Tag Archive for 'Hizbollah'

The means and methods of killing Israeli enemies (and who who admire them)

Published on 24 February 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Mossad’s supposedly legendary ability to murder so-called “enemies” is praised by many Jews but simply shows the illegality of Israeli actions.

The recent killing in Dubai of a Hamas operative – according to former New York Times journalist and Iraq WMD story-teller Judith Miller, this was Israel’s third attempt – alerted the world to such methods once again (although an Israeli minister is now saying that the murder in Dubai wasn’t actually murder. Really.)

This account in the London Independent of Israel’s tracking and 2008 killing of Hizbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh is a remarkble story:

On Saturday morning, 2 February 2008, a man emerged from the U-Bahn, the city’s railway system, and stood outside the subway exit on the Kurfürstendamm, Berlin’s elegant shopping quarter. He had started his journey in one of the eastern suburbs of the city and its purpose was contained in the briefcase he carried. A car pulled up, the driver opened the passenger door and together they drove off.

Who the man was and what he had been asked to do was known, apart from the driver, to only Meir Dagan and a handful of senior Mossad officers in Tel Aviv. They had patiently waited for the car’s passenger to obtain what they wanted.

Six months before, the driver introduced himself to the man as Reuben. It was not his real name: like all other details about his identity, it remained in a secure room where the names of all current katsas [field agents] were kept in Mossad headquarters. A few days ago, the man had left a message at one of the agreed dead letter-boxes, which Reuben regularly checked, to the effect that he was ready to deliver what he had been asked to provide in return for a substantial sum of euros, half as a down payment, the balance on delivery of what was now in his briefcase.

They were photos of Imad Mughniyeh. After Osama bin Laden, he was the world’s most-wanted terrorist.

Raising for Hizbollah is a problem (but Jewish colonies is not)

Published on 23 February 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Americans raise money for the illegal settlements in Palestine and nobody says a word and yet this behaviour is deemed unacceptable:

Three Florida businessmen were arrested for smuggling video games to a mall in Paraguay linked to Hezbollah.

The businessmen, from the Miami-Dade area, were arrested Feb. 18 for smuggling video games and other electronic products to a shopping center that federal agents say served as a front for financing Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist group by the United States. Americans are prohibited from doing business with the Lebanon-based group under a post-9/11 law.

The businessmen, who sold thousands of Sony PlayStation 2 consoles and Sony digital cameras during 2007 and 2008 to the shopping mall in Paraguay, have been identified as Khaled T. Safadi, Ulises Talavera and Emilio Gonzalez-Neira, according to the Miami Herald.

The mall has been identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as a funder of and headquarters for Hezbollah.

Using “sabotage” to support Israel’s noble mission

Published on 17 February 2010 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

With the Zionist organisation Reut Institute releasing a report detailing how to attack Hamas, Hizbollah, critics of Israel and anti-Zionists (yes, we’re all seen as an equal threat), clearly the global campaign against Israel is starting to bite. And can’t simply be erased by military means.

The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah highlights one disturbing part of the Reut propaganda effort:

Reut recommends to the Israeli government an aggressive and possibly criminal counter-offensive. A powerpoint presentation [Reut president Gidi] Grinstein made to the recent Herzliya Conference on Israeli national security actually calls on Israel’s “intelligence agencies to focus” on the named and unnamed “hubs” of the “delegitimization network” and to engage in “attacking catalysts” of this network. In its “The Delegitimization Challenge: Creating a Political Firewall” document, Reut recommends that “Israel should sabotage network catalysts.”

The use of the word “sabotage” is particularly striking and should draw the attention of governments, law enforcement agencies and university officials concerned about the safety and welfare of their students and citizens. The only definition of “sabotage” in United States law deems it to be an act of war on a par with treason, when carried out against the United States. In addition, in common usage, the American Heritage Dictionary defines sabotage as “Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.” It is difficult to think of a legitimate use of this term in a political or advocacy context.

At the very least, Reut seems to be calling for Israel’s spy agencies to engage in covert activity to interfere with the exercise of legal free speech, association and advocacy rights in the United States, Canada and European Union countries, and possibly to cause harm to individuals and organizations. These warnings of Israel’s possible intent — especially in light of its long history of criminal activity on foreign soil — should not be taken lightly.

The Reut Institute, based in Tel Aviv, raises a significant amount of tax-exempt funds in the United States through a nonprofit arm called American Friends of the Reut Institute (AFRI). According to its public filings, AFRI sent almost $2 million to the Reut Institute in 2006 and 2007.

