Chomsky stated: “I am opposed and have been opposed for many years, in fact, I’ve probably been the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign about academic boycotts.”

He argued that a call for divestment is “a very welcome gift to the most extreme supporters of US-Israeli violence… It removes from the agenda the primary issues and it allows them to turn the discussion to irrelevant issues, which are here irrelevant, anti-Semitism and academic freedom and so on and so forth.” [Harvard Crimson, 2 December 2003] (Emphasis added.)

The following year, Chomsky clearly stunned Christopher J. Lee, an interviewer for the Safundi: the Journal of South African and American Comparative Studies [10 May 2004] when in an exchange comparing Israel with the former apartheid regime, he again came to Israel’s defense and cast opposition to sanctions on Israel as a moral issue. “One of the important tactics against the apartheid government was the eventual use of sanctions. Do you see that as a possibility?” asked Lee. “No,” Chomsky replied. “In fact I’ve been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it. “Sanctions hurt the population. You don’t impose them unless the population is asking for them. That’s the moral issue. So, the first point in the case of Israelis that: Is the population asking for it? Well, obviously not. “So calling for sanctions here, when the majority of the population doesn’t understand what you are doing, is tactically absurd-even if it were morally correct, which I don’t think it is. The country against which the sanctions are being imposed is not calling for it.” To which the bewildered Safundi understandably asked, “Palestinians aren’t calling for sanctions?” “Well,” Chomsky responded, as if he had been asked a stupid question, “the sanctions wouldn’t be imposed against the Palestinians, they would be imposed against Israel.” “Furthermore,” added, “there is no need for it. We ought to call for sanctions against the United States! If the U.S. were to stop its massive support for this, it’s over. So, you don’t have to have sanctions on Israel.”

It would seem from that exchange that Chomsky has more respect for the opinions of Israel’s Jews than those of his fellow Americans. In applying double standards to Israel and the United States, Chomsky has been consistent. After telling the Israeli interviewer that, speaking as an American citizen, “we are responsible for our own actions and their consequences,” in the very next breath he declares that “every crime that Israel commits is with US participation and authorization,” which, even if true, which it is not, presumably would make Israel culpable, but not apparently enough, in Chomsky’s eyes, to warrant a boycott.

At the end of the day, it is evident that Chomsky’s affection for Israel, his sojourn on a kibbutz, his Jewish identity, and his early experiences with anti-Semitism to which he occasionally refers have colored his approach to every aspect of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and explain his defense of Israel. That is his right, of course, but not to pretend at the same that he is an advocate for justice in Palestine. That same background may also explain his resistance to acknowledging the very obvious power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy which he, like many others who share a similar history, interpret as “blaming the Jews,” a most taboo subject. It is, without a doubt, far more comfortable for him and his followers to continue insisting that US support for Israel is based on it being a “strategic asset” for the United States even when an increasing number of mainstream observers who are not linked to AIPAC or the Zionist establishment have judged it to be a liability. Should not Chomsky himself, on the basis of his own statements, be judged as to whether he is an asset or a liability for the Palestinian cause? If they have not already done so, serious supporters of that cause, including Palestinians, need to ask themselves that question.

First published at Pulse.

Jeffrey Blankfort is former editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin, long-time photographer, and has written extensively on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He also hosts a program on international affairs for KZYX, the public radio station of Mendocino County, California. He can be reached at: jblankfort@earthlink.net. Read other articles by Jeff.

http://www.jnoubiyeh.com/2010/07/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or.html

Targeted Citizen - English

Targeted Citizen - English from Adalah on Vimeo.

The film “Targeted Citizen” (15 minutes), produced by filmmaker Rachel Leah Jones for Adalah, surveys discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel. With the participation of experts Dr. Yousef Jabareen of the Technion and Dr. Khaled Abu Asbeh of the Van Leer Institute, as well as Adalah attorneys Sawsan Zaher, Abeer Baker and Hassan Jabareen, inequality in land and housing, employment, education and civil and political rights are eloquently addressed. These interviews are reinforced by the contrasting informality of on-the-street conversations conducted by Palestinian comic duo Shammas-Nahas and punctuated by the hard-hitting rhymes of Palestinian rap trio DAM. The film's theme song “Targeted Citizen,” written and recorded by DAM especially for Adalah, tells it like it is without missing a beat.

http://vimeo.com/10302596

West Bank poverty 'worse than Gaza'

Children living in the poorest parts of the West Bank face significantly worse conditions than their counterparts in Gaza, a study conducted by an international youth charity has found.

The report by Save the Children UK, due to be released on Wednesday, says that families forced from their homes in the West Bank are suffering the effects of grinding poverty, often lacking food, medicine and humanitarian assistance.

The European Commission funded study found that in "Area C"- the 60 per cent of the West Bank under direct Israeli control - the poorest sections of society are suffering disproportionately because basic infrastructure is not being repaired due to Israel's refusal to approve the work.

Homes, schools, drainage systems and roads are in urgent need of repair, but instead of work being allowed, families are being forced to live in tents and do not have access to clean water.

Restrictions on the use of land for agriculture have left thousands of Palestinian children without enough food and many are becoming ill as a result, the study found.

