Bandar ibn Israel

By Sharmine Narwani

The recent acts of political violence in the Middle East’s Levant are not unrelated.

Car bombings in the predominantly Shia southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh; twin bombings targeting Sunni mosques in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli; an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus blamed on the Syrian government; a secret IDF operation across the Lebanese border foiled by Hezbollah; rockets lobbed by an Al Qaeda-related group into Israel; an IDF airstrike on a pro-Damascus Palestinian resistance group base in Lebanon…

From one perspective, the common thread is the crisis in Syria, where a 29-month conflict has cemented divisions in the rest of the region and set the stage for an existential fight on multiple battlefields between two highly competitive Mideast blocs.

From another perspective, the common thread drawing these disparate crimes scenes together is the “culprit” – one who has strong political interest, material capabilities and the sense of urgency to commit rash and violent actions on many different fronts.

In isolation, none of these acts are capable of producing a “result.” But combined, they are able to instill fear in populations, stir governments into action, and in the short term, to create the perception of a shift in regional “balances.”

And no parties in the Mideast are more vested right now in urgently “correcting” the regional balance of power than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the state of Israel – both nations increasingly frustrated by the inaction of their western allies and the incremental gains of their regional rivals Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and now Iraq.

Worse yet, with every passing month the “noose of multilateralism” tightens, as rising powers Russia, China and others offer protective international cover for those foes. Israel and Saudi Arabia are keenly aware that the age of American hegemony is fast declining, and with it, their own regional primacy.


Common foes, common goals

At the helm of efforts to “correct” the imbalance is Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the US’s longtime go-to man in Riyadh – whose 22-year reign as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington provided him with excellent contacts throughout the Israeli political and military establishments.

Like Israel, Bandar has long been a vocal advocate of curtailing the regional influences of Iran and Syria and forging a neocon-style “New Middle East” – sometimes to his detriment.

When he all but disappeared from public view in 2008, one of the reasons cited for Bandar’s “banishment” from the royal circle of influence was that he had “meddled in Syrian affairs, trying to stir up the tribes against the Assad regime, without the king’s approval.”

The frustrated Bandar, who at the time officially headed Saudi’s National Security Council, was also notably absent when Saudi King Abdullah paid a highly visible visit to the Syrian president in late 2009 to renew relations after four years of bitter tensions.

All that changed with the Arab uprisings in early 2011. Regime-change in Syria – according to an acquaintance who visited various prominent Saudi ministers (all key royals) in 2012 – suddenly become a national priority for the al-Saud family. According to this shocked source, the Saudis had come to believe that if the battle for control over Syria “is lost,” the kingdom would lose its Shia-dominated Eastern Province where its vast oil reserves are concentrated.

That year marked Bandar’s return to influence in the kingdom, and within short order he was promoted to head the powerful Saudi Intelligence Agency, known for its myriad links into the underworld of global jihadis.

But the kingdom’s once-reliable western powerhouse ally, the United States, appeared to be withdrawing from the region. Highly sensitive to the fall-out over its aggressive interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington was shying away from the kind of overt leadership that the Saudis desperately needed to re-establish their equilibrium in the region.

Which is where Bandar comes into the picture. The former ambassador to Washington has the kind of relationships that go deep – no Saudi knows how to twist American arms better than he. But to push western allies in the desired direction, the Saudis were in need of an influential and opportunistic ally that was also passionately fixated on the same set of adversaries. That partner would be Israel.

Says a 2007 Wikileaks cable from the US embassy in Riyadh:

“We have also picked up first hand accounts of intra-family tension over policy towards Israel. Some princes, most notably National Security Advisor Bandar Bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, are reportedly pushing for more contact with Israel. Bandar now sees Iran as a greater threat than Israel.”

Bandar’s ascendancy to his current position suggests more than ever that the Saudis, at least for now, have put aside their reservations over dealing with Israel. And Iran’s election of a moderate new President Hassan Rouhani has brought urgency to the Saudi-Israeli relationship – both fearing the possibility of a US-Iranian grand bargain that could sink their fortunes further.

Putting wheels into motion

For Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Syria is the frontline battle from which they seek to cripple the Iranians in the region. None have been as ferocious in lobbying Washington on the issue of Syrian “chemical weapons use” and “red lines” as this duo – perhaps even setting up false flag operations to force its hand. Since last Winter, says the Wall Street Journal:

“the Saudis also started trying to convince Western governments that Mr. Assad had crossed what President Barack Obama a year ago called a “red line”: the use of chemical weapons. Arab diplomats say Saudi agents flew an injured Syrian to Britain, where tests showed sarin gas exposure. Prince Bandar’s spy service, which concluded in February that Mr. Assad was using chemical weapons, relayed evidence to the US, which reached a similar conclusion four months later.”

The following Spring, it was Israel’s turn. In an article entitled “Did Israel Ambush the United States on Syria,” Alon Ben David says:

“By stating that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the director of Israel’s Military Intelligence Research Department, cornered the Americans. Washington finally — and very tentatively — admitted that such weapons had been used. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu planned to ambush the Americans, it was a phenomenal success. From an Israeli standpoint, this was a chance to test America’s supposed “red line.”