American arms despots, hopes for peace and good outcomes

Published on 1 February 2010 in General. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

This is the wonderfully concise, humane and sensible approach by the Obama administration to bring peace to the Middle East; more weapons:

The Obama administration is quietly working with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to speed up arms sales and rapidly upgrade defenses for oil terminals and other key infrastructure in a bid to thwart future military attacks by Iran, according to former and current U.S. and Middle Eastern government officials.

The initiatives, including a U.S.-backed plan to triple the size of a 10,000-man protection force in Saudi Arabia, are part of a broader push that includes unprecedented coordination of air defenses and expanded joint exercises between the U.S. and Arab militaries, the officials said. All appear to be aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran.

The efforts build on commitments by the George W. Bush administration to sell warplanes and antimissile systems to friendly Arab states to counter Iran’s growing conventional arsenal. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are leading a regionwide military buildup that has resulted in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms purchases in the past two years alone.

Middle Eastern military and intelligence officials said Gulf states are embracing the expansion as Iran reacts increasingly defiantly to international censure over its nuclear program. Gulf states fear retaliatory strikes by Iran or allied groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah in the event of a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States or Israel.

For the Obama administration, the cooperation represents tangible progress against Iran at a time when the White House is struggling to build international support for stronger diplomatic measures, including tough new economic sanctions, a senior official said in an interview.

“Tangible progress”? With dictators or the people? Of course, the millions of Arabs are irrelevant in these equations.

Fisk on ever-worsening tensions between Lebanon and Israel

Published on 21 January 2010 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Robert Fisk on renewed fears that Israel and Lebanon may be at war again soon.

The insanity of such a move is undoubted – both sides, Hizbollah and Israel, have been threatening the other – but it’s clear that Israel is determined to avenge its disastrous 2006 adventure against Lebanon:

Of course, the gentle countryside is an illusion. Benjamin Netanyahu and his colleagues in the Israeli government have been announcing that the only “army” of Lebanon is the Hizbollah, the Iranian-armed and Syrian-assisted guerrilla force whose bunkers and missiles north of the Litani river might just tip the balance in the next Hizbollah-Israeli war. And Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the chairman of the Hizbollah, has been making some even more interesting threats: that his forces will “change the face of the Middle East region” if there is another war with Israel. No-one is in much doubt about what this means. The newly resurfaced Lebanese roads near the border – courtesy of Hizbollah money – suggest that someone might want to move men at high speed towards the frontier. Perhaps even to cross the border.

That’s what the Israelis suspect, too – and it makes sense of Nasrallah’s warning last week. The Hizbollah claimed that the 2006 war with Israel was a “divine victory” – it didn’t feel that way to us in southern Lebanon at the time – yet even Israel admits it was a near-defeat for its own ill-trained soldiers. But how would Israel react if the Hizbollah managed to enter Israel itself? Israeli army commanders are talking about this in the Israeli press. A fast, dramatic spring across the frontier to the west – in the direction of Naharia, perhaps, or a grab at the settlement of Kiryat Shmona – and Hizbollah would announce it had “liberated” part of historic “Palestine”. Israel would have to bomb its own territory to get them out.

…

You can see the way everyone is thinking. And here’s the big question, the camel in the room. If Israel ignores Obama and attacks Iran’s nuclear sites – a real aggression if ever there could be – the Hizbollah could fire rockets into Israel, perhaps even revealing its new anti-aircraft missile capacity. Hamas might join in from Gaza. Hamas is a tin-pot outfit; the Hizbollah is not. An Israeli attack on Iran will unleash Iranian military power against America. But part of that power is Hizbollah in Lebanon. This is serious business.

Israel initiates terrorism, says Turkey and Lebanon

Published on 13 January 2010 in Israel. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

This must be Israel’s wonderful outreach working wonders on friends and neighbours:

The prime ministers of Turkey and Lebanon on Monday lashed out at Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace and air strikes in Gaza, warning they were undermining prospects for peace in the region.

“Attacks on Lebanon is terrorism itself … We have to stand shoulder by shoulder against the enemy’s plans … We have to stop Israel,” visiting Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri told a press conference.

Lebanese anti-aircraft guns opened fire on four Israeli warplanes which were violating its airspace at low altitude on Monday, the military said.

Israel claims that the overflights are necessary to monitor what it says is massive arms smuggling by Hizbullah.

Hariri’s counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country’s once-flourishing ties with Israel took a sharp downturn last year, said that Turkey “will never stay silent” on Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace.

He slammed the Israeli overflights as “unacceptable action that threatens global peace.”