Crisis point

Conditions in Area C have reached "crisis point", the charity said, with 79 per cent of the communities surveyed lacking sufficient food - a greater proportion than in blockaded Gaza, where the figure is 61 per cent.

in depth

Video: Israel expands settlements Israelis protest freeze Map of East Jerusalem housing plan Focus: Comments: US-Israel relations Jerusalem's religious heart Strain on US-Israel ties Q&A: Jewish settlements Riz Khan: Middle East peace process Battle over settlements Inside Story: US and Israel poles apart Programmes: Israel: Rise of the right Holy Land Grab

The lack of proper nutrition is having a major impact on the health of children growing up in the area, with 44 per cent of those surveyed for the study suffering from diarrhoea, the world's biggest killer of children under the age of five.

Many children living in such communities are showing signs of stunted growth, with the figure running at more than double Gaza's rate, and more than one in ten children surveyed for the study were found to be underweight.

The report says that for many Palestinians, international humanitarian assistance is far harder to access in the West Bank than in Gaza, with almost half the households surveyed in Area C reporting that they had no access to foreign aid assistance.

Save the Children warned that with the blockade of Gaza dominating headlines in recent months, the international community risked forgetting the fate of the poorest communities in the West Bank.

"The international community has rightly focused its attention on the suffering of families in Gaza but the plight of children in Area C must not be overlooked," Salam Kanaan, Save the Children's director in the occupied Palestinian Territories, said.

"Palestinians in the West Bank are widely thought to enjoy a higher standard of living but tragically many families, particularly in Bedouin and herder communities, actually suffer significantly higher levels of malnutrition and poverty."

The organisation called for Israel to immediately cease home demolitions and land confiscations in the West Bank and said the Palestinian authority should take "urgent action" to develop services and improve food security in Area C.

"Palestinian children cannot wait for the stalled peace talks between the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and the United States to find solutions to this crisis," Kanaan said.

Pockets of poverty

Cairo Arafat helped devise the Palestinian Authority's action plan for children before starting part-time work with Save the Children, and is now a spokesperson for Palestinian Authority. She told Al Jazeera the figures in the report did not reflect the conditions in the West Bank as a whole, but were still a major cause for concern.

"The overall conditions, if you look at health indicators and education indicators, are better than what is normal for the reigion," she said.

"The problem is we are beginning to see a regression."

The West Bank had "pockets of poverty," she said, that left around around 10 per cent of the 240,000 children in the territory at risk of ill-health.

"There are certain parts of the West Bank were the situation is much worse than in Gaza, with a lack of access to water and shelter," she said.

Arafat said that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was attempting to tackle the issue in the face of "excessive" obstruction from the Israeli authorities, particularly in areas near settlements and close to the separation barrier built by the Israeli military.

"The PNA is investing in a number of different programs in Area C and near where the wall is being built to improve the situation," she said.

"But there are certain areas where the Israelis won't allow infrastructure to be built."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201062916845576597.html

John Mearsheimer: Sinking Ship

By John J. Mearsheimer, The American Conservative – 1 August 2010 issue
http://amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00010/

The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself

Israel’s botched raid against the Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla on May 31 is the latest sign that Israel is on a disastrous course that it seems incapable of reversing. The attack also highlights the extent to which Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. This situation is likely to get worse over time, which will cause major problems for Americans who have a deep attachment to the Jewish state.

The bungled assault on the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the flotilla, shows once again that Israel is addicted to using military force yet unable to do so effectively. One would think that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would improve over time from all the practice. Instead, it has become the gang that cannot shoot straight.

The IDF last scored a clear-cut victory in the Six Day War in 1967; the record since then is a litany of unsuccessful campaigns. The War of Attrition (1969-70) was at best a draw, and Israel fell victim to one of the great surprise attacks in military history in the October War of 1973. In 1982, the IDF invaded Lebanon and ended up in a protracted and bloody fight with Hezbollah. Eighteen years later, Israel conceded defeat and pulled out of the Lebanese quagmire. Israel tried to quell the First Intifada by force in the late 1980s, with Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin telling his troops to break the bones of the Palestinian demonstrators. But that strategy failed and Israel was forced to join the Oslo Peace Process instead, which was another failed endeavor.

The IDF has not become more competent in recent years. By almost all accounts—including the Israeli government’s own commission of inquiry—it performed abysmally in the 2006 Lebanon war. The IDF then launched a new campaign against the people of Gaza in December 2008, in part to “restore Israel’s deterrence” but also to weaken or topple Hamas. Although the mighty IDF was free to pummel Gaza at will, Hamas survived and Israel was widely condemned for the destruction and killing it wrought on Gaza’s civilian population. Indeed, the Goldstone Report, written under UN auspices, accused Israel of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. Earlier this year, the Mossad murdered a Hamas leader in Dubai, but the assassins were seen on multiple security cameras and were found to have used forged passports from Australia and a handful of European countries. The result was an embarrassing diplomatic row, with Australia, Ireland, and Britain each expelling an Israeli diplomat.

Given this history, it is not surprising that the IDF mishandled the operation against the Gaza flotilla, despite having weeks to plan it. The assault forces that landed on the Mavi Marmara were unprepared for serious resistance and responded by shooting nine activists, some at point-blank range. None of the activists had their own guns. The bloody operation was condemned around the world—except in the United States, of course. Even within Israel, the IDF was roundly criticized for this latest failure.

