http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/isra-j03.shtml

World Socialist Web Site
wsws.org
Israeli government mounts major attack on democratic rights
By Danny Richardson
3 January 2012

Benyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition has initiated legislation into the Knesset aimed at stifling dissent and criticism of the ruling elite, curbing freedom of speech, and limiting the powers of the judiciary.

The measures are flagrant attacks on the democratic rights of the Palestinians living in the territories illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, Israel’s Palestinian citizens and Jewish Israelis alike.

The cabinet has endorsed a bill that would effectively stop foreign governments, including the European Union, from giving grants of more than US$6,000 to Israeli human rights organisations and subject donations to a crippling 45 percent tax. This is being proposed by a government entirely dependent upon foreign aid.

According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the bill categorises Israeli NGOs into groups: those that will be allowed overseas funding because they have at some period been funded by the Israeli government, and those that are banned from receiving foreign government funding because they are political and anti-Israel and will have to pay a 45 percent tax on all donations. The only redress for those in the latter category will be to appeal for a tax waiver to a political tribunal of Knesset members.

The bill is vague about what constitutes a “political” NGO. It could include any body that denies the “Jewish” and “democratic” character of the state of Israel or its right to exist, or supports either armed struggle against Israel, the trial under international law of political and military leaders, and boycotts of the state. Such definitions would present no problems for the ultra-nationalist and religious groups that receive massive funding from Zionist organisations and individuals living abroad.

The measure is explicitly aimed at human rights organisations that have played a major role in exposing the crimes committed by the military, security, police and intelligence forces against the Palestinians, as well as the settlers’ violent and murderous attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and mosques and cemeteries within Israel.

Without the work of Israeli NGOs, there would be little reporting about the military occupation, settlement growth or human rights abuses. As the right-wing Jerusalem Post observed, “The Israeli media pays little attention to the human plight of Palestinians living under the full civil, administrative, economic and military control of the IDF (Occupation). Without NGOs providing video footage, testimonies and detailed reports, the little coverage that does exist would no longer be possible.”

Israeli human rights groups provided crucial evidence to the UN Commission headed by South African judge Richard Goldstone about potential war or humanitarian crimes committed by Israel during the 2008-2009 war on Gaza. Civil rights organisations fear that if the bill is passed, it will see the end of independent NGOs such as B’Tselem, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence and Ta’ayush.

Netanyahu stepped in to redraft the legislation, which replaces two similar bills, after the attorney general warned him that he could not guarantee that the Supreme Court could uphold them.

The government is also introducing a Defamation Law that would outlaw the reporting of criminal investigations into the activities of politicians and the financial elite. Reporting restrictions would remain in place even after the individuals had been charged. Netanyahu and his wife, Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign secretary, and some of their associates are under investigation after allegations of conflicts of interest and improper and corrupt behaviour.

The government is proposing an amendment to the Defamation Law, modelled on Britain’s notorious libel laws, which would make it possible for the wealthy to sue reporters, including bloggers on the Internet, for substantial financial “compensation” without even proving that they had suffered damage.

The opposition Kadima party has, in addition, proposed that Arabic be dropped as one of Israel’s official languages, alongside Hebrew and English.

This follows the enactment of the Nakba Law that makes it illegal for any state-funded institution to commemorate “the Catastrophe”, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out by or fled from Israeli forces in 1948, following the 1947 UN vote to partition Palestine and establish the State of Israel.

Another recent law targets individuals and organisations that publicly call for an academic, cultural or economic boycott against Israel or any area under its control, including the illegal settlements. The law enables individuals and companies to seek damages from individuals or organisations that call for a boycott of “Israeli” goods. The major benefactor will be the Israeli owners of illegal companies in the Occupied Territories.

