Antony Loewenstein

Human Rights Watch demands Israel behave like a civilised nation and allow an international investigation into its actions in Gaza:

US President Barack Obama should endorse the comprehensive UN investigation, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, into violations of international law during the recent Gaza conflict, and should urge Israel, when he meets today with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to cooperate with the investigation, Human Rights Watch said…

“Justice Goldstone’s reputation for fairness and integrity is unmatched, and his investigation provides the best opportunity to address alleged violations by both Hamas and Israel,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “What’s at stake is not just finding out the truth about what happened in Gaza, but the future of international efforts to hold those who violate international law accountable.

Fear works:

Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

This quote is the key:

“The findings are worrying because they reflect an exaggerated and unnecessary fear,” Prof. David Menashri, the head of the Center, said. “Iran’s leadership is religiously extremist but calculated and it understands an unconventional attack on Israel is an act of madness that will destroy Iran. Sadly, the survey shows the Iranian threat works well even without a bomb and thousands of Israelis [already] live in fear and contemplate leaving the country.”

The Israeli political elite know that Iran has no intention of attacking Israel (as do the Zionist Diaspora) but the Islamic Republic is merely the latest bogeyman in the Middle East.

Israel needs and craves an enemy; it’s good for business and sympathy.

The Angry Arab:

So Zionist and Saudi media are insisting that people of the world should feel threatened by the Iranian missile test. Saudi media (echoing as usual the Zionist handlers) are citing “experts” (typically in Zionist bastions in the West) to the effect that the missile test is a threat “not only to Israel.” Of course, I don’t trust the Iranian regime–especially on the Palestinian question, but on any other question. But I am a 49-year old Arab and in my own life time Israel has bombed–BOMBED not missile tested–Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and Iraq. And you think that you can convince Arabs that Israel is not a threat? I don’t care how much money House of Saud has, it won’t fly. Try again and again and again.

A typical kind of column in the Boston Globe that blames the Arabs for the Middle East crisis. Why can’t those annoying Arabs just accept the scraps offered by Israel, asks Jeff Jacoby?

A great response was posted on the paper’s website:

Dear Jeff Jacoby,

John Spritzler

The power of Google is something that should worry us all, despite its relevance in our daily lives. It’s therefore hard not to enjoy any attempt to challenge the company’s online dominance:

On the same day it was revealed that users of YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing site, were uploading more than 20 hours of video footage every minute, the site was hit by a porn scandal which threatened to bring the service into disrepute. Over the course of 24 hours, the site was flooded with a number of pornographic video clips rumoured to be in the tens of thousands.

In what is believed to have been a coordinated attack carried out by the infamous 4Chan group of hackers, clips containing nudity and sexual scenes were made available to the sites tens of millions of users. To circumvent the site’s normal moderation policy, they were uploaded with titles referencing such favourite children’s entertainers as Hannah Montana and the famous American Christian pop boy band duo, the Jonas Brothers. The videos began with footage of the artists in question before cutting to video of adults participating in group sex acts, according to the BBC.

Democracy, Zionist style.

Part 1:

Part 2:

This week’s meeting between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu has caused a flurry of thoughts, most of which simply rehashed old talking points. Witness the Jewish Forward’s editorial that continues yapping about time running out for the two-state solution and the concepts of a “Jewish state and a democracy.” Perhaps someone should remind the paper that it’s impossible to be both. The entire belief of the modern Zionist state is active discrimination against non-Jews. Nobody is seriously talking about changing that.

Then we hear that mainstream American Jewish groups aren’t dealing too well with even understanding ideas about Palestinian democracy:

Israel’s change of tone toward the Palestinian peace process under its new government has caught Jewish supporters in the United States off guard, leaving them to grapple with a policy shift that now stresses the need to limit future Palestinian sovereignty and avoids discussing a two-state solution.

One of the more prescient pieces comes from The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah who wonders what kind of “peace” Obama may have in mind:

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Obama applies unprecedented pressure to force Israel to make a deal with the Palestinians. What would such a deal look like? The outlines were suggested in the recent report sent to Obama by a group of US elder statesmen headed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. The document, warning that there was only a “six to twelve month window” before all chances for peace evaporated, called on the US to forcefully advocate the creation of a Palestinian state. But this would be a demilitarized truncated state “based on” the 1967 borders. Israel would annex large West Bank settlements and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees. This “state” would be occupied indefinitely by a NATO-led “multinational force,” which the Scowcroft group suggests could also include Israeli soldiers.

Of course the Scowcroft proposal does not necessarily represent Obama administration thinking, but it expresses the pervasive peace process industry consensus that views such an outcome as “reasonable,” “pragmatic” and all but inevitable, and it accords with Obama’s own statements opposing the right of return and supporting Israel’s demand to be recognized as a “Jewish state”.

Obama is not the saviour of democracy in the Middle East. If anything, he seems keen to tinker around the edges.

Jeremy Scahill reports:

US Colonel Advocates US ‘Military Attacks’ on ‘Partisan Media’ in Essay for Neocon, Pro-Israel Group JINSA.

Torture in Israel continues. A modern Jewish tradition?

Following an item published on 15 May on the NRG website, B’Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel have called on the chief of staff and the judge advocate general to order a Military Police investigation. The item, “A Blow is Sometimes an Integral Part of the Mission,” by Roi Sharon, presented segments of the testimonies of Col. Itai Virob, commander of Kfir Brigade, and of Lt. Col. Shimon, commander of Shimshon Battalion, before a military court, which painted a harsh picture of deliberate use of violence against Palestinians.

The testimonies clearly indicate that orders the two commanders issued included permission for extensive use of violence and injurious, even lethal means, against Palestinians, and harassment. The two explained that sweeping permission was given to forces under their command to use direct physical violence “to extract information,” and as part of what is referred to as “interrogation.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly doesn’t think Barack Obama has any chance of enforcing a two-state solution. Here he is talking on Jerusalem Day:

United Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided.

Message? Arabs, bugger off.

Letters in the Age newspaper over the play Seven Jewish Children continue today:

I was in the queue an hour early for the 7 Jewish Children performance and the diverse crowd (Jew and non-Jew) was peaceful until a group of Australian Union of Jewish Students arrived around opening time and positioned themselves, with placards and flags, at the entrance, repeating chants that implied the theatregoers were racists.

Stefan Oberman, organiser of this action, could not resist the joke in his letter. When he refers to unpacking issues with the crowd (21/5), was he referring to his members throwing a heap of someone else’s leaflets in the bin? The group’s arrival was in no way “positive engagement” but seemed designed to shut down a thought-provoking play.

Mark Bradbeer, Brunswick

Subtle arguments
My intention earlier this week (Letters, 20/5) was to make two points. The first was that symbolic acts of protest do not help the community understand complex issues such as anti-Semitism and the Middle East conflict. The second was that the spectacle-obsessed media makes it very difficult for activist groups to present their arguments, which (for the most part) are subtle and nuanced. This point was edited out.

So the letter appeared to be a mere criticism of activist groups that, as the two respondents to my letter pointed out, have made efforts to engage in dialogue, efforts that have been under-represented in the media.

Eli Court, Richmond