Tag Archive for 'lebanon'

The West takes a step back

The significance of the recent chaos in Lebanon has been largely ignored in the West. The Western media frame revolves around demonising the “terrorist” group of Hizbollah and supporting the US-backed government. But what was it really about?

First, As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University and Angry Arab blogger:

…And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese, and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves.

And one of the best commentators in the region, the Daily Star’s Rami G. Khouri:

The new domestic political balance of power in Lebanon will reflect millennia-old indigenous Middle Eastern traditions of different and often quarreling parties that live together peacefully after negotiating power relationships, rather than one party totally defeating and humiliating the other. Lebanon can only exist as a single country if its multi-ethnic and multi-religious population shares power. As the political leaders now seek to do this, they operate in a new context where the strongest group comprises Iranian- and Syrian-backed Islamist Shiites and their junior partners, Christian and Sunni Lebanese allies. They will share power in a national unity government with fellow Lebanese who are friends, allies, dependents and proxies of the United States and Saudi Arabia.

If a new Middle East truly is being born, this may well prove to be its nursery.

Shifting sands in Lebanon

Syrian expert Joshua Landis comments on the latest news from Lebanon (and the apparent withdrawal of Hizbollah troops from the streets of Beirut):

By pulling back from the city it so easily conquered and by turning over its strategic centers to the Lebanese army, Hizbullah has been gracious in victory.

It has not pressed its superior hand, putting paid to the irresponsible claim that Hizbullah wants to impose an Iranian-style, Islamic mullocracy on Lebanon’s Christians and Sunnis. On the contrary, it can be argued, Hizbullah is trying to broker the type of power-sharing government that the US would only be too eager to see emerge in divided Baghdad.

The changing of the guard

Robert Fisk in the London Independent on the current crisis in Lebanon:

Another American humiliation. The Shia gunmen who drove past my apartment in west Beirut yesterday afternoon were hooting their horns, making V-signs, leaning out of the windows of SUVs with their rifles in the air, proving to the Muslims of the capital that the elected government of Lebanon has lost.

And it has. The national army still patrols the streets, but solely to prevent sectarian killings or massacres. Far from dismantling the pro-Iranian Hizbollah’s secret telecommunications system – and disarming the Hizbollah itself – the cabinet of Fouad Siniora sits in the old Turkish serail in Beirut, denouncing violence with the same authority as the Iraqi government in Baghdad’s green zone…

No, this is not a civil war. Nor is it a coup d’etat, though it meets some of the criteria. It is part of the war against America in the Middle East. The Hizbollah “must stop sowing trouble,” the White House said rather meekly. Yes, like the Taliban. And al-Qa’ida. And the Iraqi insurgents. And Hamas. And who else?

The Israeli Diaspora soul-searching

My following article appears in today’s Online Opinion:

During Israel’s recent bombardment of Gaza, the Australian Jewish establishment reacted with unreserved support. Israel’s leading human rights organisation B’Tselem reported that the majority of Palestinian victims of the onslaught were civilians.

David Knoll, from the New South Wales Board of Deputies, wrote that, “Israel is using force only when all else has failed”. Vic Alhadeff, from the same organisation, casually suggested “wresting security control of Gaza from Hamas and handing it to any leaders who commit to peace”.

Israeli actions are once again internationally reviled and yet defended by a steadily declining number of people. Uncritical Zionist support for the Jewish state and an addiction to Israeli violence is fast becoming the greatest threat to its future existence. Debate continues to be supplanted by unquestioning solidarity.

From supporting the 2006 Lebanon war to advocating military strikes against Iran, mainstream Jewish voices across the Western world have long attempted to speak with one voice, a rallying cry for support of Israeli actions and defence of its motives. This was enough for decades to build a Zionism that didn’t tolerate dissent, an ideology that thrived and relied on lifelong obedience. However, the last years have seen a profound shift in Jewish public opinion and increasing ambivalence towards the Jewish state, though this is rarely reflected by community spokespeople.