Shortly after the measure became law, Alex Miller, a legislator from the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu, threatened Ahmad Tibi, the leader of the Palestinian Israeli Ta’al party and the deputy speaker of the Knesset, with a lawsuit after Tibi opposed the illegal settlement of Ariel in the West Bank, where Miller has a home. Writing in the New York Times, Tibi expressed concern that he would be stripped of his parliamentary privilege, paving the way for a civil suit.

Another piece of legislation enables small communities to have “admissions committees” to scrutinise and reject potential applicants who want to live there. This is aimed at excluding Israel’s Palestinian citizens, who constitute more than 20 percent of the population. It was introduced to get around a Supreme Court order outlawing the exclusion of a Palestinian Israeli by an “admissions committee”.

Netanyahu is seeking to prevent NGOs and individuals from using the courts to challenge the government actions and decisions. The government has introduced legislation to change the composition of the judicial appointments committee to ensure a right-wing majority. Yariv Levin, the Likud legislator, introduced the bill, saying, “We want to fundamentally change the Supreme Court and get it away from the control of the radical leftist elite that is controlling it and return it to the people.”

Four of the 13 members of the Supreme Court are due to retire this year.

While the liberal Ha’aretz warned that these measures were anti-democratic and would silence all political debate, the focus of its concerns was Israel’s increasing political isolation, even from its friends. It said that the changes in Israel’s political and social landscape were becoming a “strategic threat…endangering Israel’s relations with its supporters in the West, and especially the American political establishment and Jewish community.”

Last month, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton criticised Israel’s proposals to close down human rights groups by ending foreign donations.

These measures in fact demonstrate that it is impossible for the financial elite to maintain the semblance of democratic rule while illegally occupying Palestinian land and the Golan Heights, discriminating against their own Palestinian citizens and systematically impoverishing the vast majority of Jewish Israelis. The government has even torn up the modest proposals of the Trajtenberg Commission, aimed at diffusing the massive protest movement that erupted over the summer, in order to increase the defence budget in preparation for further wars.

Copyright © 1998-2011 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

Billionaire Casino Mogul Gives $5 Million to Pro-Gingrich SuperPac


In campaign news, the billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has given $5 million to a pro-Gingrich SuperPac called Winning Our Future. While individual donors are barred from giving more than $2,500 to a candidate, they can give unlimited money to independent groups known as SuperPacs. Adelson had previously given more than $7 million to Gingrich’s former PAC, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Adelson is the owner of Israel’s largest daily newspaper and a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He is worth more than $21 billion.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/23/headlines#2

Gingrich Win Aided by $5 Million Donation, "Southern Strategy"

Newt Gingrich surged to victory in South Carolina in part thanks to billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who gave $5 million to a pro-Gingrich super PAC. Much of the money was used to buy airtime to attack Romney. Gingrich was also widely accused of employing the so-called "Southern strategy" to appeal to the prejudices of white voters in the South. Last week former President Jimmy Carter said there is a "subtlety of racism" to Gingrich’s comments about food stamps and welfare. House Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn of South Carolina repeated a similar charge on Sunday.

Rep. James Clyburn: "He’s appealing to an element in his party that will see President Obama as different from all the other presidents that we have had."

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/27/gingrichs_extremist_anti_palestinian_stance_follows


Gingrich’s Extremist Anti-Palestinian Stance Follows Millions from Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson


Many analysts say Newt Gingrich’s recent rise in the Republican contest would have been impossible without the backing of one man: multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson and his wife have donated $10 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which has run a series of ads attacking Gingrich’s opponent Mitt Romney. Gingrich has openly admitted Adelson’s support came down to a single issue: Israel. Gingrich has adopted the most extremist anti-Palestinian stance of the Republican presidential field, calling the Palestinians themselves an "invented" people. We speak with Gal Beckerman of the Jewish Daily Forward and Linda Sarsour of the Arab American Association of New York. [includes rush transcript]

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to the issue of money and politics. Over the past two weeks, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary and has surged in the national polls. Many analysts say Gingrich’s rise would not have been possible without the backing of one man: multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. With a net worth of over $20 billion, he is the world’s 16th richest person, according to Forbes.