The Russians, however, have stood in the way of every effort to draw the US into intervening directly in Syria. In the past year, the Saudis and Israelis have tag-teamed Moscow, by turns cajoling, threatening and dangling incentives to shift the Russians from their immovable position.

Just last month, Bandar beat a path to Moscow to test Russian President Vladimir Putin’s appetite for compromise. According to leading Lebanese daily As-Safir, a private diplomatic report on the Saudi prince’s visit claims that Bandar employed a “carrot-and-stick” approach to wrest concessions from Putin on Syria and Iran.

In what has to be the most delusional statement I’ve heard in a while, Bandar allegedly told the Russian president: “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world.” He continued with a threat:

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

According to the report, Putin responded to Bandar thus: “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”

Bandar ibn Israel: a terror Frankentein

Chechen jihadis have, of course, turned up in Syria to fight alongside their brethren from dozens of other countries against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the past two years.

The Saudi links go beyond jihadis though. Seventeen months ago in Homs – and barely a month after the battle over Baba Amr – 24 Syrian rebels groups sent an email to the externally-based Syrian National Council, complaining about the rogue behavior of the Saudi-funded Al Farouq Battalion. This is the group to which the infamous lung-eating Syrian rebel once belonged.

Alleging that Al Farouq was responsible for killing at least five rebels and fomenting violence against civilians and other fighters, the group wrote:

“The basis of the crisis in the city today is groups receiving uneven amounts of money from direct sources in Saudi Arabia some of whom are urging the targeting of loyalist neighborhoods and sectarian escalation while others are inciting against the SNC.
They are not national, unifying sources of support. On the contrary, mature field leaders have noted that receiving aid from them [Saudi Arabia] entails implicit conditions like working in ways other than the desired direction.”

In a reprisal of his role in Afghanistan where he helped the CIA arm the Mujahedeen – who later came to form the backbone of the Taliban and Al Qaeda – Bandar is now throwing funding, weapons and training at the very same kinds of Islamist militants who are establishing an extreme version of Sharia law in territories they hold inside Syria.
Says an analyst at a Beirut-based think tank:

“These fighters, many of whom are ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda, are much more pragmatic today. They are ready to take funding, facilities and arms from the Saudis (who previously they targeted). There is no concept of a main enemy – it could be the US, Russians, Iranians, Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood. Their only priority is to use the new situation of instability in the region to form a core territorial base. They now think in Syria they have a real opportunity to regenerate Al Qaeda that they didn’t have since their defeat in Iraq. In the Sinai too. Through a central Syrian base they are ready to converge with other regional actors from which they will move into Lebanon, Iraq and other places.”

“Some of them know Bandar for a long time,” says the analyst. “There have always been Saudi intelligence officers dedicated to oversee jihadist groups in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya.”

Though the Saudis tell Washington that their goal is to keep extremists out of power in Syria, elements in the US administration remain uncomfortable about where this could end. Says the Wall Street Journal, quoting a former official concerned about weapons flowing into jihadi hands: “This has the potential to go badly” – an understatement, if ever there was one.

Using Lebanon as a lever

Whereas western powers have sought to maintain stability on the Lebanese front, the Saudis – who lost influence in the Levantine state when Hezbollah and its allies forced the dissolution of a Riyadh-backed government in early 2011 – are not as inclined to keep the peace.

Paramount for Bandar’s Syria plans is halting the battlefield assistance Hezbollah has provided for the Syrian army in key border towns which had become supply routes for rebels.

To punish Hezbollah and weaken its regional allies, the Saudis have used their own alliances in Lebanon to hammer daily at the Shia resistance group’s role in Syria. One easy route is to sow sectarian tensions in multi-sect Lebanon – a tactic at which the conservative Wahhabi Saudis excel.
Pitting Sunni against Shia through a series of well-planned acts of political violence is child’s play for Saudis who have decades of expertise overseeing such acts – just look at the escalation of sectarian bombings in Iraq today as example.

This does not necessarily mean that Riyadh is involved in planning these operations though.

Says the Beirut analyst: “The escalation may be Saudi-run, but not necessarily the deed itself. (When they back these Islamist extremists in Lebanon), they know the software of these people. They know they will attack Shia and moderate Sunni, use rockets, car bombs, etc. They empower these groups being conscious of the consequences. These guys are predictable. And the Saudis also have some trusted men among these groups who will act in a way that will conform to Saudi interests and projects.”

The diplomatic report on the Bandar’s Moscow visit concludes: “It is not unlikely that things [will] take a dramatic turn in Lebanon, in both the political and security senses, in light of the major Saudi decision to respond to Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis.”

Two bombings: one, targeting a Shia neighborhood, the second aimed at Sunni residents. On another front, the IDF launches a secret mission across the Lebanese border, swiftly thwarted by a Hezbollah counterattack. Soon after, an Al Qaeda linked group called the Abdullah Azzam Brigades (AAB), which last year acknowledged its fight against the Syrian state, launches four rockets into Israeli territory. Israel does not retaliate against this Salafist militia though. The IDF choses instead to strike at the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group that supports the Resistance in Lebanon and Syria.

It appears that Israel, like the Saudis, has a message to relay to Lebanon: Hezbollah should stay out of Syria or Lebanon will bear the consequences.