Turkey’s Erdogan also questioned a deadly Israeli air raid on the Gaza Strip Sunday, which, the Israeli army said, targeted militants who were preparing attacks.

“Is the Israeli government in favor of peace or not? … Gaza was bombed again yesterday. Why? … There were no rocket attacks,” Erdogan said.

“They [the Israelis] have disproportional capabilities and power and they use them … They do not abide by UN resolutions … They say they will do what they like. We can in no way approve of such an attitude,” he said.

If America wants to push partition in Palestine, they’ve got a problem

Published on 8 January 2010 in Israel. 8 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

US Middle East envoy George Mitchell talks to American interviewer Charlie Rose and implies that indefinite occupation is bringing Israel to disaster (if one believes in a two-state solution, that is). “Jewish democracy” in Israel can only be achieved at the barrel of a gun:

Charlie Rose:
And how much incentive is there to do something now because Israelis look at demographics.  And they look at a window that may be closing on a two-state solution.

George Mitchell:
Yes.  I think that’s a huge incentive for that and other reasons.  I think there are other reasons as well.  But let’s take the demographics.  If you count the number of Arabs in Israel, in Gaza and in the West Bank, they are about equal to the number of Israelis, Jewish Israelis.  And the birth rates among the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs is rising more rapidly, so the demographic lines are crossing in about 2010, 2011.  That poses a very serious problem for Israel because if they can’t get a two-state solution, and they’ve got a one-state solution, they want it to be a Jewish state, a position we support.  But that will be difficult if they are in a minority.  The second reason is technology.  If there is an iron law of human history, it is that weapons are rapidly disseminated.  And the invention of new weapons quickly spread around the world.  Right now, what you have are rockets being disseminated, an estimated 30 to 40,000 rockets held by Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border, Hamas having, I don’t know the number, but a substantial number of rockets.  And while the technology of particularly the Hamas rockets is crude, there is obviously an ongoing campaign to upgrade –

This is how the IDF fights

Published on 6 December 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel released the following statement this week:

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) released today [2 December 2009] a new report which exposes the shifts in Israel’s combat doctrine as evidenced in the prosecution of operation “Cast Lead” and from numerous public oral and written statements made by high ranking military officers and senior Israeli government officials.

The report, “No Second Thoughts: Changes in the IDF’s Combat Doctrine In Light Of Operation ‘Cast Lead’,” demonstrates Israel’s application of a new combat doctrine during the hostilities in Gaza, which is based on two principles:

“Zero Casualties”: The complete prioritization of avoiding IDF [Israeli army] casualties while disregarding the increased risk to Palestinian civilians. The implementation of this policy is evident in the massive use of fire power, the use of white phosphorous weapons in densely populated areas, and in firing at Palestinians in the streets, with no discrimination between combatants and civilians, this even after the IDF would order the evacuation of residents from civilian homes.

“Dahiyah Doctrine”: named after the residential Dahiyah district in Beirut, where Hizballah enjoyed support and also had its headquarters. The district was massively bombed by the IDF during the Second Lebanon War. The doctrine promotes targeting civilian infrastructure in order to cause widespread destruction and suffering among the civilian population so as to foment popular opposition to Israel’s opponents (namely Hamas and Hizballah).

As a result of the implementation of these principles, the fighting in the Gaza Strip caused intentional and large-scale damage to civilian infrastructure as well as the killing of hundreds of non-combatant civilians (despite the absence of an official policy to intentionally kill civilians). Israel’s actions directly contradict official statements claiming that the IDF acted in accordance with international humanitarian law and took every possible measure to avoid harming non-militant civilians.

This combat doctrine morally stains the citizens of Israel. It may lead to increased international isolation of Israel and to a situation where Israeli soldiers, officers and leaders will face arrest outside of Israel and be charged with war crimes. The writers of the report summarize: “So fundamental a shift in the IDF’s combat doctrine, which has such a far-reaching impact, shouldn’t be considered only in the closed forums of the General Headquarters and the Security Cabinet, but demands substantial public discussion.”

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (says Jewish historian)

Published on 25 November 2009 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Israeli historian Benny Morris, a man with a serious dislike of Arabs and Iranians, yesterday unloaded in the UK Guardian and urged nothing less than a military strike against the Islamic Republic.