Ahead of the South Carolina primary, Adelson donated $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which ran a series of ads attacking Gingrich’s opponent Mitt Romney. On Monday, it was revealed his wife, Miriam Adelson, gave another $5 million to the pro-Gingrich super PAC. Under the nation’s campaign finance laws, the Adelsons could give the super PAC an unlimited amount of money in the coming months.

In a recent interview with Ted Koppel on NBC, Newt Gingrich was asked about why the Adelsons would give so much money. Gingrich admitted it came down to a single issue: Israel.

TED KOPPEL: But what do these multi-millionaires expect?

NEWT GINGRICH: They want—they want—they want—

TED KOPPEL: When you give someone five million bucks—

NEWT GINGRICH: They want their candidate to win.

TED KOPPEL: But there has to be a "so what" at the end of that. So, if you win, what does Adelson get out of it?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, he knows I’m very pro-Israel. And that’s the central value of his life. I mean, he is very worried that Israel is going to not survive.

AMY GOODMAN: Sheldon Adelson is the owner of Israel’s largest daily newspaper, a financial supporter of Birthright Israel, and a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Adelson has also supported the Clarion Fund, which produced The Third Jihad film, which we just discussed.

The Washington Post reports Adelson and Gingrich met when Gingrich was House speaker and Adelson was lobbying to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Gingrich raised this very issue at last night’s debate when he was questioned about his past claims that the Palestinians are an "invented" people.

NEWT GINGRICH: It was technically an invention in the late 1970s, and it was clearly—it was clearly so. Prior to that, they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian.

There are a couple of simple things here. There were 11 rockets fired into Israel in November. Now imagine, in Duval County, that 11 rockets hit from your neighbor. How many of you would be for a peace process? And how many of you would say, "You know? That looks like an act of war." You have leadership, unequivocally—and Governor Romney is exactly right—the leadership of Hamas says, "Not a single Jew will remain." Well, you’re not having a peace negotiation then. This is war by another form.

My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom. And they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say, "Israel has a right to exist. We give up the right to return. And we recognize that we’re going to live side by side. Now let’s work together to create mutual prosperity." And you could, in five years, dramatically improve the quality of life of every Palestinian.

But the political leadership would never tolerate that. And that’s why we are in a continuous state of war, where Obama undermines the Israelis. On the first day that I am president, if I do become president, I will sign an executive order directing the State Department to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson, we’re joined by Gal Beckerman, who is the opinion editor at the Jewish newspaper, The Forward. He recently wrote an article called "What Sheldon’s Money Buys: Adelson Millions Ensure Gingrich Steers to Far Right on Israel." Still with us, Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York.

Gal, explain what it is, this Adelson-Gingrich relationship, why he supports him.

GAL BECKERMAN: Well, he supports—the relationship is really symbiotic, in a way. It developed, as you said, in the mid-'90s over issues of union busting. Adelson wanted some help; Gingrich was able to offer it. And it developed as time went on. It seems to have helped kind of in Gingrich's evolution in terms of his pro-Israel stance. Wayne Barrett recently reported in The Daily Beast that, you know, if you look at what Gingrich was saying about Palestinians and Israel in 2005, even, as recently as 2005, it was kind of a different line. He was talking about investing in their ancestral lands. He was really speaking a much different language. This is now changed. You won’t hear Gingrich saying anything like that anymore. And it’s not—you know, one can’t draw a direct causal link, you know, find the telephone call in which Adelson said, you know, "I want you to say this." But it’s not hard to imagine that if your political life depends on a man who has very extreme-right views when it comes to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, that you’re going to hear that same language come out of that candidate’s mouth.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Adelson has a determined opposition even to a two-state solution in the Middle East, doesn’t he?

