|
|  |
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11746.shtml
The Electronic Intifada - 25.01.2011 11:05
Foreign Minister of the Netherlands Uri Rosenthal has threatened to punish the Dutch foundation ICCO for its continued funding of The Electronic Intifada. Dutch civil society organizations condemn the minister's tactics, warning that the government is attempting to suppress free speech and other basic democratic rights when it comes to criticism of Israel's human rights record.
Meanwhile, the Israeli-government-linked organization NGO Monitor -- which sparked the controversy by leveling false accusations against The Electronic Intifada in November -- has expanded its assault to include Oxfam NOVIB, a Dutch international development and human rights organization that has supported the Netherlands Palestine Committee (www.palestina-komitee.nl).
On 13 January, ICCO director Marinus Verweij met with Rosenthal, who had publicly criticized and promised to investigate ICCO's support for The Electronic Intifada. According to a 13 January press release from the Dutch foreign ministry, Rosenthal "had a frank and open discussion today with the interchurch organization for development, ICCO, which receives some 75 million euros in government grants per year. The meeting was prompted by ICCO's funding of the website Electronic Intifada, which has published calls for the boycott of Israel."
The foreign ministry statement added that "Rosenthal considers this to be directly contrary to Dutch government policy and has urged ICCO to remedy the situation. ICCO claims that its support for the website is paid from private donations, but the minister dismissed this argument as disingenuous." The minister also warned ICCO "that continuing activities that are in conflict with the government's position could affect funding."
"There's nothing wrong with holding critical views, but going directly against government policy is something else," the statement quoted Rosenthal as saying ("Rosenthal takes ICCO to task," 13 January 2010).
ICCO provided 50,000 euros per year to The Electronic Intifada in 2009 and 2010, and lesser amounts in previous years, amounting to about a third of the publication's budget since 2006. The majority of The Electronic Intifada's funding comes from direct donations from readers.
Following the meeting with Rosenthal, ICCO director Verweij defended the independence of ICCO and other nongovernmental organizations in a commentary in leading Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, an English translation of which was distributed to ICCO partners by email. "It is surprising for a minister ... to criticize a civil society organization because of its support for a news site that says things that don't please him. Does the Dutch public broadcasting system need to worry about the financial support it receives from the Dutch government because guests in its program Pauw & Witteman make critical comments on Israel?" (Original Dutch version: "Hoezo ondermijnen we de regering?," 14 January 2011)
The ICCO director wrote that his organization's policies were guided by a strict adherence to international law and human rights principles. Verweij noted that numerous international bodies, including the International Court of Justice at The Hague, have confirmed the illegality of Israel's ongoing settlement activities and the construction of its wall in the occupied West Bank. Under these circumstances, Verweij wrote, "The only way to temper Israel's appetite for settlement, to get the country to relent and to create the conditions for a sustainable and just peace, is by exerting pressure on the Israeli government. For the Palestinian population, for churches and civil society organizations such pressure has become the only remaining option to peacefully express their frustration about Israeli violations of the international law and to persuade Israel to finally change its policies."
John Veron, a representative of ICCO, separately told Volkskrant that ICCO supports alternative media related to other countries in conflict such as Sudan and Congo and that "A free press is one of the conditions for building a democracy ... In conflict situations in particular, media reports of the violations of human rights of citizens are important" ("'Site Electronic Intifada staat voor persvrijheid'," 19 January 2011)
Meanwhile, Partos, a national umbrella for more than a hundred Dutch civil society organizations in the international development cooperation sector, strongly condemned Rosenthal's threats to ICCO's funding, asserting in a statement that they constitute "a dangerous precedent." The requirement that Dutch organizations adhere to government policy is a "fundamentally new and particularly pernicious road," the statement said. The democratic independence of civil society, Partos asserted, "does not suit countries with restrictive regimes, where development agencies often work. But it does suit our own country, which flies the flag for freedom of expression and association" ("A free society needs a free civil society," 19 January 2011).
On 22 January The Jerusalem Post published a new article by pro-Israel advocate Benjamin Weinthal, repeating NGO Monitor's original accusations against The Electronic Intifada, including claims that the publication is "anti-Semitic" and "frequently compares the Israeli military to Nazis." The newspaper provided no examples to support these allegations nor did it attempt to contact The Electronic Intifada for comment. But in a new twist, The Jerusalem Post quoted a Dutch West Bank settler condemning The Electronic Intifada as "a jihadist news site" ("Dutch FM mulls slashing funding for anti-Israel charity").