These ill-conceived operations have harmful consequences for Israel. Failures leave adversaries intact and make Israeli leaders worry that their deterrent reputation is being undermined. To rectify that, the IDF is turned loose again, but the result is usually another misadventure, which gives Israel new incentives to do it again, and so on. This spiral logic, coupled with Israel’s intoxication with military force, helps explain why the Israeli press routinely carries articles predicting where Israel’s next war will be.

Israel’s recent debacles have also damaged its international reputation. Respondents to a 2010 worldwide opinion poll done for the BBC said that Israel, Iran, and Pakistan had the most negative influence in the world; even North Korea ranked better. More worrying for Israel is that its once close strategic relationship with Turkey has been badly damaged by the 2008-09 Gaza war and especially by the assault on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship filled with Turkish nationals. But surely the most troubling development for Israel is the growing chorus of voices in the United States who say that Israel’s behavior is threatening American interests around the world, to include endangering its soldiers. If that sentiment grows, it could seriously harm Israel’s relationship with the United States.

Life as an Apartheid State

The flotilla tragedy highlights another way in which Israel is in deep trouble. Israel’s response makes it obvious that its leaders are not interested in allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state in Gaza and the West Bank, but instead are bent on creating a “Greater Israel” in which the Palestinians are confined to a handful of impoverished enclaves.

Israel insists that its blockade is solely intended to keep weapons out of Gaza. Hardly anyone would criticize Israel if this were true, but it is not. The real aim of the blockade is to punish the people of Gaza for supporting Hamas and resisting Israel’s efforts to maintain Gaza as a giant open-air prison. Of course, there was much evidence that this was the case before the debacle on the Mavi Marmara. When the blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, said, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” And the Gaza onslaught 18 months ago was designed to punish the Gazans, not enforce a weapons embargo. The ships in the flotilla were transporting humanitarian aid, not weapons for Hamas, and Israel’s willingness to use deadly force to prevent a humanitarian aid convoy from reaching Gaza makes it abundantly clear that Israel wants to humiliate and subdue the Palestinians, not live side-by-side with them in separate states.

Collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza is unlikely to end anytime soon. Israel’s leaders have shown little interest in lifting the blockade or negotiating sincerely. The sad truth is that Israel has been brutalizing the Palestinians for so long that it is almost impossible to break the habit. It is hardly surprising that Jimmy Carter said last year, “the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than human beings.” They are, and they will be for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, there is not going to be a two-state solution. Instead, Gaza and the West Bank will become part of a Greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is their future if they create a Greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. In fact, two former Israeli prime ministers—Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak—have made this very point. Olmert went so far as to argue, “as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”

He’s right, because Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. But that process will take many years, and during that time, Israel will continue to oppress the Palestinians. Its actions will be seen and condemned by growing numbers of people and more and more governments around the world. Israel is unwittingly destroying its own future as a Jewish state, and doing so with tacit U.S. support.

America’s Albatross

The combination of Israel’s strategic incompetence and its gradual transformation into an apartheid state creates significant problems for the United States. There is growing recognition in both countries that their interests are diverging; indeed this perspective is even garnering attention inside the American Jewish community. Jewish Week, for example, recently published an article entitled “The Gaza Blockade: What Do You Do When U.S. and Israeli Interests Aren’t in Synch?” Leaders in both countries are now saying that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is undermining U.S. security. Vice President Biden and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, both made this point recently, and the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, told the Knesset in June, “Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden.”

It is easy to see why. Because the United States gives Israel so much support and U.S. politicians routinely laud the “special relationship” in the most lavish terms, people around the globe naturally associate the United States with Israel’s actions. Unfortunately, this makes huge numbers of people in the Arab and Islamic world furious with the United States for supporting Israel’s cruel treatment of the Palestinians. That anger in turn helps fuel terrorism against America. Remember that the 9/11 Commission Report, which describes Khalid Sheik Muhammad as the “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks,” concludes that his “animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” Osama bin Laden’s hostility toward the United States was fuelled in part by this same concern.

Popular anger toward the United States also threatens the rulers of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, key U.S. allies who are frequently seen as America’s lackeys. The collapse of any of these regimes would be a big blow to the U.S. position in the region; however, Washington’s unyielding support for Israel makes these governments weaker, not stronger. More importantly, the rupture in Israel’s relationship with Turkey will surely damage America’s otherwise close relationship with Turkey, a NATO member and a key U.S. ally in Europe and the Middle East.

Finally, there is the danger that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, which could have terrible consequences for the United States. The last thing America needs is another war with an Islamic country, especially one that could easily interfere in its ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why the Pentagon opposes striking Iran, whether with Israeli or U.S. forces. But Netanyahu might do it anyway if he thinks it would be good for Israel, even if it were bad for the United States.