When a recent United Nations report found that Palestinian terrorism was the “inevitable consequence” of Israel’s illegal occupation, Israel reacted with predictable bluster. The study was tarred as a typically biased and anti-Semitic UN study, but the real lessons were conveniently ignored. Most of the world understands that resistance to occupation is a legitimate and legal form of action, whether in Iraq or Tibet, but we are expected to believe that these universal precepts don’t apply in the Palestinian territories as well.

On a range of issues, views that are held by many Israelis are seen as beyond the pale in Jewish circles in the West. A recent poll found that a majority of Israelis believed Israel should hold direct talks with Hamas and yet this startling fact appeared nowhere in the Australian Jewish establishment. It was the exact opposite, with commentators and editorialists debating the ways in which the Hamas government should be obliterated. Diaspora Jews have the luxury of expressing views that are anything but “pro-Israel”.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, claimed by some optimists as heralding a new period of justice and dialogue in American foreign policy, agrees with the Bush administration’s position of shunning contact with Hamas. Prominent Palestinian Rashid Khaliki recently said that Obama’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was “almost indistinguishable from [that of] all the other candidates”. Independent White House candidate Ralph Nader has labelled Israel’s actions in Gaza as “colonial”.

A recent incident at Harvard University highlighted the inability of the Jewish establishment to understand the shifting sands of the debate. A roving exhibition, “Breaking the Silence”, explains the abuses by Israelis soldiers against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Progressive Jewish groups explained the importance of the photographs. “We cannot look the other way”, one said. “We cannot be silent.”

But Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, argued that the exhibition was harmful and should be shelved. The organisers, he said, should not be “promoting programs and material that don’t promote love and respect for Israel.” Such blatant attempts at censoring the realities of Israel are contributing to the gradual disillusionment of young Jews towards the Jewish state.

This inability to recognise a changing intellectual landscape is also playing out in Australia. A leading journalist has reported that when meeting with senior members of the local Zionist lobby, they refused to answer his questions on the “Israel Lobby” thesis by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. There was nothing to discuss, he was told. A best-selling, highly controversial book was deemed beyond candid discussion, a worrying sign that the Jewish establishment pretends that business as usual would suffice.

Two recent studies about American Jews have provided intriguing information about Diaspora attitudes towards Israel. One, at Brandeis University, found that Jewish attachment to Israel has remained largely strong over the last decade. The other, by Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, reveals that inter-marriage and more personalised forms of Judaism have led to a loosening of ethnic loyalties towards Israel. Only 54 per cent polled were comfortable with the very idea of the Jewish State.

Global Jewish attachment to Israel remains mired in a self-centred position, incapable of publicly debating the faltering nature of their favoured state. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel recently found that the Jewish state was overwhelmed by racism, with 50 percent of Israelis not wanting to live in the same apartment block as an Arab nor allowing their children to befriend Arabs.

Such results cry out for Diaspora soul-searching and yet Australian, Zionist spokesman Vic Alhadeff simply mouths the article of faith that, “the core issue is that Israel seeks peaceful co-existence with a Palestinian state.” Thankfully, most of the world simply doesn’t believe him although the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd also ignores the Palestinian tragedy while celebrating the foundation of Israel, describing it as a “custodian of freedom” in a recent parliamentary motion celebrating the country’s 60th birthday.

Avoiding realities

Israelis ambivalent at 60th celebrations.

As it should be, illegally occupying another nation and people for decades.

(Of course, leading Zionists simply mouth platitudes about Palestinian “terrorism” and conclude that Palestinian independence is an impossibility. They may find themselves overwhelmed soon enough.)