Citing NGO Monitor's Gerald Steinberg, the newspaper also attacked Oxfam NOVIB for providing funding to an event held by the Netherlands Palestine Committee in Amsterdam on 16 May 2009 at which Ali Abunimah, co-founder and executive director of The Electronic Intifada, spoke. The Netherlands Palestine Committee paid for Abunimah's travel and lodging.
David Cronin, an author, expert on European Union-Israel relations and frequent contributor to The Electronic Intifada, argued that the controversy showed that Dutch democracy was under threat from the Israel lobby, in a speech in Amsterdam on 15 January, the text of which he posted on his blog. "As soon as somebody tells the truth about Israel being an apartheid state and a vicious colonial project," Cronin said, "it is only a matter of time before the lobby will label him or her an anti-Semite. This is a deliberate move designed to muzzle debate" ("Dutch democracy under threat from Israel lobby," 16 January 2011).
"I am proud to be a contributor to The Electronic Intifada," Cronin added, "because I know that it defends the core human values enshrined in international law. It fearlessly exposes how international law is violated by such activities as the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the merciless blockade of Gaza. Is it no longer acceptable in the Netherlands to defend international law?"
|
| Lees meer over: vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten | | aanvullingen | | Shame on NGO Monitor and Rosenthal | Lik mijn Vestje - 25.01.2011 19:04
Voor de volledigheid:
Titel Odious NGO Monitor smears Electronic Intifada
Auteur Cecilie Surasky
Datum 2010.12.05 01:49
Inleiding NGO Monitor was captured perfectly in The Forward by liberal jewish thinker Leonard Fine who said it was “an organization that believes that the best way to defend Israel is to condemn anyone who criticizes it.” But now, no longer satisfied with its McCarthyite efforts to not just condemn.
 http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2010/12/71948.shtml
--------------------------
Titel Why NGO Monitor is attacking The Electronic Intifada
Auteur The Electronic Intifada
Datum 2010.12.01 12:53
Inleiding NGO Monitor has launched a campaign targeting a Dutch foundation's financial support to The Electronic Intifada, accusing the publication among other things of "anti-Semitism." NGO Monitor is an extreme right-wing group with close ties to the Israeli government, military, West Bank settlers, a man convicted of misleading the US Congress, and to notoriously Islamophobic individuals and organizations in the United States.
http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2010/12/71796.shtml
--------------------------
Titel Vragen over ontwikkelingsgeld voor Palestijnse zaak
Auteur Wereldburgers.TV
Datum 2010.12.01 10:38
Inleiding Minister Uri Rosenthal (Buitenlandse Zaken) wil weten of hulporganisatie Icco subsidiegeld geeft Electronic Intifada, een website die zich hard maakt voor de Palestijnse zaak.
http://www.wereldburgers.tv/2010/12/01/vragen-over-subsidie-voor-intifada/
http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2010/12/71793.shtml
| | Wikileaks: Israel vs Hamas & Gaza (refugees) | Talking Strangulation - 26.01.2011 17:05
07TELAVIV64 2007-01-08 16:04 2010-11-28 18:06 SECRET Embassy Tel Aviv
VZCZCXRO2156
OO RUEHROV
DE RUEHTV #0064/01 0081638
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 081638Z JAN 07
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8615
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 TEL AVIV 000064
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/05/2017
TAGS: PREL PTER PGOV IS KWBG
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR THE SECRETARY'S JANUARY 13-15
VISIT TO ISRAEL
Classified By: Ambassador Richard H. Jones, Reason 1.4 (b) (d)
¶1. (S) Madam Secretary, internal tensions among GOI leaders have intensified since your last visit and have reached the point that there appears to be little coordination or even dialogue among the key decision makers. Therefore, we will need to be sensitive to perceptions that we are favoring one faction over another. The divisions at the top here are part of an increasingly gloomy public mood, with a new corruption allegations making headlines virtually daily, and a growing sense of political failure despite Israel's strong economy and a sustained success rate in thwarting suicide attacks. Prime Minister Olmert's approval ratings were only 23 percent in the latest poll, and Israeli interlocutors across the political spectrum are speaking openly of a crisis of public confidence in the country's leadership at a time when Israelis feel an urgent need for strong leadership to face the threats from Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizballah.