Dark Days Ahead for the Lobby

Israel’s troubled trajectory is also causing major headaches for its American supporters. First, there is the matter of choosing between Israel and the United States. This is sometimes referred to as the issue of dual loyalty, but that term is a misnomer. Americans are allowed to have dual citizenship—and in effect, dual loyalty—and this is no problem as long as the interests of the other country are in synch with America’s interests. For decades, Israel’s supporters have striven to shape public discourse in the United States so that most Americans believe the two countries’ interests are identical. That situation is changing, however. Not only is there now open talk about clashing interests, but knowledgeable people are openly asking whether Israel’s actions are detrimental to U.S. security.

The lobby has been scrambling to discredit this new discourse, either by reasserting the standard argument that Israel’s interests are synonymous with America’s or by claiming that Israel—to quote a recent statement by Mortimer Zuckerman, a key figure in the lobby—“has been an ally that has paid dividends exceeding its costs.” A more sophisticated approach, which is reflected in an AIPAC-sponsored letter that 337 congresspersons sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March, acknowledges that there will be differences between the two countries, but argues that “such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence.” In other words, keep the differences behind closed doors and away from the American public. It is too late, however, to quell the public debate about whether Israel’s actions are damaging U.S. interests. In fact, it is likely to grow louder and more contentious with time.

This changing discourse creates a daunting problem for Israel’s supporters, because they will have to side either with Israel or the United States when the two countries’ interests clash. Thus far, most of the key individuals and institutions in the lobby have sided with Israel when there was a dispute. For example, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have had two big public fights over settlements. Both times the lobby sided with Netanyahu and helped him thwart Obama. It seems clear that individuals like Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, and organizations like AIPAC are primarily concerned about Israel’s interests, not America’s.

This situation is very dangerous for the lobby. The real problem is not dual loyalty but choosing between the two loyalties and ultimately putting the interests of Israel ahead of those of America. The lobby’s unstinting commitment to defending Israel, which sometimes means shortchanging U.S. interests, is likely to become more apparent to more Americans in the future, and that could lead to a wicked backlash against Israel’s supporters as well as Israel.

The lobby faces yet another challenge: defending an apartheid state in the liberal West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa—and that day is not far off—support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish significantly. The main reason is that apartheid is a despicable political system that is fundamentally at odds with basic American values as well as core Jewish values. For sure there will be some Jews who will defend Israel no matter what kind of political system it has. But their numbers will shrink over time, in large part because survey data shows that younger American Jews feel less attachment to Israel than their elders, which makes them less inclined to defend Israel blindly.

The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish community to defend such a reprehensible political order.

Assisted Suicide

Israel is facing a bleak future, yet there is no reason to think that it will change course anytime soon. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement. Moreover, it remains firmly committed to the belief that what cannot be solved by force can be solved with greater force, and many Israelis view the Palestinians with contempt if not hatred. Neither the Palestinians nor any of Israel’s immediate neighbors are powerful enough to deter it, and the lobby will remain influential enough over the next decade to protect Israel from meaningful U.S. pressure.

Remarkably, the lobby is helping Israel commit national suicide while also doing serious damage to American security interests. Voices challenging this tragic situation have grown slightly more numerous in recent years, but the majority of political commentators and virtually all U.S. politicians seem blissfully ignorant of where this is headed, or unwilling to risk their careers by speaking out.

John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-07-01/john-mearsheimer-sinking-ship/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IsraeliOccupationArchive+%28Israeli+Occupation+Archive%29

State Terror, Israeli Style

By Stephen Lendman

Ongoing since its May 14, 1948 "Declaration of Independence," Israel systematically reigned terror against Palestinians and neighboring states, always claiming self-defense - bogus then, bogus now, historian Ilan Pappe describing Israel as a "settler Prussian state: a combination of colonialist policies....manifested in the dominance of the army over political, cultural and economic life," then adding:

"You probably have to be born in Israel, as I was, and go through the whole process of socialisation (sic) and education - including serving in the army - to grasp the power of this militarist mentality and its dire consequences. And you need such a background to understand why the whole premise on which the international community's approach to the Middle East is based, is utterly and disastrously wrong," so much so that Israel is slowly self-destructing, preventable only by an entirely new mindset.

Public discourse won't admit it or that Palestinians "lost 80% of their homeland" in a few short months, about 800,000 of them either dispossessed or massacred. Then in 1967, "they lost the remaining 20%," not recovered after 43 years, nor have they received any measure of justice, Cast Lead and Gaza's siege the most extreme recent examples.

On May 31, no wonder Israeli commandos attacked peaceful activists trying to deliver humanitarian aid to Gazans. Defense Minister Ehud Barak once commanded a similar unit, and Benjamin Netanyahu's eldest brother, Yonatan (a martyr and national hero), led 100 commandos in Operation Entebbe, the July 4, 1976 hostage rescue mission at Uganda's Entebbe Airport.

That was heroic, not murdering unarmed, peaceful activists in international waters, an unconscionable crime, one the Turkish-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) calls a premeditated terrorist attack in a newly issued report titled, "Palestine Our Route, Humanitarian Aid Our Load Flotilla Campaign Summary Report," saying:

"While Israel continues to distort the truth....this report provides information about (the flotilla's) purpose and content," its humanitarian mission, and "the Israeli attack it was subjected to, the way in which the attack took place and the losses" as a result.

Why Gaza?