Once again, a leading Zionist voice defines his ideology as nothing other than violence and devastation:

The talk in Israel, explicit and open – including in the country’s leading daily, Haaretz, last week – is about a war in the coming spring or summer. The skies will have cleared for air operations, Israel’s missile shields against short- and medium-range rockets will at least be partly operational, and the international community, led by President Obama, will palpably have failed to stymie Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. And the Iranians will be that much closer to a bomb.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, will then have to decide if Israel can live with a nuclear Iran and rely on deterrence. But if they judge the risk of a nuclear assault on Israel too great, Israel’s military will have to do what it can to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, despite the likely devastating repercussions – regional and global.

These will probably include massive rocketing of Israel’s cities and military bases by the Iranians and Hezbollah (from Lebanon), and possibly by Hamas (from Gaza). This could trigger land wars in Lebanon and Gaza as well as a protracted long-range war with Iran. It could see terrorism by Iranian agents against Israeli (and Jewish) targets around the world; a steep increase in world oil prices, which will rebound politically against Israel; and Iranian action against American targets in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf. More generally, Islamist terrorism against western targets could only grow.

But it is not only Israel’s leaders who will have to decide. So will Obama, a man who has, in the international arena, shown a proclivity for indecision (except when it comes to Israeli settlements in the West Bank). Will he give the Israelis a green light (and perhaps some additional equipment they have been seeking to facilitate a strike) and a right-of-passage corridor over Iraq for their aircraft? Or will he acquiesce in putting atomic weaponry in the mullahs’ hands?

It is clear – and should be by then to all but the most supine appeasers – that the diplomatic approach is going nowhere, with the Iranians conning and stonewalling and dragging their feet, all the while enriching more uranium.

Coppola praises Assad and we all groan

Published on 19 November 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Neo-conservative bible The Weekly Standard ran this curious story last week and, if true, highlights a sad reality of the Middle East; lies, delusion and outright bigotry:

With his new film Tetro billed to open Beirut’s recent International Film Festival, Francis Ford Coppola was diverted from landing in the Lebanese capital when it was learned that his private plane used parts manufactured in Israel. Fortunately, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, whose Lebanese ally Hezbollah controls security at Beirut International Airport, was able to overlook this minor indiscretion and permitted Coppola to land in Damascus, where he caught another plane to Beirut.

Coppola is revered in the Middle East, as in many other parts of the world, as director of The Godfather, and indeed a new version of the three-part epic has just been released in the region, dubbed into the Syrian dialect. (So how do you say “banana daquiri” in Syria? Banana daquiri.)

The director seemed to enjoy his time in Damascus in late October, where he was wildly impressed with Assad and his glamorous wife Asma. “We have felt so warmly received,” Coppola told Fox News correspondent Amy Kellogg. “The people you meet are kind and welcoming. [Damascus] is fascinating for so many reasons, relating to history. The food is fantastic. The president, his wife and family are lucid, appealing and able to speak on so many levels. In this way he convinces me he has a vision for the country which is positive.”

World, get ready for some Israeli bombing soon enough

Published on 19 November 2009 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Aluf Benn of Haaretz speaks to Benjamin Netanyahu, and apart from believing the Israeli leader’s supposed sincerity towards peace with the Palestinians, shares this gem:

It appears that Netanyahu is preparing for war against Iran and Hezbollah in the coming spring, when the snows melt and the clouds clear. Evidence of this is the additional defense budget and the home front’s preparations for a confrontation.

US tells Israel that they’re just tops but people aren’t convinced

Published on 9 November 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

The US Ambassador to Israel, James B. Cunningham, spoke a few days ago at Tel Aviv University. Promised Land blog reports on proceedings and it’s an utterly depressing affair:

Ambassador Cunningham read a prepared lecture for 30 minutes, and than took questions for an additional half hour. I will report here some of the things the ambassador said, followed by my own commentary.

It seems that there is an effort by the administration to improve its image with the Israeli public, and much of what the ambassador said was in that spirit. In fact, one of his first remarks acknowledged that “polls indicate that there is doubt in Israel whether Obama is a good friend”. The Israeli public should know, said Mr. Cunningham, that “the president is Israel’s closest friends”.

Regarding operation Cast Lead, the ambassador said that “Israel has the right to defend itself, and Hamas’ terrorism must stop”. Later on he added that the US “is in agreement” with Israel on the role Iran is playing in the region through Hamas and Hezbollah.

With regards to the Goldstone report, the ambassador said that the US “objected the flawed mandate judge Goldstone was given… [and] we oppose its broad conclusions… we will object to the efforts to use the report to undermine Israel’s right to defend itself.” To this he added a rather strange remark, stating that the US has faith in Israel’s democratic institutions, and that it encourages Israel to use them to deal with the allegations in the report (I noted this sentence in Hebrew, so it’s not a word-by-word quote).