The Zionist land grabs go on

Following my joint op-ed in yesterday’s Age newspaper, the following letters appear in today’s edition:

IT IS refreshing to see the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Opinion, 31/03) discussed in such a dispassionate manner. No emotive rhetoric denouncing the other side’s horrors but conveniently ignoring their side’s horrors, but simply the facts as they really are. Here is some more startling truth: the Israeli Government does not want peace with the Palestinians, at least not yet. By previously playing Hamas against Fatah, and now playing Fatah against Hamas, the Government has been able to proceed with the unfettered building of more settlements in the West Bank.

I dread to wonder when this process of claiming Palestinian land will finally stop. It might seem unpalatable for some people that this could be the case, but you need to separate rhetoric from action. The fact is that Israel has been taking Arab land since the declaration of Israel as a state. It would be naive to imagine that this was never the intended outcome.

Paul Gosling, Langwarrin

Nothing but more prejudice
WHAT we have to strive for amid the plethora of opinions on Israel is tolerance, moderation and open-mindedness. The last things we need in this raging debate are articles that are extreme and inflammatory.

Peter Slezak and Antony Loewenstein have written such an article. They accuse Israel of “ethnic-cleansing” and of killing innocent civilians. They accuse past leaders and heroes of being bigoted and ruthless, and half the population of being inherently racist. These accusations portray Israel as a bloodthirsty, inhumane and racist nation. This is not only unbelievably false, but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Israel’s problems and mistakes, although undeniable and regrettable, do not define Israel as a whole, just as suicide bombers do not define Palestinians as a whole.

Primarily, Israel is a vibrant democratic state that upholds concepts of pluralism and freedom, and that is what Slezac and Loewenstein omit from their article. Have they helped us take a step towards tolerance, moderation and balanced dialogue, or have they incited more hatred, created more polarised views and instigated more extremism in a context in which extremism is the root of all evil? The irony of their final plea for “balanced dialogue” is almost palpable.

Oscar Schwartz, Toorak

All have things in common
THE articles by Peter Slezak and Antony Loewenstein and that of Dvir Abramovich, although different in content, both indicate a way forward in the Palestinian region: a single, democratic, and secular state that can be a religious homeland for all who want such, without being a religious state for any. Whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, whether indigenous Semite or more recent migrants — all have common interests that far outweigh their differences. All are deserving of equal treatment under the law without ethnic or religious distinction, all are deserving of security of home and all are deserving of a just resolution to past conflicts.

The problems of the Palestinian region will not be solved while there are some who seek dominance for their religion or nationality over the rights of others.

Lev Lafayette, Ripponlea

Prescription for conflict
PETER Slezak and Antony Loewenstein claim that speaking honestly about Israelis and Palestinians is fraught, which is probably why they have chosen not to do so. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israel’s other citizens, and far more than Arabs in any other Middle East state, yet Slezak and Loewenstein accuse Israel of discrimination and “ethnic cleansing”. They also blame the conflict and occupation on Israel, rather than the constant Palestinian refusal to accept land in return for acceptance of Israel’s right to exist in peace.

Similarly, despite their token condemnation of Hamas and Hezbollah rocket fire, they are far more critical of Israel’s efforts to defend its citizens. To ignore the facts that every aspect of Israel’s conduct they object to is the direct result of Palestinian or Arab terrorism or intransigence belies their claim to be true friends of Israel. It is a prescription for continued conflict, not for peace.

Justin Lipton, Melbourne

How occupation has corrupted Israel’s soul

My following book review appears in today’s edition of Sydney’s Sun-Herald newspaper:

Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
Jonathan Cook
(Pluto Press, $42.95)

The September 11 attacks on New York and Washington caused the Western media and political elite to seriously examine their behaviour in the Middle East. Most concluded that maintaining client states was the only viable way forward; the desperate need for oil supplies supplanted most other considerations.

The US-led invasion of Iraq was a radical form of shock treatment designed to unseat a once friendly Washington-friendly dictator. The nationalist insurgency crushed those plans, leaving the world’s sole super-power battling a relatively small number of fighters whose sole goal was the removal of an unforgiving occupation.