GAL BECKERMAN: He does. I mean, in my column, I quote him from last year speaking to The Jewish Week, saying, "I believe" — and I’m paraphrasing here, but "that a two-state solution is a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people." So, you know, this is even more further to the right than the current Israeli government is, which is engaged now, whether, you know, successfully or not, in talks in Jordan with the Palestinians. You have a prime minister who, you know, whether he wants a two-state solution to eventually happen, he’s speaking the language of a two-state solution. He’s talking about the need for a Palestinian state. So, you know, Adelson really, in the spectrum of political belief in Israel, really falls, you know, to the right even of the current government.

AMY GOODMAN: AIPAC, where does Sheldon Adelson stand on his views on the American Israeli Political Action Committee?

GAL BECKERMAN: Right, well, here’s another example where you—

AMY GOODMAN: Public Affairs Committee.

GAL BECKERMAN: Right. Here’s another example where you can see that Adelson really kind of is on that right side of the spectrum, because he broke with AIPAC in 2007 over a congressional initiative that AIPAC was backing, and that the Israelis actually were backing, as well, to provide more economic aid to the Palestinians. He didn’t feel that this was a good idea.

AMY GOODMAN: Adelson and super PACs?

GAL BECKERMAN: I mean, the one thing that should be said is that, you know, we can talk about Adelson’s influence, you know, all we want, but there’s nothing illegal about it. I mean, the real problem here is this vehicle that he’s been allowed, through super PACs, to be able to have this kind of outsized influence, which really wasn’t the case before the Citizens United case two years ago.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Linda Sarsour, as we’re talking here about the influence of Sheldon Adelson—we were just discussing how he helped fund the group that produced the jihad film—your reaction?

LINDA SANSOUR: I’m also—I happen to be Palestinian, too. And listening to a couple of debates ago and having my children sit in front of the TV and playing on their laptop and hearing, you know, our potential presidentials talk about the "invented" people and hearing Palestine, and stopping and saying, "What does he mean by we’re invented people?" and having to explain that to, you know, a 12-year-old and 11-year-old, it’s just so disappointing in this country that money is what buys power in this country and buys influence.

And we actually agree. One-state solution, one-state solution over here. One-state solution, for me, is the only way to go. And that’s an equal state for all, for justice for all. So, we can agree on that area, as well. But really, the views that Newt Gingrich is spouting in these debates, he’s making George Bush look like a walk in the park. I mean, it’s getting—I mean, we’re not—we’re supposed to be progressing in the peace process. We’re supposed to be moving forward. And what we are doing, and the GOP is doing, is moving back. So if the American people have any sense, we cannot let this guy go forward.

AMY GOODMAN: Linda, I wanted to get your response to this issue of the "invented" people. You heard it last night at the debate. Last month, Gingrich defended his claim the Palestinians are an invented people. The former speaker of the House made the comment during an interview with the Jewish Channel.

NEWT GINGRICH: Jewish people have the right to have a state, and I believe that the commitments that were made at the time—remember, there were—there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and I think it’s tragic.

AMY GOODMAN: That was presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Linda Sarsour?

LINDA SANSOUR: I mean, he must have been politically asleep for the first 50 years of his life. And he talks about us being invented in the '70s? Like, what is he talking about? I mean, it's just—I mean, for me, when I watch this, it’s just that—it’s like a comedy. It’s like Saturday Night Live. It’s like, where have you been all this time? And for the Palestinian people, we’ve been—I mean, we’ve been talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at least for the past 60 years. So, for me, honestly, I just laugh, and I think that, unfortunately, the way that our political system is set up is you talk about issues that are going to get you elected depending on who gives you money. So you talk about immigration because you want Latino votes. You talk about Israel because you want Jewish votes. I mean, it’s all, for me, a scam. And for me, I don’t know about anybody else, but it doesn’t—it doesn’t do anything for me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Gal, I’d like to ask you about the impact of the Adelson money on the general tenor of the foreign policy debate among the Republican candidates. It almost seems that he has single-handedly been able to shift the entire debate more to the right on a variety of issues.