…

On the bus back home from the University, I couldn’t help feeling depressed and pessimistic.

For start, I was amazed by the atmosphere in the crowd, which was on the verge of hostility. Some guy asked “how is it that the administration is tough on America’s friends and soft on its enemies?” The University’s Rector had an incredibly short opening remark. All he said was that “America is our greatest friend, so we trust that it will veto the Goldstone report in the Security Council, because this report is a shame!” and most of the crowd applauded – the only time they did, during the entire hour. Indeed, TAU is not the progressive place it was ten years ago.

Not everyone in Iran is green

Published on 7 November 2009 in General. 1 Comment Tags: , , , .

Opposition to the Iranian regime is real and continues to display remarkable tenacity in the face of brutal repression.

But, reports Graeme Wood in the Atlantic, there appears still to be massive support for the status-quo:

In the center of the street, the Quds Day protesters flowed toward me on foot, in groups representing different government-loyal constituencies: soldiers from all branches, women’s groups (louder than most, and monolithically black in their chadors), and tae kwon do clubs, whose black and white gis matched the general monochrome theme of the day. In age the marchers varied widely, and were well represented in the youth-bulge demographic. Palestinians, naturally, made no appearances I could see, though scattered Hizbullah delegates did.

…

For this observer, anyway, the Quds Day rally established exactly what the Islamic Republic wanted it to show, which is that despite the reports of unrest and discontent, there are still vast numbers of Iranians who love their government and hate Israel, and who are as sheltered from their anti-clerical countrymen as their government wants them to be. The opposition, of course, rallied elsewhere, farther north (more on that later). And optimists will point out, with some justification, that totalitarian governments have never had much trouble staging parades, even in their last days. But if the protesters’ goal was to force their displeasure into the view of all Iranians, they failed. If I hadn’t received the Tweets, I wouldn’t have known there was any counter-protest at all.

Provoking trouble on the Lebanese side

Published on 23 October 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Israel continues to meddle inside Lebanese territory, a violation of international law:

The detonation of Israeli surveillance devices near the southern village of Houla represent a success for Israel against archenemy Hizbullah, while also raising pressure on the Shiite group and further eroding the security situation in south Lebanon, a number of analysts told The Daily Star on Wednesday.

Two electronic listening devices planted near the Israel-Lebanon border self-destructed last weekend as people approached, while the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) destroyed a third article of espionage equipment. The existence of sophisticated Israeli spy technology inside Lebanon, albeit uncovered, still signifies a victory for the Jewish state in its struggle against Hizbullah, said retired General Elias Hanna, who teaches political science.

“A small breach is a success,” he said. “Even if it’s a minor breach, it’s a success.”

This is therefore unsurprising:

The Lebanese President, Michel Suleiman, accused Israel on Tuesday of spying on his country in violation of a United Nations peace resolution.

“There is a difference between spying carried out by people who have been detected and detained, and detectors and spying equipment which have been found during last week,” he told reporters in Spain where he is on a state visit.

“These spy networks discovered on Sunday, in means of spying, are a clear violation by Israel of the UN Resolution 1701, even more so than Israel routine violation of Lebanese airspace.” The president added.

Hezbollah, who discovered a spying device on a cable between the villages of Mays and Jebel, said that they were installed by Israel after the summer 2006 war. While the UN reported that, they were place during the July 2006 war.

‘Anti-Zionist’ Jew: author of ‘My Israel Question’ heads for Bali

Published on 6 October 2009 in Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

The following article by Katrin Figge is published today in one of Indonesia’s largest English newspapers, The Jakarta Globe:

For a person who gets hate mail and death threats on a regular basis, Antony Loewenstein remains surprisingly cheerful.

The Jewish-Australian journalist, activist, blogger and author, who is based in Sydney, has stirred up plenty of controversy with his book “My Israel Question.” First published in 2006 and reprinted in a third edition several weeks ago, the book takes a critical look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine. As a self-proclaimed anti-Zionist and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, Loewenstein has been accused of anti-Semitism by many fellow Jews.

Ben Cubby of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote in a July review of “My Israel Question”: “To his critics, he is a ‘pro-Hezbollah cheerleader’ and ‘smouldering teen idol’ who is ‘working for the destruction of Israel’ through his ‘rabidly anti-Zionist agenda.’ ” He continued, “For a young writer whose first book has barely hit the shelves, Antony Loewenstein is quickly honing a reputation for getting under people’s skin.”