OPTIMISM ERODING
----------------
¶2. (S) The year 2007 has started off badly for Israelis. The good feeling generated by PM Olmert's long-delayed December 23 summit meeting with Abu Mazen quickly dissipated under the weight of reports of a new settlement in the Jordan Valley (now suspended by Peretz), continued Qassam rocket attacks on Sderot and neighboring kibbutzim, foot-dragging on both sides in implementing the transfer of tax revenues, lack of progress on the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, and the unpleasant atmospherics of the January 4 Olmert-Mubarak summit, which was overshadowed by a botched IDF daylight raid in the center of Ramallah in which four Palestinians were killed.
¶3. (S) The Ramallah operation, which was authorized by the IDF's West Bank commander without informing the Minister of Defense, served as a stark reminder of the lack of coordination between Israel's military and its civilian leadership. When it comes to Israel's strategy for dealing with Palestinians, it increasingly seems that military is military, civilian is civilian and never the twain shall meet! Despite Olmert's belated embrace of Abu Mazen as a peace partner, there is growing concern that moderate Arab willingness to maintain the embargo on Hamas may be eroding, and that Fatah may fail to muster the popular support it will need to depose Hamas, whether at the ballot box or in the streets. Meanwhile, the upcoming release of the results of the Winograd Commission's investigation of the Lebanon war hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, and IDF Chief of General Staff Halutz. Peretz and Halutz have both publicly stated that they will resign if the Commission holds them responsible for serious errors in the conduct of the war, but Olmert has refrained from public comments. Olmert is also awaiting the results of several separate investigations involving corruption allegations, any one of which could further damage him severely, if not force his resignation.
¶4. (S) While Israeli anxiety over a possible dramatic shift of U.S. policy as a result of the Iraq Study Group's report has been allayed by statements by you and the President, there continues to be deep uneasiness here that the Baker-Hamilton recommendations reflect the shape of things to come in U.S. policy. Israelis recognize that U.S. public support for the Iraq war is eroding and are following with interest the President's upcoming articulation of the revamped policy, but they are deeply concerned that Israeli-Palestinian issues not become linked in American minds to creating a more propitious regional environment for whatever steps we decide to take to address the deteriorating situation in Iraq.
¶5. (S) Iran's nuclear program continues to cause great anxiety in Israel. Given their history, Israelis across the political spectrum take very seriously Ahmadinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map. Olmert has been quite clear in his public comments that Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, a position stated even more emphatically by opposition leader Netanyahu, who compares today's Iran to Nazi Germany in 1938. Despite the worst-case assessments of Israeli intelligence, however, there is a range of views about what action Israel should take. The MFA and some of the think tank Iran experts appear increasingly inclined to state that military action must be a last resort and are taking a new interests in other forms of pressure, including but not limited to sanctions, that could force Iran to abandon its military nuclear program. The IDF, however, srikes us as more inclined than ever to look toward a military strike, whether launched by Israel or by us, as the only way to destroy or even delay Iran's plans. Thoughtful Israeli analysts point out that even if a nuclear-armed Iran did not immediately launch a strike on the Israeli heartland, the very fact that Iran possesses nuclear weapons would completely transform the Middle East strategic environment in ways that would make Israel's long-term survival as a democratic Jewish state increasingly problematic. That concern is most intensively reflected in open talk by those who say they do not want their children and grandchildren growing up in an Israel threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.
LIVNI RISING
------------
¶6. (C) FM Tzipi Livni is frustrated by Olmert's continued refusal to coordinate closely, and -- perhaps with an eye on polls showing her popularity at over double the level of the Prime Minister -- suggested to a Ha'aretz interviewer in late December that she would challenge Olmert for the prime ministership if he continued not to give her his full backing. In the same interview, Livni provided an outline of her thinking, but not a detailed plan, on the way ahead with the Arabs, including negotiating an interim agreement with the Palestinians in which the separation barrier would serve as the border, and refusing to engage with Syria unless Asad takes steps to end support for terrorism and distances himself from Iran. Livni's policy adviser has confirmed to us that she has engaged in her own discrete discussions with Palestinians, but very much in an exploratory mode. Livni told Senators Kerry and Dodd that she doubted that a final status agreement could be reached with Abu Mazen, and therefore the emphasis should be on reforming Fatah so that it could beat Hamas at the polls. MFA officials tell us that Livni is also focused on the need to keep Hamas isolated. She and her senior staff have repeatedly expressed concern that some EU member-states are wobbly on this point. Meanwhile, Livni is keenly aware that unlike Olmert, she has little to fear from the Winograd Commission report (nor is she tainted by the corruption allegations that dog Olmert). Her incipient bid to take Olmert's place could become more serious once the report's preliminary conclusions are released next month.