The escalation of violence in the region – from Lebanon to Iraq – is today very much a Bandar-Israel project. And the sudden escalation of military threats by Washington against the Assad government is undoubtedly a result of pressures and rewards dangled by this duo.

While Putin may have told Bandar to take a hike when the he offered to purchase $15 billion in weapons in exchange for a compromise on Syria and Iran, the British and French are beggars for this kind of business. Washington too. With $65 billion in arms sales to the kingdom in process, the Obama administration is prostituting Americans for cold, hard cash.

Let there be no mistake. Bandar ibn Israel is going for gold and will burn the Middle East to get there.

This article was first published by Al Akhbar English on August 28, 2013.

Follow the author on Twitter, Facebook, The Huffington Post and Al Akhbar English

Israel’s right or not to exist – The facts and truth

On Monday 12 October, Prime Minister Netanyahu opened the Knesset’s winter session by blasting the Goldstone Report that accuses Israel of committing war crimes and vowing that he would never allow Israelis be tried for them. But that was not his main message. It was an appeal, delivered I thought with a measure of desperation, to the “Palestinian leadership”, presumably the leadership of “President” Abbas and his Fatah cronies, leaders who are regarded by very many if not most Palestinians as American-and-Israeli stooges at best and traitors at worst.


Netanyahu again called on this leadership to agree to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, saying this was, and remains, the key to peace. And he went on and on and on about it.

“For 62 years the Palestinians have been saying ‘No’ to the Jewish state. I am once again calling upon our Palestinian neighbours – say ‘Yes’ to the Jewish state. Without recognition of the Israel as the state of the Jews we shall not be able to attain peace… Such recognition is a step which requires courage and the Palestinian leadership should tell its people the truth – that without this recognition there can be no peace… There is no alternative to Palestinian leaders showing courage by recognising the Jewish state. This has been and remains the true key to peace.”

As Ha’aretz noted in its report, Netanyahu’s demand for Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state is for him “a way on ensuring recognition of Israel’s right to exist as opposed to merely recognising Israel” (my emphasis). This, as Ha’aretz added, is the recognition which Netanyahu and many other Israelis see as the real core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the name of pragmatism, willingness to “merely to recognise” Israel – meaning to accept and live in peace with an Israel inside its pre-June ’67 borders – has long been the formal Palestinian and all-Arab position. Why does it stop short of recognising Israel’s “right to exist”, and why, really, does it matter so much to Zionism that Palestinians recognise this right?
The answer is in the following.

According to history as written by the winner, Zionism, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is propaganda nonsense.

• In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
•  
• Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
•  
• The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
•  
• So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. 

And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.

No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu is more than a little concerned on this account.

Israel’s leaders have always known the truth summarised above. It’s time for the rest of the world to know it.

Source

Netanyahu: “Israel Will Always Maintain Sovereignty On Settlements, New ‘Jewish Neighborhoods”

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, stated during his recent meeting with UN General-Secretary, Ban Ki-moon, that Israel will continue to build and expand settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, and that settlements, and what he labeled as “new neighborhoods”, and settlement blocs will always remain under Israeli sovereignty.

During his meeting with Ki-moon two days ago, Netanyahu said that there is nothing to discuss or negotiate on regarding Israel’s settlements.

“Everybody knows new Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, all settlement blocs, will always remain under Israeli control”, he said, “There is nothing to talk about, there will be no discussion on the issue”.

The Israeli Prime Minister also claimed that “it is clear everybody known that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the core source of tension in the Middle East”, and alleged that “the fundamental issue, the core problem in the region, is not recognizing Israel is a state for the Jewish people”.

He further claimed that the Education System in the Gaza Strip “is based on incitement against Israel”, and demanded the United Nations to examine “how summer camps run by the UNRWA, are used to foster hatred and violence in the minds of Palestinian children”, according to Netanyahu.

Israel’s illegal settlement activities, built in direct violation of International Law, are amongst the core issue that obstruct direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel refuses to recognize most of the core issues on the conflict, and the Palestinian legitimate rights, including the Right of Return of all refugees, the right to a fully independent and continuous state with East Jerusalem as its capital, borders and natural resources.

Source

Sham Peace Talks Resume

by Stephen Lendman

Why bother. Talks are doomed to fail. So did multiple previous rounds. Israel wants things its way. Demands masquerade as give and take.

According to one PLO official, "Israel will dodge, evade and propose unachievable demands to promote a conclusion that negotiations are futile, and so Israel will continue to steal lands as they are doing now."

It's hard imagining Palestinian officials agreeing to talks rigged to fail. Longtime Israeli collaborators do it willingly. It's for generous benefits they derive. Crime pays well. So does betrayal.

On August 14, US/Israeli orchestrators met with PA's Saeb Erekat and Fatah official Mohammed Shtayyeh. 

He's a technocrat. He's managing director of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR). 

He's founding member of the Palestinian Development Fund. He's a former Palestinian public works and housing minister.

He's a founding Palestinian Institute for Regional Studies member. He's collaborating with Israel for personal self-interest.

Talks discussed guidelines and agenda issues. They did so despite Israel bombing Gaza. Warplanes fired missiles at multiple targets. Similar attacks happen often. Israel invents pretexts to do so. Innocent civilians die.

Talks continued despite Palestinian fishermen attacked at sea. They're at the same time as outrage over accelerated settlement construction.