“I don’t want to suggest that I feel that my life is in jeopardy, I don’t want to exaggerate, but unfortunately, yes, I get a lot of attacks from Jewish people,” Loewenstein said during a phone interview last week, shortly before he set off for Bali and the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival, which kicks off on Wednesday. It is his second visit to Bali. Loewenstein’s first time on the island was for a vacation.

“I was in Bali in March for a couple of weeks, but it was for a holiday,” Loewenstein said. “I loved it, and I am glad I am coming back and have the chance to see a bit more of the country.”

After the festival, he will visit several other cities, including Yogyakarta and Aceh, as part of a book tour. He plans to talk about the Middle East, the role of the United States in the region, Jewish identity and Palestinian nationalism.

“One of the interesting things for me about coming to the Ubud festival is to try to bridge the profound gap that exists between the English-speaking and the non-English speaking world,” he said.

He said he didn’t have much knowledge of Indonesian writers, not because he wasn’t interested, but mainly because of the language barrier.

“In the Western world, the literature of the non-English speaking countries is maybe not ignored, but certainly not highlighted as much as it should be,” he said. “I hope that in time this will change, especially with the help of a multilingual Internet.”

Loewenstein also published “The Blogging Revolution” in 2008.

“The main reason behind the book was a dissatisfaction with how the Western media reported on the rest of the world,” he said. “It started during and right after the Iraq war in 2003. It seemed to me extraordinary that in Australia and many parts of the West, there were very few Iraqi voices talking about the war.”

Internet blogs were one way for Loewenstein to get inside Iraq. He then decided to visit Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and China — countries that he said are repressive but still have a vibrant and diverse Internet culture.

“There’s a great deal of online dissent in these countries,” Loewenstein said. “One of the things I wanted to talk about in the book was that the Internet on its own does not bring democracy, but what it does do in many countries, for example in Egypt, Iraq and China, is to bring issues to public attention.”

He talked to a number of people about why and how they were blogging, and especially about how they dealt with the censorship that exists in some of those countries.

“In places like China, for example, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo actually help the government to censor the Internet,” Loewenstein said. “To me, that is something profoundly disturbing that needed to be examined, while overall, I was trying to show how in the West we are willfully ignoring many voices that we could be listening to.”

He recently traveled to Israel and Palestine.

“I am very critical of the way Israel treats Palestinians, and I guess I just wanted to go there again and see it with my own eyes,” he said.

“It was despairing. The situation in Israel itself [is that] the country has moved very much to the right. In Palestine there is not much optimism despite Barack Obama coming in and talking about peace. Nothing has changed, nothing has been rebuilt.”

As someone who is Jewish, Loewenstein said, he felt profound shame about what his people were doing. This is one of the things he wants to speak about at the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival.

“For many people, especially in the Muslim world, there is a need to hear Jews speaking critically of Israel,” Loewenstein said. “What Israel does in Palestine is unconscionable and has to be condemned.”

Antony Loewenstein will be speaking at the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival this week.

Antony Loewenstein at the festival

October 9 2:15 – 3:30 p.m. Writing in the New World: Obama and Dissent, with Fatima Bhutto, Antony Loewenstein and Jamal Mahjoub Chair: Michael Vatikiotis
October 11 9 – 10 a.m. In Conversation: Antony Loewenstein Chair: Dominique Schwartz 4 – 5:30 p.m. A New Frontier: Blogging, Dissent and Solidarity, with Doel CP Allisah, Dian Hartati, Antony Loewenstein and Ng Yi-Sheng Chair: Angela Meyer

Is a Shia revolution the best way forward?

Published on 27 September 2009 in General and Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

The founder of Conflicts Forum, a site that discusses Islamism in all its form, is interviewed by Mother Jones. Alastair Crooke is an intriguing fellow:

Crooke understands today’s Middle East as similar to Sarajevo in 1914, where a random event could precipitate a cascade that changes the world. Someone will overreach—Israel, Syria, Lebanon­—and then everything will shift. He reiterates this opinion when I meet him for lunch in New York. He’s in town for a panel at George Soros’ house after a trip to Washington, where State Department officials assured him that big changes were on the way. “Then when you ask what, they are not quite sure,” Crooke tells me. “We are now in an era where no one sees a direct intervention by a Western power.” This, he clarifies, means that conservative Sunnis in the Gulf states and Egypt are now free to battle it out with the Shiites in Hezbollah and Iran for the first time since the Arab nations gained their independence. “The attitude of both the US and Europe,” he says flatly, “has to be categorized as a form of denial.”