Under embargo since Hamas' January 2006 election and a suffocating three year siege, 1.5 million Gazans (900,000 in eight refugee camps), have suffered months under a humanitarian nightmare, slow-motion genocide, acknowledged by Pappe and international law expert Francis Boyle, citing the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention, saying prior to the siege:

"Israel has indeed perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Palestinian people (and a) lawsuit would....demonstrate that undeniable fact to the entire world," more than ever today after Cast Lead and Gaza's strangulation under siege.

Why a Humanitarian Aid Flotilla?

It tried "to pierce the blockade....with 9 ships full of humanitarian aid....to bring some (relief) to the people of Gaza, who have lived for many years in such deprivation....People from South America, Africa, the Balkans, Central Asia, the Middle East....the Far East (and North America) came together, people with different languages, religions and races, all came together to bring (desperately needed) aid...."

Items included were 10,000 tons of:

-- food;

-- clothes, towels, bedding, shoes, fabrics, carpets, kitchenware, quilts, blankets, couches and beds;

-- ultrasound scan devices, x-ray equipment, electric patient beds, dentistry units and gear, doppler echocardiography devices, regular and electric wheelchairs, electric scooters for the disabled, stretchers, deambulators, autoclaves, mammography devices, microscopes, blood circulating and hemodialysis machines, radiology monitors, crutches, ENT units, cat scan machines, operating beds, gynecological couches, and various medical supplies;

-- medicines;

-- 750 tons of iron;

-- 100 precast home units;

-- tiles, timber, fiberboard, cage, plumbing supplies, electric equipment, plastic window frames, glass, steel cables, measuring tools, hand carts, nails, mountings, bathroom fittings, paint, power distribution units, ladders, insolation materials, and other construction supplies;

-- 3,500 tons of cement;

-- 50 tons of ceramic tile adhesive;

-- units compromising 16 children's playgrounds;

-- two truckloads of wood;

-- two electrical power generators;

-- electric hand tools, machines, ovens, and other hardware supplies;

-- power units (one of 35 kws, five of 85 kws, one of 100 kws, two of 145 kws, six of 150 kws, and three of 165 kws;

-- another 80 one, two and five kws power units;

-- an ETC;

-- two desalination units; and

-- 20 tons of paper.

Israel confiscated the entire cargo, claiming it would deliver select items through the UN, meaning only permitted foods, fabric items, and some medicines, most everything in all categories strictly prohibited - thousands of non-military items in total.

Summary of Events - the Mavi Marmarra Mother Ship

Its 600 passengers were attacked in international waters after its Turksat satellite frequency and satellite telephone communications were blocked to prevent massacre reports getting out and connections to other ships.

Late at night, Israeli ships surrounded the Mavi Marmarra, including one or two submarines, after which helicopters circled overhead. After warning passengers, "masked, armed soldiers....tr(ied) to grab onto the boat with heavy grappling irons," at the same time live fire began, including high frequency sounds, machine guns, and loud noises resembling gas bombs, after which soldiers descended from helicopters, shooting before landing on deck.

There was no provocation, and no warning was given. Unarmed civilians were attacked, some at point blank range, at least nine of them murdered in cold blood, some shot in the head multiple times, perhaps more as bodies were dumped overboard, and some passengers remain missing. Dozens more were injured, at least 20 seriously. Everyone was taken prisoner.

The few Israeli soldiers hurt were treated by the ship's doctor. Confirming video showed it. On board, after hearing about civilian deaths, IHH President, Bulent Yildirim, told passengers over a loud speaker to sit in the lounge and not resist, except for medical workers continuing their work. He, in turn, removed his white shirt, waved it at soldiers, asking for a ceasefire. He was ignored.

Despite good faith efforts, "the Israeli soldiers, who had surrounded the lounge, continued" firing live rounds - even at medical workers treating their own injured comrades. A doctor providing aid was shot in the arm.

More soldiers boarded the ship with specially trained K9 dogs. Passengers were searched and handcuffed. Their possessions, including passports were confiscated. Women were seated on benches, men forced to kneel uncomfortably on deck. No one was allowed "to fulfill their most basic needs." It became a "long war of nerves...."

Throughout the ordeal, soldiers were hostile and abusive, "trying to agitate (passengers) to create problems." In control of the ship, they took it (and the others) to Israel's Ashdod Port, a trip taking 10 hours, passengers not knowing their destination or fate once they arrived.

En route, "Some of the wounded were purposefully mistreated, kicked and hit with weapons, while others were shot at, despite being wounded. Some wounded people" weren't taken to the hospital. Although bleeding and needing treatment, they were kept on board, doctors not allowed to help them.

At Ashdod, passengers were taken off in handcuffs, accompanied by policemen. Interrogations and security checks followed, including strip searches down to underwear, fingerprinting, and photographing. Then a health check, after which participants were told told to sign "certain documents," to be released. Otherwise, they faced prison and confinement for at least two months for entering Israel illegally despite being taken there forcibly.

Most refused, were put on freezing cold buses, taken to Beer Sheva prison, and placed in two to four-person cells, separated from others, given no information about them or allowed to make phone calls. Instead they were told: "This is now your home, forget going back."