SHIFTING VIEWS ON SYRIA
-----------------------
¶7. (S) Olmert and Livni agree that negotiations with Syria would be a trap that Damascus would use to end the international pressure on it and to gain a freer hand in Lebanon. While they see public relations downsides to dismissing Syrian peace overtures out of hand, they continue to insist that no negotiations will be possible until Syria reduces its support for terrorism and/or takes direct steps to secure the release of Israeli prisoners held by Hamas and Hizballah. Olmert and Livni are supported in that view by Mossad chief Dagan, who takes a dim view of Syrian intentions. A significant part of the security establishment, however, appears to be reaching the conclusion that it is in Israel's interest to test Asad's intentions -- possibly through the use of a back channel contact -- and to seek to wean him away from Tehran. They are joined in that view by Defense Minister Peretz, much of the Labor Party and the Israeli left, who argue that Israel cannot afford to refuse to at least explore Asad's offer to negotiate, often comparing that stance to Golda Meir's much-criticized decision to spurn Sadat's offer to negotiate, which then led to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Press reports January 5 stated that the defense establishment had recommended to Olmert that he open an exploratory channel to Damascus in two months, a timeline reportedly linked to the completion of reviews of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the Middle East, as well as to clearer indications of Abu Mazen's intentions and capabilities vis a vis Hamas.
PERETZ-OLMERT TENSIONS
----------------------
¶8. (C) According to leaks from a recent Labor Party leadership meeting, Amir Peretz said that he feels completely disconnected from Olmert. Ever since Peretz' telephone conversation with Abu Mazen which infuriated Olmert, the two reportedly barely speak to each other. Television news reports on January 4 trumpeted rumors that Olmert had decided to remove Peretz as Defense Minister and replace him with former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who has already announced plans to challenge Peretz for the Labor Party's leadership in late May primaries. Even though the Prime Minister's Office almost immediately denied the reports, there is little doubt here that someone in the PMO was behind them. While much of the Labor Party feels that Peretz has been a failure, both as Defense Minister and as Party Secretary General, and Peretz' popularity with the general public has hit rock bottom, Labor members widely condemned the media trial balloon, which they saw as an unacceptable attempt by Olmert's advisers to intervene in their party's leadership contest. In any event, the incident is yet another indication of the intense degree of personal rancor and dysfunction prevailing at the top of the GOI.
PERETZ AND SNEH OUR AMA PARTNERS
--------------------------------
¶9. (C) Notwithstanding the GOI's internal discord, there is some good news in our efforts to nudge the GOI toward improvements in Palestinian quality of life issues. Despite his political woes, Peretz has proven himself a serious partner in our efforts to implement the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) and more generally in a slow but steady push by the MOD to force a reluctant IDF to accept steps to reduce barriers to Palestinian movement and to revive the Palestinian economy. Deputy Defense Minister Efraim Sneh, who will likely accompany Peretz to your meeting, has emerged as the point man for these efforts. Sneh shares Peretz' conviction that Israel's security stranglehold on the Palestinians is "winning the battle but losing the war," but Sneh, who in a decades-long career served as a military governor of the West Bank, commanded an elite combat unit, and took part in the famed Entebbe raid, also has both an intimate knowledge of the Palestinians and a combat commander's credibility with the IDF that Peretz sorely lacks. Your meeting with Peretz provides an opportunity to express appreciation for his and Sneh's efforts and to encourage them in their struggle to bring recalcitrant elements in the IDF to heel. The more progress we can achieve with them on AMA implementation now, the easier it will be to achieve meaningful results with both parties in the coming year.