Stealing Palestinian land's no olive branch. Nor is releasing 26 long held political prisoners. Their freedom's subject to restrictions. 

Some weren't allowed to go home. They're vulnerable to rearrest. In 2004, Yasser Arafat said "(t)here will be no peace until all Palestinian prisoners are released." Palestinian supporters today feel the same way.

Thousands of Bedouins await dispossession. Israeli courts spurned them. Israel wants land they own. It wants it for exclusive Jewish development.

In July, a Beersheba court rejected Bedouins' appeal. They urged delaying another court-ordered property demolition and dispossession ruling. 

It's their land. It doesn't matter. On August 15, efforts to displace them began. They're losing everything. Rogue states operate that way. Israel's one of the worst. 

One Sawah village resident spoke for others, saying:

"We requested that Israeli authorities give us a delay until we arrange to move into a neighborhood in the nearby village of Hurah which is being expanded, but they refused."

Jewish rights alone matter. Palestinians ones don't. Sham peace talks won't change things. Decades of occupation harshness continue.

Expecting this time's different reflects Einstein's definition of insanity. Expecting success after decades of failure explains it. Israel's worst government in history assures it.

Hardliners are all take and no give. US orchestrator John Kerry's two-faced. He's Israel's man at State. 

Publicly he's concerned about settlement expansions. At the same time, he doesn't think proceeding hampers talks.

Privately he's comfortable with build, build, built. He's been that way all along. In the Senate, he supported them for years. 

He said we knew "there was going to be a continuation of some building in certain places, and I think the Palestinians understand that."

Israel announced accelerated construction. Doing so reflects land grabbing writ large. It spurns equitable conflict resolution. 

It reveals longstanding Israeli business as usual. It shows contempt for rule of law principles. It makes justice a four-letter word.

It exposes Washington's true face. It's in lockstep with whatever Israel does. Palestinian rights don't matter. Talks won't change things.

It bears repeating. Kerry is Israel's man at State. He's in lockstep with its worst policies. His pro-Israel voting record is second to none. He's committed to maintaining a longstanding special relationship. Whatever Israel wants he's for.

He's always been that way. For sure he is now. He favors moving America's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Doing so is illegal. In 1947, the UN declared it an international city. It remains so today.

Kerry calls Jerusalem "Israel's indisputable capital." In 1999, he signed a letter criticizing Clinton for not moving America's embassy there. 

He ignored international law doing so. He's throwing Palestinians under the bus. He pretends otherwise. He supports continued occupation harshness.

On August 13, Robert Fisk headlined "Any other 'statesman' who negotiated peace like John Kerry would be treated as a thief."

"Has (he) no shame," he asked? "First he cuddles up to both Palestinians and Israelis and announces the renewal of a 'peace process which the Palestinians don't trust and the Israelis don't want."

"Then Israel announces that it will build 1,200 new homes for Jews - and Jews only - on occupied Palestinian land." 

"And now Kerry tells the Palestinians - the weak and occupied Palestinians - that they are running out of time if they want a state of their own."

"Then came the ultimate lie: that the 'question of settlements' is 'best resolved by solving the problem of security and borders.' "

Doing so justifies lawless land grabbing. Millions worldwide condemn it. So do many Israelis.

Kerry "go(es) all out for 'peace.' " He does so on Israeli terms. "Cabined, cribbed (and) confined" Palestinians have to "shut up'' and accept them.

Kerry insists "hurry, hurry, hurry. Book your seats now, or it will be a full house," said Fisk. 'What price 'Palestine?' "

Over decades, Washington vetoed 39 Security Council resolutions criticizing Israel. In 2011, it blocked one condemning continued settlement construction. All other SC members supported it. So do over 90% of world community members.

At the time, US officials claimed resolution backing harmed peace prospects. How wasn't explained. Arab street reaction expressed outrage. It did so justifiably. America's position is untenable.

Palestinian political prisoner Marwan Barghouti calls Washington's one-sided Israeli support a crime against humanity. Bouthaina Shaaban condemned America's veto, saying:

"The importance of what is happening today in the Arab world is the fall of the colonial dimension of the official regime, which has ignored the crimes against humanity in Palestine…"

America's veto reflects "eternal shame for western 'democracies…' (L)ike tens of other(s), (it) contributed to the perpetuation of Israeli suppression of the Palestinian people, colonizing their land, expelling and condemning them to life in refugee camps."

MJ Rosenberg said:

"It is not hard to explain the Obama administration's decision to veto a resolution embodying positions that we support." 

"It is the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which (lobbied) furiously for a US veto."

One-sided Israeli support is "why US standing in the Middle East will continue to deteriorate."

Akiva Eldar thanked Obama. He did so for showing "his true colors." He's "two-faced."

"The lame excuse that denunciation of construction in the settlements would harm 'the peace process' constitutes a victory of opportunism over morality," he said.

Yaron London said Israel's "relying on a sinking superpower that is abandoning its pretenses to lead the world…"

Haaretz editors said "Palestinians lost the vote, (but) achieved their goal: They exposed for all to see the international isolation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's administration and embarrassed the US."

"The world's patience over continued construction in the settlements is wearing thin." Other observers agree. In time, it'll be entirely gone.