Requests to meet consular officials were refused. Sleep was denied for two nights. Harassment was punishing, including repeated (day and night) interrogations to state their names, and explain where they came from, and why - besides being forced to "carry out every type duty," including "carrying things, distributing things, (and) cleaning up after dinner, etc."

After nearly a day, consular officials got in. Then by noon the next day, passengers began being released to be deported. Others waited an extra day, some longer. The entire procedure was made as arduous, demeaning, and degrading as possible, the slightest reaction met by blows.

Some participants "who had left the prison unharmed arrived at the airport with injuries." Others before and during detention were seriously beaten, some tortured. Five stayed behind hospitalized too injured to leave. The whereabouts of six or more remains unknown. Likely they're dead, murdered in cold blood.

Events on Other Ships

On May 30 evening and throughout the early morning May 31 hours, before the Mavi Marmarra massacre, the Defne was harassed, told to change course, and abandon its mission, what it and other vessels refused to do.

At 6:10 AM, commandos stormed the ship, took it to Ashdod, imprisoned its passengers, confiscated their possessions and the cargo. No one on board was killed, nor on other vessels who were treated like Defne's, all personal property and aid items seized, the entire ordeal (from boarding to imprisonment to deportation) made as uncomfortable and painful as possible, a lesson Israelis hoped would intimidate others from coming, an experience emboldening participants to come back, undaunted by their intimidating experience.

Eight of the nine known dead were Turks. The ninth was a Turkish American. Most of those wounded were also Turks or of Turkish or Arabic origin. Clearly they were identified in advance. Commandos had names and photos of assassination targets, ordered by top Israeli officials, including IDF commanders to commit cold-blooded murder.

A Final Comment

Besides violating maritime law in international waters, Israel massacred as many as 15 or more passengers in cold blood, injured dozens more, some seriously. In addition, ship communications were cut off, participants illegally arrested, repeatedly interrogated, initially denied consular contact, intimidated, imprisoned, and treated horrifically for two - three days, including harassment, humiliation, and physical abuse involving beatings, in some cases torture.

Further, their passports and personal possessions were stolen. Permission "to fulfill their basic needs" was denied. Humanitarian aid cargo was confiscated. Individual testimonies bore witness to Israel's lawless, callous, and degrading treatment.

Mevlut Yurtseven, the Mavi Marmarra's doctor, said dozens were wounded, at least 20 seriously. "They forced the wounded to stand up and tried to make them walk. They did not bring stretchers. Because I protested (I) was handcuffed."

Press TV - UK's Hassan al Banna Ghani said "They set attack dogs against me and another (UK) volunteer. They gave us nothing to eat for 20 hours on the ship. They stole our personal belongings and damaged them." Volunteers were treated violently.

UK emergency aid worker Nur Choodhury explained "We were physically abused: kicked, slapped, pinched, and elbowed. Our hands were tied tightly with cables; this was extremely painful and caused us to lose feeling in our hands." They were prevented from using toilets or phoning families.

Sema Islek, a Turkish nurse, called their "psychological oppression and physical torture....very great." Turks and other Muslims were treated the worst, former German MP Norman Paech said "Israeli soldiers displayed openly raci(st) behavior....treat(ing) us much better than the Turkish and Arab passengers."

Those waging war on peace will lose, the report concluded, legal professionals already enlisted to represent families of those killed, the injured, and everyone imprisoned, tortured, abused, robbed, and subjected to cruel and humiliating treatment - crimes against humanity by a nation mocking democratic freedoms, defiling the rule of law, affording rights solely to Jews, and endorsing racism, extremism, violence and torture as official state policies, including against peaceful activists bringing essential humanitarian aid to Gazans in desperate need.

The report's final comment wondered what kind of a world they'd be "if other countries....follow(ed) the path of Israel....? What kind also when leaders committing these crimes aren't held accountable, world leaders turning a blind eye, some providing active support, making them culpable - complicit in crimes of war and against humanity, including against activists bringing humanitarian aid.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

http://www.jnoubiyeh.com/2010/07/state-terror-israeli-style.html

Cement Still Banned as Israel ‘Still Deciding’ on Gaza Blockade

Mavi Marmara's Goods Finally Trickling into Gaza

by Jason Ditz, July 01, 2010

Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum

A month after Israeli troops attacked the ship, killing nine aid workers, the first of the humanitarian aid from the Mavi Marmara is just finally being allowed into the Gaza Strip today in the form of 82 of the electric wheelchairs that were on board.

Long banned as a luxury, Israel is allowing ketchup into the Gaza Strip today

Most of the rest of the aid, including clothing, surgical equipment, medicine and hospital beds, are still being held back, as Israel insists that the seized goods must be cleared as not weapons before they will consider forwarding them.

US officials have been loudly praising Israel for agreeing to end the “civilian blockade” last month, but with Western pressure increasingly off as the public forgets about the attack on the aid flotilla, the Israeli govenrment still hasn’t issued its long-promised revised list of banned goods, which was supposed to allow all civilian aid into the strip.

Instead, Israel has made a very public show of allowing a few of the most ridiculous previously banned goods, like ketchup, into the Gaza Strip in large amounts, while continuing to block most of the basic goods in shortest supply.