One country that has received relatively little scrutiny in the years since September 11 has been Israel.

The Jewish state has the most powerful military in the region, with an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, and an arsenal of cluster bombs that it used against civilians in Lebanon in the final days of its botched 2006 campaign against Hizbollah.

During the recent Australian parliamentary motion to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the country as a “custodian of freedom” amongst dictatorships. In his compelling new book, Jonathan Cook, former Guardian journalist and current resident of Nazareth, challenges this perception and concludes that, like the Bush administration, Israel actively pursue policies that lead to civil war and partition. Cook bravely skewers the mainstream narrative of a Jewish state constantly striving for peace with the Palestinians.

Israel’s security establishment developed ideas in the 1980s that advocated dissolving many of the Middle East nations, leaving Israel, like the Ottomans in centuries past, to be the local imperial power. “In this way, hoped Israel and the [predominantly Zionist] neo-cons”, Cook writes, “large and potentially powerful states such as Iraq and Iran could be partitioned between their ethnic rivalries and sectarian communities.”

Aid agencies reported in 2007 that eight million Iraqis, nearly a third of the population, required emergency aid and millions were both internally and externally displaced. Was this the intended goal?

The similarities between the Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank and America’s plans in Iraq are meticulously examined. Cook argues that Washington found an invaluable template for its own occupation after carefully studying the Jewish state’s record in dividing and conquering the indigenous population.

Cook approvingly quotes Palestinian academic Karma Nabulsi who has written of a “Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism and co-opted collaborationists.”

David Rose, in a recent issue of Vanity Fair, reported on Bush administration plans to trigger a civil war between Hamas and Fatah after the former won a free and fair election in the Palestinian territories in 2006. The “wrong” party had won. Nabulsi’s nightmare had come true.

“As far as the neocons were concerned, whatever Israel wanted, it should get”, writes Cook, whose summary of the last eight years is reflected in the public utterances of Washington’s leading power-brokers. After Israel’s futile war against Lebanon in 2006 – with over 1000 Lebanese civilians killed – leading neocon Meyrav Wurmser, whose husband was a former senior advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, lamented Israel’s performance. “The anger [in the White House] is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians”, she said. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space [before the UN resolution ended the conflict.]”

These noble ideas were clearly what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had in mind when she talked during the war about “birth pangs” of a new Middle East. Cook explains that there are times when Washington tries to push Israel into actions it would not rather not do itself and other times when the Jewish state acts recklessly, such as the ever-growing expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and America remains mute. It’s a relationship that is widely accepted by the foreign policy elite and the vast majority of the establishment media.

Challenging its integrity guarantees charges of anti-Semitism or disloyalty by the Zionist lobby.

This book, while not containing a great deal of original research, is an important contribution to understanding why “Israel’s role [is] to dictate and terrify other states in the region with threats of punishment so that they dare not step out of line.”

The result, while temporarily successful on military grounds, has left the Jewish state isolated internationally and reviled across the Arab world. If Israel is to survive for another 60 years, it will need to understand that the ongoing occupation has corrupted its soul. The current signs are that its leadership doesn’t grasp this basic fact.

Without the Western lens

It’s news about the Middle East (but not as we know it.)

Little to celebrate

David Grossman, Salon, February 11:

Today, Israel is an intolerably opaque place. The public atmosphere is turbid, sometimes horrifically so. This did not, of course, begin with Ehud Olmert, nor during the last war. For many years we, the Israelis, have been sunk in internal strife, to the point that we have lost our ability to see the larger picture and our real interests as a people and a society. Sometimes it looks as if we have also lost a nation’s healthy, natural instincts, those that can direct us in setting our priorities and resolving our conflicts, before we lose everything.

Today we have the depressing possibility of witnessing how our destructive “gene,” the one we know all too well, is liable to lead us into fratricidal battle. Apparently, after many decades of unrelenting military and diplomatic struggles, of wars and military operations and endless cycles of revenge and retaliation, the suspicion and hostility we have become accustomed to directing at our enemies have become nearly automatic modes of thought and behavior toward everyone else. Toward anyone who is even slightly different — even if he is not a real enemy, even if he is a member of the family, in the broad sense of that term.