In the short term, Crooke explains, an Iranian victory in the war of ideas that divides the Muslim world would extend Iran’s power over Persian Gulf oil reserves and shipping lanes, putting Saudi Arabia in its shadow. The further empowerment of Iran would mean a profound reduction in Israel’s ability to use force against its enemies. It would also mean the end of the American-Saudi-Egyptian axis as the focal point of politics in the Arab world.

Crooke seems comfortable with all of these outcomes, in part because he believes Iran is on the right side of history. While Tehran’s rise at the expense of our Sunni allies might be disruptive and scary, Crooke implies, it’s the only way to get the relationship between Islam and the West back on a workable footing. Certainly, the idea of throwing America’s commercial ties with the Saudis and strategic ties with Egypt and Israel out the window for the sake of a romantic gamble on the Iranian regime is too much for most Westerners to stomach. Yet our current alliances with Sunni fundamentalists, Crooke warns, will guarantee that Islam remains stuck in the medieval past, and that the conflict between Islam and the West will continue. One thing that separates Crooke from more conventional, mealymouthed analysts of the Middle East is his unwillingness to understate this conflict, which he understands as a deadly struggle between two armed camps whose notions of reality are fundamentally irreconcilable.

The Iranian people won’t be silenced

Published on 19 September 2009 in General and Israel. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , .

During yesterday’s Jerusalem Day “celebrations” in Iran, this happened:

By midmorning in central Tehran, dozens of opposition supporters in green T-shirts and wearing green wristbands – a color symbolising the opposition movement – marched with fingers raised in the V-sign for victory and chanting “Death to the Dictator.”

Others shouted for the government to resign, carried small photos of Mousavi, while some women marched with their children in tow.

There were also chants of: “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, but our life is for Iran” – a slogan defying the regime’s support for Palestinian militants in Gaza and Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrilla.

In related news, there is growing pressure to force Israel to allow inspectors into its nuclear sites.

So, is Israel a normal country or simply above the law?

Minute by minute planning to bomb the Islamic Republic

Published on 12 September 2009 in Israel. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Amos Harel in Haaretz on the supposedly normal plans to bomb Iran:

For an Israeli attack to be considered, Israel would need the tacit approval of the Obama administration, if only in the sense that it looks the other way. This is due above all to the necessity of passing through the Iraqi air corridor, as American soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2011. No less important is strategic coordination for the day after: How will the United States react to a prolonged aerial attack by Israel on the nuclear sites and to the regional flare-up that might follow?

These are matters that would have to be agreed on directly between Obama and Netanyahu. The disparity in their policy stances, together with the total lack of personal chemistry between them, is liable to prove a hindrance.

Iran is likely to respond to an Israeli attack by opening fronts nearby, via Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Three years after the Second Lebanon War and at the end of a broad process of learning lessons from that conflict, the IDF is quite confident of its ability to deal with Hezbollah. At the same time, it’s clear that Israel will be subjected to extensive rocket attacks that can be expected to cover most of the country.

A key question would be Syria’s behavior. Israel has a salient interest in having Damascus be no more than a spectator in a confrontation. If the attack on Iran is perceived to have been successful, that is probably how the Syrians will respond.

But an attack on Iran will reopen a decades-old blood feud – and the Iranians have both a long memory and a great deal of patience. With decisions like this looming within a year, it’s no wonder that Netanyahu wants to get the Gilad Shalit affair wrapped up.

Just some genocide provided by Jewish settlers

Published on 11 September 2009 in Israel. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , .

If a Muslim calls for the destruction of Israel or Jews, it is rightly condemned.

But how about a radical Jew writing this?

For peace and truth to unite and prevail, Israel must first triumph over her enemies, today led by Satanic Iran. Israel is waiting for the moment. She knows that the mullahs of Iran are driven by the memory of the Persian Empire. She knows that a nuclear-armed Iran in control of the Persian Gulf would ensure Iran’s hegemony over the Middle East and beyond. Israel also knows that she will be the first target; for if Iran controls Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, a billion Muslims will exult in victory, will explode in frenzy and wreak havoc on the world, screaming “Allahu Akbar!”

So Israel will strike first, and this will mark the beginning of a new Middle East, one that hardly anyone dreams of. While Iran is being devastated, the Israel Defense Forces will crush Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah and Syria. Israel will eliminate the entire terrorist network west of the Jordan River. Countless Arabs will flee from Judea and Samaria, as well as from Gaza – as they did after the Six-Day War.

Ethnic cleansing, a game mad Zionists can all play.