Cement and other construction materials continue to be in the most desperately short supply in the strip, amid Israeli claims that anything usable in constructing buildings constitutes a “dual use” item. Much of the Gaza Strip remains in ruins after Israel’s January 2009 invasion, and despite massive pledges of aid from Saudi Arabia and others, Israel has continued to deny the Gazans the supplies to repair their bombed-out infrastructure.

EU warns Israel over plans to raze houses in East Jerusalem

Brussels - The European Union warned Israel Wednesday not to proceed with controversial redevelopment plans in East Jerusalem that would see the razing of at least 20 Palestinian-inhabited houses.

The scheme, involving the creation of an archeological park in the al-Bustan neighborhood in the Silwan district, was approved by municipal authorities on Monday. Riots took place ahead of the decision, with dozens of people reported injured late on Sunday.

'I am deeply concerned by recent settlement-related activity in East Jerusalem and the recent unrest in Silwan. I recall that the European Union has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem,' the EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said in a statement.

East Jerusalem has been occupied by Israel since 1967, but is expected to be returned to Palestinians as part of peace negotiations.

However, a growing number of Israelis has been living in the area as a result of state-sponsored settlement projects, making a return to pre-1967 borders more difficult.

Ashton reiterated that 'settlements and the demolition of homes are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.'

The Silwan row erupted ahead of a visit by the United States' Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell, who is due to conduct another round of indirect talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians later this week.

'I would like to call on Israel to refrain from measures which may undermine the ongoing proximity talks. These talks enjoy our full support and the parties need to engage seriously in these negotiations,' Ashton said.