And we have no remaining compassion. Not for ourselves, and even less so for others. We do not take enough mutual responsibility, certainly not to the extent that Israel’s fragile existence requires. Sometimes it seems as if we do not have enough respect for the privilege we have been given — to maintain and preserve a sovereign Jewish state after dozens of generations and thousands of years in which no such state was possible.

An accidental war

My latest New Matilda column is about the recently released Winograd Report in Israel and what it says about the institutional failures within the Jewish state:

The release last week of the Israeli Government’s Winograd Report was designed to reveal the failures of the Lebanon adventure and hold military and political leaders to account. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Defence Minister Amir Peretz were criticised for their conduct but Olmert appears to have saved his job. “We are all guilty” was how one Israeli commentator interpreted the report. Another labelled the war a victory. Winograd gave Israel a pass on its use of cluster bombs, despite warning that its future use may not conform to international law.

Amnesty International rightly challenged the report. It was, according to Amnesty spokesman Malcolm Smart, “another missed opportunity to address the policies and decisions behind the grave violations of international humanitarian law - including war crimes - committed by Israeli forces” in Lebanon. Smart went on: “The indiscriminate killing of many Lebanese civilians not involved in the hostilities and the deliberate and wanton destruction of civilian properties and infrastructure on a massive scale were given no more than token consideration by the commission.”

Teaching the Jews what matters

Writing in the aftermath of Israel’s Winograd Committee on the failures of the 2006 Lebanon war - though it sadly ignored the pernicious role of Washington in perpetuating the conflict - Haaretz’s Tom Segev asks:

To what extent have 40 years of occupation affected the ability of the Israel Defense Forces to protect the country? Or, in other words, does the IDF train its soldiers to fight - or does it mainly teach them to oppress the Palestinian population? 

Let the corrupt fall

Israel’s Winograd Commission has reported on the 2006 Lebanon war and concluded “we are all guilty.”

The fact that the Israeli leadership is likely to survive the report reflects the dysfunctionality of the Jewish state. Clearly launching an immoral and futile war and massacring innocent civilians is all in a good day’s work for Ehud Olmert et al.

But Amira Hass focuses on the shift in Gaza:

The fall of the Rafah wall was a fitting combination of planning and the precise reading of the social and political map by the Hamas government, mixed with a mass response to the dictates of the overlord, Israel.

Quite a few people in Rafah knew that “anonymous figures” had secretly been destablizing the foundations of the wall for several months, so that it would be possible to knock it down easily when the time came - but the secret didn’t leak. The hundreds of people who began leaving Palestinian Rafah right after the wall was breached did so despite the risk, and the precedent of the Egyptians shooting at those who infiltrate through the border.

The leadership and public of Gaza, as two elements of the occupied people, were partners in the courageous and necessary step of breaking the Israeli rules of the game. The breach of the wall is a clear manifestation of the conception and temperament of a popular resistance among the Palestinian people, which for various reasons, were dormant in recent years.

When an occupied and oppressed people have little more than resistance, the international community should support them wholeheartedly.

The rise of fanatacism

Al-Qaeda is now fully esconced in Lebanon, according to leading Middle Eastern writer Nir Rosen.

The Iraq war is spreading like a cancer.

Going with Hezbollah

US historian Norman Finkelstein, Lebanon, January 7:

After the horror and after the shame and after the anger there still remain a hope, and I know that I can get in a lot of trouble for what I am about to say, but I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland.

Noam Chomsky, Lebanon, May 2006:

I think [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and persuasive argument that they should be in the hands of Hezbollah (the arms) as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until, I think his position reporting it correctly and it seems to me reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can’t be a deterrent.