GAL BECKERMAN: Right. Well, I mean, and this is what I think is the much bigger concern, is that, you know, if you have Gingrich saying the things that he believes Adelson wants him to say, nobody wants to be outflanked to the right, and so everyone is going to kind of move in that direction. And you get kind of this dynamic where it’s kind of like toughness for toughness’s sake, you know, on a range of issues, any time that talk turns to foreign policy, whether it’s Cuba or, you know, when you talk about Afghanistan. Romney was asked twice what he would do with the Taliban, whether he would negotiate with the Taliban, and he said, "No, we’re going to beat them," which, as far as I’m concerned, is what we’ve been trying to do for the last 10 years without much effect. So, you know, he—there is—and then Iran, of course, is the ultimate example, where everyone is trying to just kind of have this kind of belligerent language that doesn’t really kind of offer any alternative solutions, that doesn’t kind of look at all the full implications of some of the things that they’re saying. It’s just kind of, you know, let’s talk as tough as possible. And it pushes people into a corner.

AMY GOODMAN: Go very quickly, the newspaper in Atlanta, where the editor was just forced out.

GAL BECKERMAN: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what happened?

GAL BECKERMAN: This was an editor of a very small—about 2,500, I think, was their circulation—newspaper, one of two or three Jewish newspapers in Atlanta, who wrote this incredibly, extraordinarily inflammatory column that said that one of the things on the table, in terms of dealing with Iran, should be a possible assassination of President Obama. And this was kind of roundly condemned by everybody. The guy eventually came out himself, you know, in this kind of half-an-hour tearful confession a few days ago, saying he doesn’t know what he was thinking. And, you know, I think it’s possible to see this as just the production of one crank, you know, who’s—you know, but underneath—underneath it is a real kind of, I think, irrational fear that you see among some people in the Jewish community that Obama and his policies towards Iran is somehow harming Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: Thirty seconds, how did Adelson get his fortune?

GAL BECKERMAN: He is a casino magnate, built a lot of casinos in Vegas and, in the last 15 years, has grown even richer through building the same types of resorts and casinos in China.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us. And that editor, the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, named Andrew Adler, said Israel should consider assassinating President Obama, quote, "take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel." We’re going to end it there. Gal Beckerman, thanks so much for being with us, opinion editor at The Forward, author of When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry. And Linda Sarsour, director of the Arab American Association of New York, also with the National Network for Arab American Communities. She was just named a "Champion of Change," honored at the White House, a Palestinian-American activist. Thanks much for both for joining us. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we look at immigration and the primaries. Stay with us.

Is this antisemitic?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2012/03/201231083221669780.html


Weiss: Zionism has created 'rivers of blood'
Rabbi Yisrael Dovid Weiss explains why he believes that Israel as a state is not legitimate.


When Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, visited Washington last week on the eve of the Purim holiday, he gave Barack Obama, the US president, what he considered a symbolic gift - a copy of the old testament book of Esther.

Netanyahu called it "background reading on Iran", since its story concerns relations with Jews in the Persian empire some 2,500 years ago.

It is considered by scholars to be mostly fiction, but for Netanyahu Esther represented justification for his stance against modern Iran.

”Israel must reserve the right to defend itself. And after all that’s the very purpose of the Jewish state. To restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny,” Netanyahu said.

But Netanyahu’s controversial reading of history, even his fight to preserve the state of Israel, are questioned by many of Judaism’s own religious authorities.

"This is against the will of the Almighty and this is not what it means to be a Jew," says Jewish religious scholar Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, a spokesman for "Jews against Zionism", who believes that Israel as a state is not legitimate. He says that Zionism has created "rivers of blood" and he opposes the occupation of Palestine.