American Teenager Killed on the Gaza Flotilla for Holding a Camera

Written by John Daly

Thursday, 01 July 2010 14:36

The death of a US citizen at the hands of Israeli forces who conducted a lethal raid on a Gaza flotilla creates more questions than answers. Israel’s 31 May assault on six civilian vessels attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza ignited a firestorm of commentary in the media. Israel dominated initial reports of the incident, by having suppressed the flotilla’s electronic communications prior to boarding their ships and subsequently seizing not only the ships but the cameras, video equipment, computers and cell phones of the passengers, which included a large number of journalists. The Israeli version of events has persistently unraveled as flotilla members released from Israeli detention have begun to relate their version. Most notably, an hour-long video smuggled from the Mavi Marmaris, the largest ship in the contingent, has been released by a Brazilian-American cinematographer of Korean ancestry, Iara Lee, which depicts events considerably at odds with Israel’s version of the boarding. There are two incontrovertible elements in the event. First, the flotilla was stopped, according to the Israeli navy, 75 miles west of Gaza. The boarding occurred at Latitude 32.64113 N Longitude 33.56727 E in international waters, well outside Israel’s self-proclaimed 20-mile exclusion zone, where it has blocked ships from entering Gazan waters since December 2008. The second point is that the Israeli Shayetet 13 Naval Special Forces commandos killed eight Turks during the takeover of the Mavi Marmaris, not nine. The ninth victim was an American teenager, 19-year-old Furkan Dogan. Dogan has usually been described in the media as either a Turk or a dual Turkish-American citizen, but in fact carried only an American passport with a Turkish residency stamp. Furkan’s father, Professor Ahmet Dogan, believes that the press is portraying his son as either a dual national or a Turkish citizen in an effort to “cover up” the reality of his son’s death. These two facts taken together should impel the US government to add its voice to those of other nations, including its NATO ally Turkey in demanding an international investigation of the incident instead of Israel’s internal inquiry. Such action by the Obama administration has yet to be forthcoming. Instead, by 21 June, 83 US senators had signed onto a letter crafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to President Barack Obama “to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations.” In the House of Representatives, 307 representatives signed a similar letter. The Dogan dossier Dogan was born in 1991 in New York City, the youngest of three children. His father Ahmet, now an assistant professor of accounting at Turkey’s Erciyes University in Kayseri, was completing his MBA at Renselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, being sent there by Erciyes University. After his father completed his graduate studies the family returned to Turkey. Furkan never lost touch with his American heritage - he was bilingual, speaking fluent English and loved American basketball and films. Furkan grew up in a prosperous neighborhood and had recently gotten his driver’s license. Having completed his high school studies with outstanding grades he enrolled in a pre-med program to enter Gazi Osmanpasa University, intending later this summer to return to the US to visit his birthplace. Professor Dogan told ISN Security Watch during an interview that after his son saw billboards in Kayseri advertising the IHH Gaza flotilla, about a month before it set sail, he found an application form on the internet and then visited the organizer’s offices, where he was told to go home, think about it and discuss his possible participation with his family. Professor Dogan was adamant that his son had no fundamentalist or religious leanings whatsoever, but like many his age, was idealistic and saw his joining the flotilla as a chance to right an injustice, and insisted that the office approve his application. His parents believed that he would not be accepted because there were so many applications and he was not a member of the IHH, but reluctantly agreed to his going after he was accepted. Furkan called them from Antalya but after the flotilla departed had no communications with his family. Before the flotilla sailed from Antalya its cargo was thoroughly searched by Turkish government officials and its passengers for weapons, advising the organizers that they were likely to encounter Israeli resistance and to head instead for Egypt. The organizers agreed, a moot point at present as the Israeli navy intercepted the ships so far out at sea and continue to retain possession of them. During the voyage, Furkan’s sunny disposition and willingness to help, including working in the vessel’s canteen, endeared him to the Mavi Marmaris passengers, who came to regard him as the ship’s unofficial mascot. Professor Dogan and his family followed the live video feed on the internet from the Mavi Marmaris before it was shot down by the Israelis, but did not see his son. After the Mavi Marmara was boarded and nine people were reported killed, Professor Dogan contacted the Turkish prime minister’s office and the US Embassy but received no information about his son. When the lists of detainees, injured and killed were released, Furkan’s name was absent. As such, after hearing that those deported by Israel were being flown to Istanbul Professor Dogan traveled there hoping to see his son. On 3 June, 466 flotilla participants arrived in Istanbul, along with Turkey's ambassador to Israel, Oguz Celikkol; seven planes were used to deport 527 flotilla participants to both Turkey and Greece. At Ataturk airport Professor Dogan did not see his son among those deplaning, where he was told that three Americans had been held in Israel and not allowed to board the flights. He asked the US consulate for information but again received no answer, eventually learning that there were four bodies in the Morgue Department of State Institute of Forensic Medicine in Istanbul awaiting identification. Professor Dogan went to the morgue, where his worst fears were confirmed. Furkan has been shot five times, twice in the head. Dr Haluk Ince, chairman of the council of forensic medicine in Istanbul who conducted the initial post-mortems, told Professor Dogan that he had never before seen injuries like Dogan’s, and that the shots that killed his son had been fired from less than 45 cm away at point-blank range. One of the shots was apparently fired after Dogan was already dead. Dr Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine, said that the nine dead men from the flotilla were shot a total of 30 times. Of the other eight dead, medical examiners found that five had been shot in the back or in the back of the head. Dr Ince added that in only one case was there a single bullet wound, to the forehead from a distant shot, while every other victim suffered multiple wounds. British citizen Ismail Patel, who was onboard the Mavi Marmaris, calculated that at the height of the assault Israeli commandos shot one person every minute, leaving besides the nine dead 48 others suffering from gunshot wounds. Two other Americans were wounded during the Israeli attack. The US Embassy only phoned Dogan’s parents to offer condolences after Professor Dogan told the Turkish media that his son was a US citizen. Six days later the US Embassy again contacted him and said that it was waiting for the coroner’s report before the Department of Justice would decide whether to take action. “He was just a normal child, but very curious, a normal teenager. He wasn’t interested in politics at all, he wasn’t a fan of any political group and he didn’t talk about politics,” Professor Dogan told ISN Security Watch. Dangerous provocation The Israeli assault on an unarmed merchantman in international waters provoked massive anger in Turkey. During a televised speech on 4 June, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of betraying its religion, saying, "You killed 19-year-old Furkan Dogan brutally. Which faith, which holy book can be an excuse for killing him?" The assault was also harshly criticized by the International Chamber of Shipping, which expressed "deep concern" over the attack, maintaining that merchantmen have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters. More criticism came from the Foreign Press Association about the Israeli government’s “selective” use of videos confiscated from journalists on the ships to justify its deadly raid, demanding that the Israeli military cease using the confiscated material without permission and identify the sources of the video already released. Returning from deportation on 3 June to Turkey, Swedish historian Mattias Gardell told Swedish public radio: “We were witnesses to premeditated murders.” Bolstering the charge that the killings were not random, Canadian Kevin Neish was filmed by an Arab TV cameraman before video feeds from the Mavi Marmaris were blocked displaying a booklet with pictures and profiles of all the passengers, which he'd found in the backpack of an Israeli Shayetet 13 Naval Special Forces commando. Despite the mounting evidence of Israel’s overwhelming use of lethal force, which killed nine people and wounded 48 others, on 3 June US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told journalists that the FBI was not investigating the attack. "Any time an American is killed overseas, we have the option of evaluating the circumstances, and if we think a crime has been committed, then, working with the host government, we have the option of our own investigation," he said in a statement. Law of the jungle Maritime law, which began to be codified in the early 17th century, is the oldest corpus of international law in the world. To abandon it to justify an armed attack on an unarmed vessel in international waters is to invite the law of the jungle to replace it, where might makes right. As America prides itself as pre-eminently a nation of laws, Washington must realize the future consequences of ignoring such a blatant violation of international law to be whitewashed by a commission composed of perpetrators supporting the attack. Israel’s government has already announced that its commission will not be able to interview members of the Shayetet 13 Naval Special Forces. If Israel is sincere about getting to the bottom of what happened on 31 May, it can begin by returning the video equipment, cameras and computers aboard the Mavi Marmaris, as well as returning the flotilla vessels. Given the visual evidence and testimonies of other Americans aboard the Mavi Marmaris, it would seem that the US government’s fundamental responsibility should extend to supporting Turkey’s and other nations’ calls for an international investigation into Israel’s attack on the Gaza flotilla, to include a complete accounting of the circumstances of the death of American teenager Furkan Dogan, shot five times by Israeli commandos on a civilian ship on the high seas for the crime of holding a camera. By: Dr. John C.K. Daly Source: ISN Security Watch