I’m a strong supporter of both Finkelstein and Chomsky and recognise the importance of Hezbollah within Lebanese society - not least its victory against Israel in 2006 - but I wonder how wise it is to express any kind of true solidarity with Hezbollah (and Hamas or any group, for that matter.) Being opposed to US and Israeli policy in the region is one thing, as I am - as well as encouraging the immediate Western engagement with these Islamist groups - but I’m not sure of the political wisdom of prominent anti-Zionists befriending such forces.

UPDATE: More on the current Finkelstein visit of Lebanon from the Daily Star.

Killing the non-Jews

Jonathan Cook, January 4:

It apparently never occurred to anyone in our leading human rights organisations or the Western media that the same moral and legal standards ought be applied to the behaviour of Israel and Hizbullah during the war on Lebanon 18 months ago. Belatedly, an important effort has been made to set that right.

A new report, written by a respected Israeli human rights organisation, one representing the country’s Arab minority not its Jewish majority, has unearthed evidence showing that during the fighting Israel committed war crimes not only against Lebanese civilians — as was already known — but also against its own Arab citizens. This is an aspect of the war that has been almost entirely neglected until now.

The report also sheds a surprising light on the question of what Hizbullah was aiming at when it fired hundreds of rockets on northern Israel. Until the report’s publication last month, I had been all but a lone voice arguing that the picture of what took place during the war was far more complex than generally accepted.

The new report follows a series of inquiries by the most influential human rights groups, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to identify the ways in which international law was broken during Israel’s 34-day assault on Lebanon. However, both organisations failed to examine, except in the most cursory and dismissive way, Israel’s treatment of its own civilians during the war. That failure may also have had serious repercussions for their ability to assess Hizbullah’s actions.

Throw away the key

“Whoever uses cluster bombs in an area where civilians reside is a criminal in my mind. He should be put on trial here first, but if not here, then at the International Court of Justice.”

Former Israel Education Minister Shulamit Aloni, referring to former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz over claims that Israel used cluster bombs during the 2006 Lebanon War.

Two sides to blame

Kenneth Roth, Haaretz, October 28:

The way a government or armed group responds to a Human Rights Watch report says a lot about its willingness to curb abuses. Does it grapple seriously with the findings or simply dismiss them? Human Rights Watch encountered a bit of each when we recently released reports on why civilians died during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah.

Our report on Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel addressed Hezbollah’s two asserted justifications: that it was aiming only at military targets and, somewhat contradictorily, that insofar as it targeted civilians, it was in reprisal for Israeli misconduct. Human Rights Watch’s detailed investigation in northern Israel demonstrated that while at times Hezbollah did aim at military targets, frequently it aimed at civilian areas with no military target in sight. The report also emphasized the laws-of-war prohibition of attacks against civilians for any reason, even as ostensible reprisal.

Hezbollah did not want people to hear this message. Calling Human Rights Watch a “biased organization,” its Al-Manar television station rallied its supporters to protest outside the Beirut hotel where we had planned to hold a press conference to release the report, forcing the hotel to cancel the event. A lawyer sympathetic to Hezbollah even convinced a prosecutor to investigate the Human Rights Watch researcher in Beirut for treason. The report still got massive press attention - all the more so as “the report that Hezbollah tried to censor” - but Hezbollah’s response hardly showed a willingness to correct its lawless ways.

I love the taste of Persian blood in the morning

The rhetoric against Iran seems to be increasing by the day.

As if the situation wasn’t complicated enough, now we have evangelical Christians almost begging Iranian Jews to leave because their situation is apparently life-threatening:

Evangelical Christians in the U.S. have brought dozens of Iranian Jews to Israel in recent months, offering cash incentives and claiming that Iran’s tiny Jewish community is in grave danger.

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, a charity that funnels millions of dollars in evangelical donations to Israel every year, is promising US$10,000 (€7,000) to every Iranian Jew who comes to Israel, said the group’s director, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein.