On the threat from Iran and President Ahmadinejad he says: "He gives charity to Jewish communities and he says one thing: he has a problem with the oppression of the Palestinian people. And the words "wipe out" he constantly says that Iran doesn't have a history and he is not talking about harming anybody he says that God will not allow this crime to happen. We concur with him that Jews are in danger because there is Zionism because it says in the Tora if you rebel against God, it will not be successful and there will be catastrophic results and Zionism has brought catastrophic results and it could be much worse."

Today on Talk to Al Jazeera Weiss explains why Zionism and Judaism are not necessarily the same thing.

It's anti-Zionist.

But he's been called antisemitic and a self-hating.
.
Don't you find that strange?

PS He's anti-Israel and we share the exact same view
which I've espoused here regularly.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/pers-a10.shtml

World Socialist Web Site
wsws.org
US, Israel issue ultimatums to Iran
10 April 2012

On the eve of international talks, the US and Israel have issued provocative ultimatums to Iran to dismantle key aspects of its nuclear program or face devastating economic sanctions and the prospect of war.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak declared in an interview with CNN on Sunday that “the threshold for successful negotiations” would be a halt by Iran to uranium enrichment to the 20 percent level and the transfer of all uranium already enriched to this level to “a neighbouring trusted country.”

Barak also demanded the decommissioning of Iran’s enrichment plant at Fordo, the transfer of all low enriched uranium out of Iran, and more extensive supervision of Iran’s facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Barak bluntly warned that there was “limited time,” adding, “We don’t have to make a decision next week and we cannot wait years.”

Iran is due to meet with the so-called P5+1—the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany—on Friday in Istanbul. But the laying down of a “threshold,” in reality a nonnegotiable ultimatum, makes the prospect of a deal highly unlikely. Iranian officials have already declared that Tehran will reject “conditions set before the talks.”

Barak and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly indicated that Israel is preparing to take military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, hinting that Israeli attacks could take place within months. Barak spoke dismissively of US and international economic sanctions, declaring he did not believe that they were enough to pressure Tehran “to stop their nuclear military program.”

The Iranian regime has consistently maintained that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon and that its enrichment of uranium is for peaceful purposes. The 20 percent enriched uranium is needed to fuel a research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its facilities are already subject to IAEA inspections and stocktaking.

The Obama administration has already issued the same ultimatum to Tehran. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week demanded that Iran prove that its rejection of nuclear weapons was “not an abstract belief,” insisting that it ship its 20 percent enriched uranium out of the country and accept “constant inspections and verifications.”

A New York Times article on Sunday revealed that American and European negotiators had adopted a joint “hard-line approach” that included the closure of the Fordo enrichment plant. White House press secretary Jay Carney yesterday again made clear that this week’s talks amounted to a last chance, declaring, “It is important for Iran to understand that the window is closing.”

The demand that Iran give up the Fordo plant is particularly provocative, as the underground nuclear facility is the most difficult for the US and Israel to attack. In effect, Washington is insisting that Tehran voluntarily leave its nuclear programs vulnerable to air strikes. While denouncing Tehran as a threat to regional peace, the Obama administration is preparing an illegal, unprovoked attack on Iran that could trigger a war throughout the Middle East.

The utter cynicism of Washington’s rhetoric is underlined by the fact that its coconspirator, Israel, already has a substantial nuclear arsenal and the means for delivering nuclear weapons, and has neither signed the NPT nor allowed IAEA inspections. The US is seeking to buttress its military dominance in the Middle East by ensuring that Iran has no possibility of building nuclear weapons. The Obama administration’s aim is to install a pliable regime in Tehran to conform to US economic and strategic interests.

Washington has not only intensified diplomatic pressure on Iran, it has stepped up its menacing military operations. The US Navy announced yesterday that two aircraft carriers—the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Enterprise—would shortly be in place within the Persian Gulf region. While the US is calling this deployment “routine,” the two carriers and their associated battle groups give the US the ability to launch a massive air war on Iran at short notice.