Peace prospects remain distant. One day Palestinians will be free. Occupation harshness can't last forever. What can't go on forever, won't. 

Hopefully time will resolve injustice. Some things are worth waiting for. Peace, equity and justice matter most. Patience brings its own reward. 

Edmond Burke said it "achieve(s) more than force." Rousseau called it "bitter, but its fruit is sweet." 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays 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.dailycensored.com/sham-peace-talks-resume/

 

Source

Futile Peace Talks – Again. The Jewish State’s Bottom Line

 Jonathan Cook

There are many flies waiting to spoil the ointment of the Middle East peace talks, not least Israel’s recent announcement of a rash of settlement-building. That triggered an angry letter to Washington last week from the Palestinian leadership, though it seems Israel’s serial humiliation of Mahmoud Abbas before the two sides meet was not enough to persuade him to pull out.

However, as the parties meet today for their first round of proper negotiations, it is worth highlighting one major stumbling block that has barely registered with observers: the fifth of Israel’s population who are not Jews but Palestinians.

The difficulty posed to the peace process by this Palestinian minority was illustrated in the defining moment of the last notable effort to reach an agreement, initiated in Oslo two decades ago.

In 1993 Yitzhak Rabin, then prime minister, assembled a 15-person delegation for the signing ceremony with the Palestinians at the White House. The delegation was selected to suggest that all sectors of Israeli society favoured peace.

When Rabin was asked why he had not included a single Palestinian, he waved aside the question: “We are going to sign a peace treaty between Jewish Israel and the PLO.”

Rabin believed his own Palestinian citizens should be represented not by their government but by the adversary across the table. The mood 20 years on is unchanged. The Palestinian minority is still viewed as a fifth column, one a Jewish state would be better off without.

Significantly, it was a matter relating to Israel’s Palestinian citizens that nearly scuppered the start of these talks. Israeli cabinet ministers revolted at a precondition from Abbas that the release of long-term political prisoners should include a handful of inmates from Israel’s Palestinian minority.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, won a majority in the cabinet only after agreeing to postpone freeing this group until an unspecified time.

Similarly, previous experience suggests there will be an eruption of outrage should Netanyahu’s promised referendum on an agreement depend for its outcome — given the likely split between Israeli Jews — on the votes of Palestinian citizens. A senior minister, Silvan Shalom, has already indicated that only Israeli Jews should decide.

But Israel’s Palestinian minority will be thrust into the heart of the negotiations much before that.

Last weekend Netanyahu picked at one of the Israeli right’s favourite sores, denouncing reported comments from Abbas that no Israeli should be allowed to remain inside a future Palestinian state. Why, asks the right, should Israelis — meaning the settlers — be expelled from a Palestinian state while Israel is left with a large and growing Palestinian population inside its borders?

A possible solution promulgated by Netanyahu’s ally Avigdor Lieberman would redraw the borders to expel as many Palestinian citizens as possible in exchange for the settlements. There is a practical flaw, however: a land swap would rid Israel only of those Palestinians living near the West Bank.

Netanyahu prefers another option. He has required of the Palestinian Authority that it recognise Israel as a Jewish state. This condition will take centre stage at the talks.

Leaders of the Palestinian minority in Israel are intensively lobbying the PA to reject the demand. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, Palestinian officials are still undecided. Some fear the PA may agree to recognition if it clears the way to an agreement.

Why does this matter to Israel? In the event there is a deal on Palestinian statehood, Israel will wake up the next morning to an intensified campaign for equal rights from the Palestinian minority. In such circumstances, Israel will not be able to plead “security” to justify continuing systematic discrimination.

The Palestinian minority’s first demand for equality is not in doubt: a right of return allowing their relatives in exile to join them inside Israel similar to the current Law of Return, which allows any Jew in the world instantly to become a citizen.

The stakes are high: without the Law of Return, Israel’s Jewishness is finished; with it, Israel’s trumpeted democracy is exposed as hollow.

Netanyahu is acutely sensitive to these dangers. Recognition of Israel’s Jewishness would pull the rug from under the minority’s equality campaign. If you don’t want to live in a Jewish state, Netanyahu will tell Palestinian citizens, go live in Palestine. That is what Mahmoud Abbas, your leader, agreed.

Netanyahu’s visceral contempt for the rights of the Palestinian minority was alluded to in a recent parliamentary debate. When an Arab MP commented, “We were here before you and will remain [here] after you”, an indignant Netanyahu broke protocol to interrupt: “The first part isn’t true, and the second won’t be.”

Recent government moves suggest that his latter observation may not be simply an idle boast but a carefully crafted threat. Israel is preparing to expel tens of thousands of Bedouin citizens from their homes in the Negev into urban reservations as part of a forced relocation plan. This ethnic cleansing campaign sets a dangerous precedent, hinting at what may lie ahead for Israel’s other Palestinian communities.

The minority has taken to the streets in the most widespread internal Palestinian protests seen since the eruption of the second intifada. Israeli police have responded with extreme brutality, using levels of violence that would never be contemplated against Jewish demonstrators.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s government has introduced legislation to raise the threshold for parties seeking entry to the Knesset. The main victims will be the three small Arab parties represented there. The law’s aim, analysts note, is to engineer an Arab-free Knesset, guaranteeing the right’s continuing and unchallengeable domination.