Reaction to Pilger award reveals Zionist lobby’s fear of dissent

Published on 26 August 2009 in Israel. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

My following article appears in Crikey:

In 2003, Palestinian politician and human rights activist Hanan Ashrawi won the Sydney Peace Prize. The Zionist establishment reacted with outrage, accused her of extremism and pressured then New South Wales Premier Bob Carr to not present the award.

The campaign was a disaster and convinced large swathes of the Australian public that many Jews were intolerant of debate. I investigated the saga in my book, My Israel Question, and found a startling lack of awareness by Jewish leaders of how their actions were perceived by the wider public.

Six years on, little has changed.

This year, the Sydney Peace Foundation awarded its annual prize to journalist, author and documentary maker John Pilger for “enabling the voices of the powerless to be heard”. He will receive the award in November, presented by New South Wales Governor Marie Bashir. Last year Kevin Rudd did the honours for Aboriginal leader Pat Dodson.

Jewish leaders again are on the offensive. President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), Robert Goot, said that, “Pilger does not promote peace, but is a polemicist, a distorter of facts and history and he promotes an extreme Palestinian narrative at the expense of Israel’s narrative and objective analysis.”

Leadership strategist Ernie Schwartz told the Australian Jewish News (AJN) this week that he would urge the Jewish establishment to present a “unified view … [and] be realistic about the fact that we’ll always come across as myopic. That’s just the way we’re going to be cast.”

But bullying organisers of the award and threatening them isn’t a perception problem; it’s how the Zionist lobby does business.

Director of the Sydney Peace Foundation Stuart Rees tells Crikey that he has received huge amounts of supportive mail from across the world in appreciation of this year’s choice. “He [Pilger] has a broad body of work that covers a wide range of countries,” Rees says, including Cambodia, Burma, Australia, America, Bangladesh, Iraq and Afghanistan. “He isn’t just about Israel/Palestine.”

Rees dismisses comments by Zionist lobbyist Colin Rubenstein that the prize is discredited and says that “we don’t think that derision is an appropriate form of commentary. When people have lost, they resort to character assassination.”

Rees says he has not yet heard of any pressure on Sydney University management to threaten funding, as happened during the Ashrawi affair, but accusatory letters have started.

The level of Zionist anger towards Pilger was displayed at last Friday’s Politics in the Pub event in Sydney. A Jewish man approached Rees after the talk and asked if the “next winner would be Hitler”.

Curiously, this week’s AJN features a letter that asks whether Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah or yours truly should win next year.

Rees argues that the reason so many Zionist leaders react as they do is because “they’re tribal. They have to repeat a certain mantra, otherwise they would be disloyal to this image.”

Former Zionist Federation of Australia president Dr Ron Weiser proved this point recently by writing, in support of illegal West Bank settlements and against Barack Obama, that the Australian Government’s position would remain blindly pro-Israel if unthinking “consensus” was maintained. Profound fear of dissent was palpable.

The question of academic freedom is central to a healthy democracy. Attempts by any lobby group to stifle it should be challenged. Witness the current moves in Israel and America against Ben Gurion University academic Neve Gordon for daring to write in the LA Times in support of a boycott against “apartheid” Israel.

President Professor Rivka Carmi condemned the article and said: “Academics who entertain such resentment toward their country are welcome to consider another professional and personal home”. In fact, academic freedom is specifically designed to allow individuals to express views without fear of retribution.

Closer to home, Associate Professor Jake Lynch, director of Sydney University’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), tells Crikey that he rejects any accusations of bias against him or the centre for taking a strong stand against Israeli violations and Sri Lanka’s war against the Tamils.

He currently receives full university backing for his work, despite the steadily increasing number of complaints from the Singhalese and Jewish community to the institution, insisting on spurious grounds of “balance”.

The obligation of a peace centre, Lynch argues, is to get out the “voices of the subjugated”. The university’s former vice-chancellor, Gavin Brown, told Lynch during a 2008 visit by Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer that “you shouldn’t give the critics [looking for balance] any indication that they’re having an effect”.

Lynch called in May for an academic boycott against Israeli institutions due to their complicity in the occupation of Palestine. The university’s vice-chancellor rejected his overture, supported by many Sydney University academics, but he tells me he’s determined to find a way to pursue the action another way.

Lynch is keen to counter the perception that, “if you criticise Israel you’re anti-Semitic or anti-American if you damn America. The Pilger award should widen this debate. The aim of his British ITV documentary producers is to provide a perspective that is rarely heard; Palestinians are marginalised.”

Stuart Rees commented during last week’s Politics in the Pub that Pilger won the award because he was simply “doing his job [as a reporter]”.