The criminal character of US policy towards Iran was highlighted by a lengthy article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker last week. Based on unnamed US military and intelligence sources, the article reported that the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) had trained members of an Iranian opposition outfit, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), for intelligence operations inside Iran.

Operatives of MEK, which the US State Department has designated a terrorist organisation, are widely regarded as responsible for cooperating with Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, in a campaign of sabotage and assassination inside Iran over the past five years. However, Hersh’s article is the first pointing to direct US involvement in training MEK agents. According to Hersh, they have undergone training at a special JSOC site in Nevada.

A Washington Post article published Sunday detailed a “surge” in US intelligence operations against Iran that began during the Bush administration and continued under Obama. The newspaper reports that the Iran Operations Division has swelled to “hundreds of [CIA] officers” and has “a robust budget.” Its operations involve electronic and satellite espionage, the extensive use of unmanned drones, and “an expanded network of spies” inside Iran.

If the Istanbul talks collapse, Obama has already authorised the imposition of crippling economic sanctions on Iran from July that will severely restrict Tehran’s oil exports, on which its economy is completely dependent. Current sanctions have already seriously disrupted economic activity and sent inflation inside Iran soaring. These punitive measures amount to an economic war on Iran that is leading inexorably to a military conflict.

Workers and youth in the United States and internationally must oppose the war drive by the Obama administration and its allies, which threatens to set the Middle East aflame and trigger an even broader conflict. The only basis for preventing war is the independent mobilisation of the working class on the basis of a socialist and internationalist strategy to put an end to the root cause of war—the crisis-ridden profit system.

Peter Symonds

Copyright © 1998-2012 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/isra-a10.shtml

World Socialist Web Site
wsws.org
Israel: Documents show Defence Ministry planned West Bank land grabs
By Jean Shaoul
10 April 2012

Recently released documents show that Israel’s Civil Administration, part of the Defence Ministry, has long earmarked up to 10 percent of the West Bank for new settlements or the expansion of existing ones. This is in contravention of international law, which bans the construction of towns and villages by the occupying power on territory captured in war.

Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, which was supposed to lead to a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, with minor land swaps between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), Palestinian land was divided up pending the final agreement into three areas: Area A, under PA control; Area B, under joint Israeli and PA control; and Area C, under Israeli control.

But according to Ha’aretz, the Civil Administration has for years been identifying and mapping land in the West Bank and naming these parcels of land after existing settlements. It had marked out 569 parcels of land, equal to about 155,000 acres, 90 percent of which is in the area designated under Area C, with the remaining 10 percent in areas A and B.

The maps confirm that Israel had no intention of implementing the Accords. Rather, as has been clear for years, Israel used the Oslo process and the so-called interim period to provide a cover for settlement expansion and to torpedo plans for a Palestinian state.

Ha’aretz said that since the late 1990s, 23 of the settler outposts, constructions not authorised by the Israeli government, were built on land included in the Civil Administration’s list.

This process continues, with the government trying to legalise an additional three—Shvut Rahel, Rehelim and Hayovel—despite having agreed to remove them under the Road Map, brokered by former US president George W. Bush in 2003.

The documents were released under a Freedom of Information (FoI) request brought by the Israeli NGO Peace Now and refute any notion that the ultra-nationalist settlers that established these outposts are rogue outfits acting on their own behalf.

As Dror Etkes, who filed the FoI request said, it demonstrates that the settlers had access to the Civil Administration’s database and that the government was deeply involved in the systematic violation of international law.

The documents also contradict the government’s claims made in the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice at The Hague that the so-called Security Wall was routed in accordance with Israel’s security needs. The maps make it clear that the route was designed to take advantage of the available land and thus enable the settlements to expand.