Netanyahu, it seems, doubts he can rely on the PA either to supply him with the political surrender he needs from the peace process or to recognise his state’s Jewishness. Instead he is bypassing Abbas to protect against the threat posed by his Palestinian citizens’ demand for equality.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books).  His new website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

 Source

Israel Charny, director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and former editor of the Encyclopedia of Genocide, acknowledges that Zionists committed genocidal massacres and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians

The Jewish Daily Forward article copied below reports on a disagreement between two scholars of genocide, in which one scholar, a man named Israel Charny, denounced another scholar as "delusional" for suggesting that what Zionists did to Palestinians in 1948 constituted genocide. What makes this article interesting is that Charny, while ardently defending Israel from the charge of genocide nonetheless admitted that Zionists carried out genocidal massacres and ethnic cleansing. He just didn't think the word "genocide" is appropriate to describe the Zionists' intentions. I have bolded the most relevant passages below. --John Spritzler

http://forward.com/articles/135484/
 

The Jewish Daily Forward

 Genocide? Palestinians evacuate the village of Zenin in 1948. Some scholars say that what is now called ‘ethnic cleansing’ constitutes a form of genocide.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/135484/#ixzz1EMM2LDRp

By Gal Beckerman

Published February 16, 2011, issue of February 25, 2011.

Did Jews commit genocide in 1948?

The question is provocative, and the answer for most people is an unequivocal no. But a debate over this idea has formed the crux of a heated argument among the most eminent genocide scholars in the world, and led recently to the censure of an Israeli professor by the field’s leading academic association.

It’s also one more reminder of the growing divide between European scholars and their American and Israeli counterparts when it comes to how they view Israel, both historically and in the present moment.

The debate began in the pages of a scholarly publication, the Winter 2010 issue of the Journal of Genocide Research. Two specialists in genocide, Omer Bartov of Brown University and Martin Shaw of Roehampton University, in London, engaged in a back-and-forth exchange about whether the word “genocide” could be applied to the expulsion and killing of Arabs in Palestine during Israel’s War of Independence. During the course of the war, more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced out of their homes and were later prevented from returning, creating what would become one of the world’s most enduring refugee crises.

Both Bartov and Shaw agreed that some form of what is now called “ethnic cleansing” did occur. But where Bartov was not willing to think of this as genocide, Shaw confidently argued that any policies meant to destroy a group, even if not outright murder, should be seen as genocide.

With this more expansive reading, he sees genocide victims everywhere, from the Aborigines in Australia to the Albanians uprooted from Kosovo. And Shaw goes further, claiming that the entire Zionist enterprise had “an incipiently genocidal mentality” toward the Arabs. Due to what he views as Israel’s original sin, Shaw argues that the state’s policies toward Palestinians and its Arab citizens since “can be seen as a ‘slow-motion’ extension and consolidation of the genocide of 1948.”

In the exchange, Bartov described Shaw’s ultimate purpose as “delegitimizing” Israel, and offered plenty of evidence for why calling what Jews did in 1948 “genocide” would only serve to render the term “meaningless.”

But it didn’t end there. Israel Charny, an American-born scholar who immigrated to Israel and who directs the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and edited the Encyclopedia of Genocide, was offended by the exchange. He wrote a response that was posted on the discussion board of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a 16-year-old organization that is considered the pre-eminent association of its kind.

Charny did not mince words. He referred to Shaw’s argument as the “delusional projection of an angry soul,” and accused Shaw of attacks on Israel and Zionism that were “blind and rampaging.”

Shaw complained that Charny’s criticism amounted to an ad hominem assault, and the president of IAGS, William Schabas, apologized to Shaw, admitting that the offending message shouldn’t have been posted. Schabas then took the unprecedented step of formally censuring Charny.

“My only concern is that we have a debate in which the tone is between civilized academics, discussing things in an appropriate way,” Schabas, a professor of international law at the National University of Ireland in Galway, told the Forward. “Charny’s comments were too intemperate. So we apologized to Shaw and let the debate continue.”

But to Charny, this was one more sign that a field that was started as “a civilizational response to the horror of the Holocaust” has been turned against the Jewish state. “This is ultimately a story of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, including among genocide scholars,” Charny told the Forward.

Charny makes it clear that he does think Jews committed what he calls “genocidal massacres” during the war of 1948, like the infamous shooting of civilians in the village of Deir Yassin, in which more than 100 unarmed people were killed in a brutal raid. But he does not consider the “ethnic cleansing” that took place as constituting genocide, nor does he think, as Shaw contends, that the Zionists had any genocidal objective.

“I do not believe the war was undertaken by us with a genocidal intent at all — it was in self-defense for the establishment of Israel per the U.N. mandate and our cherished Zionist dream,” Charny said. “And I do not at all believe that we had any grand genocidal plan in our warfare or in the collective mind-culture in which the Yishuv [pre-state government] was operating.”

According to the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted at the end of 1948, genocide is legally defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Nowhere does it specifically mention what we would think of today as ethnic cleansing, but there are those scholars, like Shaw, who believe that ethnic cleansing does indeed fall within the convention’s initial meaning.

Shaw thinks Charny’s reaction is indicative of those scholars he calls “pro-Israel,” those who he thinks are incapable of applying the same critical eye to Israel and its past that they do to other peoples’ histories.