The project is another example of the alliance between the Jewish state and evangelical American Christians, many of whom see the existence of Israel and the return of Jews to the Holy Land as a realization of Biblical prophesy that will culminate with Christ’s Second Coming.

But an Iran expert said the money would not be enough to draw Iranian Jews, who do not perceive themselves to be in grave danger.

Eckstein said his group has helped bring 82 Jews to Israel from Iran since the project began this year, and hopes to bring 60 more by year’s end.

Earlier this year, Iranian Jews categorically rejected any incentives to leave (and many Iranian Jews told me likewise when I was there in June.)

For those of us who have been writing for years about the likelihood of a US military strike against Iran, only a fool would believe it isn’t becoming more likely by the day (and war-mongers are virtually praying for it, claiming that victory in Iraq is near, if only those pesky Iranians would butt out.)

So, what’s the current equation? Time.com’s Tony Karon paints a grim picture:

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation as it perceives them, under the circumstances responsible leadership in Tehran has an obligation to understand the thinking of those who might launch military strikes on their territory. And to understand, also, that in President Bush’s fevered imagination, causing a recession (that may already be in the works regardless of the state of conflict with Iran) may be an acceptable price to pay for stopping what he perceives as an epoch-defining power-shift as a result of Iran attaining the ability to enrich uranium. Deranged as that reasoning may be, it may yet drive the U.S. to war. More rational voices may nonetheless prevail, of course, particularly those of the U.S. military all the way up to the Joint Chiefs (with the exception of General David Petraeus in Iraq, who appears to have been entirely conscripted by the neocon party of war), who correctly see war as more dangerous than even a nuclear-armed Iran. But the voices of rationality and restraint on the U.S. side will not be helped by Iran appearing to harden its position.

If the 2006 Lebanon war helped Iran, just imagine how emboldened the mullahs will be after limited strikes?

And would Australian journalists like to ask our government if, as reported, Australian SAS forces have already operated inside Iran?

They’re only Lebanese, after all

Israel remains an inspiration to the world:

Ninety percent of the land contaminated by cluster bombs in South Lebanon should be cleared by the end of 2008, the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center (UNMACC), said on Wednesday “A number of factors caused the delay in clearing all the 38 million square meters of infested land,” UNMACC spokeswoman Dalya Farran said during a news conference in the Southern city of Tyre. “Israel refusing to provide us with maps of where it has dropped cluster bombs constitutes the main obstacle,” she added. 

Civilians aren’t really innocent

Are there no limits to what radical Zionists won’t do to justify killing Arabs? The National Catholic Reporter explains:

The Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism in the United States and the Institute for Counter Terrorism in Israel are sponsoring a conference Oct. 8 in Washington to argue for changes in international humanitarian law — also called the “laws of war” — that protects civilians in armed conflict.

The conference, titled “New Battlefields, Old Laws,” developed from a meeting between Mitchel Wallerstein, dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, to which the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism belongs, and Boaz Ganor, director of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, home of the Institute for Counter Terrorism, during the Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah in summer 2006. What it amounts to is a public diplomacy exercise to conceal war crimes.

Dr. Ganor told The Jerusalem Post, “We talked about the frustration we had over how the world was relating to the war, mainly the claim that Israel wasn’t responding with ‘proportionality.’ ” Dr. Wallerstein told Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s largest-circulation newspaper: “Last summer, the IDF [Israel Defense Force] faced the issue of human shields, and the storing of weapons in civilian areas. We’ve seen this in other places such as Somalia and the Balkans. We are likely to see this again. International law does not adequately deal with this issue.” Dr. Wallerstein also said that Israel had “little alternative than to attack these [Lebanese] villages, both from the air and on the ground.”




This is a non-profit site dedicated to providing timely and challenging material. Any financial contributions would be greatly appreciated, however, to sustain hosting costs and the life of a freelance journalist.
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from AntonyLoewenstein. Make your own badge here.