The names and locations of the land parcels indicate that they are earmarked for the expansion of existing settlements such as Immanuel Mizrah, Elkana Bet, Beit Aryeh Gimmel and Tekoa Sheet’hei Mir’ey, even though in some cases they are quite far away from them. As yet, only a small part has been officially allocated to the settlements.

Not only have the maps been updated in the last 10 years, more than 90 percent of the land parcels in Area C are east of the Security Wall, and much of it is designated as “state land”, implying, despite the Civil Administration’s denials, the government’s ongoing intention of seizing even more Palestinian land for the settlements.

The documents were released as Israeli security forces—amid much publicity—evicted 15 settlers from a house in Hebron who did not have proof of permission to buy the property from its owners.

This action was a show, aimed at demonstrating that Israel is acting on outposts. At the same time, however, the government is defying a Supreme Court order to demolish the illegal Ulpana settler outpost in the West Bank. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has asked the attorney general to find a way of preventing the demolition. He intends for his government to grant formal status to three other illegal outposts, Bruchin, Sansana and Rechelim.

Last week, the government issued tenders for the construction of 872 housing units and 4 commercial units in Har Homa, and 180 homes in Givat Ze’ev. By expanding Har Homa, the government seeks to block access to Bethlehem and the southern Palestinian suburbs of East Jerusalem, thereby preventing the Palestinians from establishing their capital in East Jerusalem.

These announcements came just days after the UN Human Rights Council voted to send its first-ever delegation to Israel/Palestine to “investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements” on the Palestinian people.

The resolution was carried by a large majority, with only the US voting against it.

The Netanyahu government has refused to allow the UN mission to enter Israel and the West Bank, or even reply to calls from the UN human rights commissioner Navi Pillay. “We will not permit members of the human rights council to visit Israel and our ambassador has been instructed to not even answer phone calls,” a Foreign Office official said. Israel is also threatening sanctions against the PA.

Only the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva spoke up in support of Israel, cynically claiming that the decision would harm efforts to restart the talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority—talks stalled more than three years ago due to Israel’s refusal to halt settlement construction.

The economic situation in the West Bank is bleak. Last month’s report from the World Bank pointed to a stagnant economy and an official unemployment rate of 16.6 percent in 2011. The PA, which is dependent upon external aid for all but US$200 million of its US$1.5 billion budget for security and essential public services, faces bankruptcy due to the failure of donors to fulfil nearly half of their pledges, and its inability to borrow more. Israel’s refusal to lift restrictions on access to land, water, raw materials and export markets makes economic life all but impossible.

The situation deteriorated sharply last September, when the US cut off funding to the PA after Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas sought Palestinian statehood at the UN, and Israel delayed payment of transfers of import taxes on goods from other countries. The World Bank expects that the situation in 2012 will deteriorate further.

As Israel’s economic repression of the Palestinians intensifies, so has its belligerency. The Israel Defence Forces’ chief of staff, Benny Glantz, said that in future any rockets fired from Gaza or Egypt’s Sinai would be met with an attack on Hamas, which controls Gaza, irrespective of which militant group was responsible for the launching. Any rockets fired from Lebanon would result in attack on Hezbollah. Glantz added that Israel would respond swiftly against Tehran if there were any terrorist attacks by Iran’s agents overseas.

Last month, the Israeli government intensified its deadly air strikes on Gaza. Israeli drones killed Zohair al-Qaisi, the secretary of the Popular Resistance Committees, and his military attaché, Mahmoud al-Hannani, in a planned execution. Its purpose was to provoke Palestinian reprisals that could then serve as a pretext for further acts of war.

Copyright © 1998-2012 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

"PS He's anti-Israel and we share the exact same view
which I've espoused here regularly."

He probably would have called this thread "Catwalk of Israeli extremism" so as not to attempt to confuse people with that myth about all Jews supporting Israel. You don't mention the extremism of any New York Jews ... or Toronto Jews ... or San Paulo Jews ... or Havana Jews ... nor do you mention the extremism of any other Jews, except in relation to Israel.