“He’s an American Jew who’s gone to Israel, and he has invested a lot of his identity in Israel — whereas criticisms of the recent attack on Gaza don’t necessarily bring the whole existence of the state into question, this seems to him as an argument that strikes at the foundations,” Shaw said, speaking of Charny. “The other issue is that there is a problem with the language of genocide with anything having to do with Jews. For some Israeli and pro-Israeli scholars, genocide is something that happened to the Jews; it’s not something that Jews could ever really be involved in.”

This current conflict between the scholars in some ways cements what was already an ideological rift.

In 2005, a group of genocide researchers, many of whom had been part of IAGS, decided to start their own rival organization, calling it the International Network of Genocide Scholars. The reason they say they broke away was twofold: They felt that IAGS had become too American in its perspective, and that it had become too politically activist. Unofficially, according to Shaw, the feeling was that the association was “overtly pro-Israel.” Shaw cites the example of a resolution that the association issued in reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about destroying Israel. The resolution condemned this as a threat of genocide. Shaw did not believe it was the place of genocide scholars to make such a pronouncement.

The two groups have continued independently — though they share many of the same members — until this past year, when there was talk of a merger, initiated by Schabas. Recently, after a few meetings to negotiate what would have been a new organization, the INoGS leadership said it was no longer interested. Schabas thinks the timing was not coincidental.

“If you would ask them who would be representative of the things they don’t like in the association, probably Israel Charny would be at the top of the list,” Schabas said. “I suspect that the recent explosion between Charny and Shaw may have contributed to the fact that the discussions about merging the two associations have melted down.”

INoGS is led by Juergen Zimmerer, a professor at the University of Sheffield, in the United Kingdon. Zimmerer said that the decision not to merge had nothing to do with the flare-up between the two scholars.

“We simply felt that IAGS was too divided internally to proceed with the merger at the moment,” Zimmerer wrote in an e-mail to the Forward.

According to Charny, the crux of the problem is the issue of Israel. In a reversal of the criticism that the breakaway INoGS scholars had of IAGS, he thinks that hatred of the Jewish state has undermined their scholarship.

“While saying that they don’t take any political position, they are slowly but surely, insidiously, under a smokescreen of their good English manners and their supposedly dispassionate point of view, becoming a hotbed of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish sentiment, which they will of course deny vociferously,” Charny said.

For now, the two organizations seem to remain deeply divided. Schabas, who is nearing the end of his tenure, looked back at the volatility of presiding over an association of genocide scholars.

“It’s like riding a bucking bronco,” he said.

Contact Gal Beckerman at beckerman@forward.com or on Twitter @galbeckerman


The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.


Read more: http://forward.com/articles/135484/#ixzz1EMMHXlTM

Source

Top American General Cites Israel as Unsustainable and Apartheid

By Gordon Duff and Press TV

The story “hangs there,” a week now, no one will touch it other than the Times of Israel, their answer to Veterans Today, a publication run by former spies.

American reporting of the talk carefully edited out General Mattis’ references to Israeli settlements and his use of the word “apartheid state.”

This wasn’t just any general, not one of the kooks and malcontents who have sold a colorless military career for a payoff from the Israel lobby, “hot running girls or boys” and a condominium on a top rated PGA golf course.

This is James Mattis, former commander of CentCom, a Marine general with 41 years’ experience, the most respected combat leader of the last two American generations.

So, when “Mad Dog Mattis” addressed the Aspen Security Forum and called Israel “unsustainable,” even Israel listened.

Many people “talk the talk” and Mattis talks that “talk” better than anyone.  He also “walks the walk” as well.  Below are selected quotes from Mattis, some of the few that can be published as most contain language only Marines use, a bit “too specific” for civilians:

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

“The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”

“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

“There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning,

obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”

“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”

It was this last quote that may well have pushed the Times of Israel to note, finally, that Israel’s “dream world” may be coming to an end.

____________________________________

THE “APARTHEID BOMB”

Censored from news around the world, edited from broadcasts, the July 25, 2013, Times of Israel drops the “Apartheid Bomb,” the first time this term has been used with authority.  On the dais with Mattis was CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, coined “the voice of the Mossad” by author Jeff Gates.  From the Times of Israel:

“Mattis then described a hypothetical in which 500 Jewish settlers live among 10,000 Arabs, and the implications of where Israel draws the border. He called it a choice between giving up the idea of a Jewish state or becoming an apartheid state.”

The message of the destructive role of Israel’s illegal settlements, not just in territories occupied after the 1967 war but in violation of the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines as well, territory guaranteed as “Arab only,” making up nearly one third of Israel’s legally accepted borders.

Over 95% of that territory has been seized and its Palestinian population “ethnically cleansed.”

Thus, Mattis’s statement on “apartheid” when place in the context of his strong support of Secretary of State John Kerry’s current initiatives, places additional pressure on Israel, pressure not seen since the Carter presidency.

When taken with European Union moves in July, a vote authorizing broad trade sanctions against Israeli entities located on Arab land, not just those termed “occupied territories,” Mattis use of “unsustainable” to describe Israel’s future is meant to be a “wake up call” for a nation Mattis clearly believes has been living in a “dream world.”

_____________________________________

ISRAEL’S “LONE WOLF” POLICY AGAINST SYRIA

It has become increasingly obvious that the US and European Union see the fall of the Assad government in Syria as unlikely.

Moreover, forces dedicated to the war on Syria are finding “greener pastures” in Iraq with over 600 killed last month alone by terrorists under Israeli backed Al Qaeda groups moving back and forth between Iraq, Jordan and Syria.

Increasingly, despite broad financial and military aid from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Assad’s forces are consolidating gains across Syria and inflicting devastating casualties.

Israel’s response, one that has frightened some military leaders there, has been to commit to direct military intervention.  Israel has already lost one Dolphin submarine and at least one combat aircraft and crew.

____________________________________

CONFRONTATION WITH RUSSIA

Military analysts failed to note something very important about Russian weapons deliveries to Syria.  One key point was the S300 system, 250 missiles delivered by April 1, 2013, confirmed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

More missiles with mobile launchers and command modules have been delivered since, estimated at nearly 400 by mid-July.

Israel has fewer than 400 first line combat aircraft in its entire air force. The number of air defense interceptor missiles allocated to Syria, missiles that represent an addition to their current embedded inventory, is highly asymmetrical.

There is no remote hope of Israel every gaining air supremacy over Syria should the conflict widen yet it is obvious that these are Israel’s plans.

With a Russian naval force off Syria’s coast, continued missile attacks, cited by Jane’s as using Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from Israel’s remaining German donated Dolphin nuclear-armed submarines, put Israel at risk of military confrontation with Russia.

We may well have not only supported General Mattis’s use of the word “unsustainable” but have shown it to be an understatement.

 a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/04/top-american-general-cites-israel-as-unsustainable-and-apartheid/">Source

63% of Israeli Jews oppose major West Bank pullout, poll finds

One in two Jews in Israel thinks Arab citizens should not have a say if government declares a national referendum on peace.

Editors note: This is just one of the reasons why every "Israeli" is an illegal settler. Every. Single. One.

Most Israeli Jews would oppose a peace agreement with the Palestinians if it included a full West Bank pullout with land swaps to let Israel retain major settlement population centers, according to a new poll that appears to contradict the conclusions of other recent surveys. 

The poll, released Tuesday by the Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University, found that 63 percent of Jews in Israel oppose a withdrawal to the 1967 lines with land swaps as part of any peace arrangement with the Palestinian Authority, even if it meant Israel would hold onto the Etzion Bloc, directly south of Jerusalem; Ma’aleh Adumim, east of the capital; and Ariel in the central West Bank about 34 kilometers (21 miles) east of Tel Aviv.

 

Assuming Israeli retention of Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim and other settlement blocs, 58% of Jewish respondents were opposed to the dismantling of other settlements.

The poll was conducted among 602 respondents in late July, after the announcement of new peace talks with the Palestinians, and has a statistical error of 4.5%.

According to the survey, 50% of Jewish Israelis also oppose the transfer of Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to Palestinian Authority control with a special arrangement for Jewish holy sites.

Israeli Arabs are more optimistic than their Jewish counterparts regarding the prospects of newly resumed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Seventy-nine percent of Israeli Jews believe talks have a low chance of success, as opposed to 18% who believe that the chances are high. Only 41% of the Arab Israelis surveyed said the talks had a low chance of success, while 47% said they had a good chance at success.

Despite the overall pessimism among Jewish respondents, 61% said that they were in favor of the peace talks, as opposed to 33% who said they were opposed. Ninety-one percent of the Arab citizens polled said they supported the negotiations. Only 6% opposed them.

Seventy-seven percent of Israeli Jews would oppose any agreement that recognized in principle a right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, with a small number being allowed to come and live in Israel, and compensation for the rest.

Sixty-two percent of Israeli Jews and 72% of Israeli Arabs agree that a national referendum is needed to approve any peace settlement that involves evacuating settlements and withdrawal from the West Bank. Notably, 49% of Israeli Jews said that the national referendum should not include the country’s Arab citizens, as opposed to 46% who think all Israelis should have a say. In the Arab sector, the response to the question was 4% and 88%, respectively.

The majority of both Jews and Arabs surveyed — 63% of Jews and 58% of Arabs — said the Netanyahu government was sincere in its desire for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. However, only 29% of Jews felt that the same could be said for the PA negotiators, while 85% of the Arabs said the PA was sincere in its return to the negotiating table.

Asked if they believed that the prime minister could safeguard Israel’s security while negotiating with the PA, 60% of the Jews surveyed answered in the affirmative, as opposed to 37% who said they didn’t trust him. Among Israeli Arabs, 32% said that they trusted the prime minister in this regard, while 64% did not.

Regarding political parties either shoring up or blocking the current round of negotiations, 51% of Israeli Jews polled — including 49% of those who voted for the hardline Jewish Home party — said that they would not support the party bolting the coalition in protest over the negotiations.

Conversely, 48% of Jewish Israelis and 71% of Israeli Arabs said that they would like to see the more dovish Labor Party, led by opposition chair Shelly Yachimovich, join the coalition in order to support the peace process from within the government. Yachimovich has reiterated that her party would serve as a bulwark for the Netanyahu’s coalition in the event that its hardline partners jump ship over the diplomatic process.

 

Source