JONES
| | Wikileaks: Israel vs Hamas & Gaza (refugees)2 | Talking Strangulation - 26.01.2011 17:14
07TELAVIV1114 2007-04-18 06:06 2010-11-28 18:06 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy Tel Aviv
VZCZCXRO8870
OO RUEHROV
DE RUEHTV #1114/01 1080655
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 180655Z APR 07
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0564
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TEL AVIV 001114
CODEL
SIPDIS
H PLEASE PASS TO REPRESENTATIVE ACKERMAN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/17/2017
TAGS: PREL PGOV KNNP EFIN IR KPAL IS
SUBJECT: CODEL ACKERMAN'S MEETING WITH OPPOSITION LEADER
BINYAMIN NETANYAHU: ECONOMIC SQUEEZE ON IRAN AND HAMAS;
SCENARIOS FOR A NEW GOVERNMENT; RIGHT OF RETURN AS ACID
TEST OF ARAB INTENTIONS
REF: TEL AVIV 1086
Classified By: Ambassador Richard H. Jones, Reason 1.4 (b) (d)
¶1. (C) Summary. Representative Gary Ackerman (D, New York), Chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, accompanied by the Ambassador, met with Opposition Leader Binyamin Netanyahu at the Knesset April 11. The discussion covered Netanyahu's ideas on how to pressure Iran in order to block its nuclear program and topple President Ahmadinejad; Netanyahu's views on dealing with the Palestinians; his critique of Prime Minister Olmert's handling of the Second Lebanon War; and Netanyahu's analysis of Israel's domestic political situation. On Iran, Netanyahu advocated intensified financial pressures, including a U.S.-led divestment effort focused largely on European companies that invest in Iran, as the best way to topple Ahmadinejad. On the Palestinians, Netanyahu did not object to supporting President Abbas but said Israel and the U.S. should first focus more on "strangling" Hamas. Netanyahu asserted that Israel's mishandling of the Lebanon war had strengthened Israel's enemies. He predicted that Olmert would not be able to stay in power much longer, then described several different mechanisms for forming a new government. Netanyahu expressed confidence that the Israeli public recognized that he had been right, that unilateral withdrawals were a mistake, and that the priority now must be stopping Iran. Netanyahu noted that he thought dropping the "right of return" was the acid test of Arab intentions and insisted that he would never allow a single Palestinian refugee to return to Israel. End Summary.
¶2. (U) House Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee Chairman Gary Ackerman, accompanied by the Ambassador, Pol Couns, Subcommittee Staff Director David Adams, and Staff member Howard Diamond called on Opposition and Likud Party Leader Binyamin Netanyahu at the Knesset April 11. Netanyahu was joined by foreign policy adviser Dore Gold and MFA North American Department Congressional liaison Eyal Sela.
Toppling Ahmadinejad
--------------------
¶3. (C) Representative Ackerman told Netanyahu that in his meeting the day before with Egyptian President Mubarak, he had asked Mubarak if military action were necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, should the strike be carried out by the U.S. or Israel? Mubarak had responded that if it came to that, the U.S. should do it and Israel should stay out. Netanyahu said he took Mubarak's point, but commented that he thought the Iranian regime, or at least President Ahmadinejad, could be toppled by economic pressure, including a divestment campaign. Noting that economic sanctions lose their effect over time, but can be powerful in the short term. The goal should be to encourage Ahmadinejad's political rivals to remove him from power. Afterward, if the pressure could be maintained it might be possible to bring down the entire Iranian regime, but that would also entail identifying alternative leaders. The idea was to use economic pressure to create a public sense of regime failure. Netanyahu said he had consulted with noted historian Bernard Lewis, who believed that Iran would be less dangerous once Ahmadinejad was removed.
¶4. (C) Netanyahu said there were three bills in Congress designed to divest U.S. pension funds from investing in about 300, mostly European, companies currently doing business in Iran. Divestment would immediately bring down the credit ratings of these companies, thus forcing them to respond. Netanyahu urged Congress to support the divestment legislation, adding that he also planned to use a visit to the U.S. to raise the issue with Wall Street fund managers. His approach was to tie in Darfur to expand the scope of anti-genocide divestment and link it to U.S. policy goals. Netanyahu said he was unsure that financial pressures would be enough to stop Iran's nuclear program, but he was confident they would succeed in bringing down Ahmadinejad. He commended Dore Gold's efforts to put Ahmadinejad on a genocide watch list as part of a broader effort to delegitimize the Iranian President. Asked about the quality of U.S. and Israeli intelligence on Iran, Netanyahu said his nightmare was that we had missed part of the Iranian program. He added that if the current intelligence was correct, it would take Iran a few more years to develop a nuclear weapon. He agreed with Ambassador Jones' assessment that Ahmadinejad's announcement of a breakthrough in Iran's centrifuge program was probably exaggerated. It would be critical, Netanyahu stressed, to target companies investing in Iran's energy sector.
Bring Down Hamas
----------------
¶5. (C) Congressman Ackerman asked Netanyahu for his views on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu said Abbas was a "nice man who means well," but he added that Israel and the U.S. should focus on "bringing down Hamas" through an "economic squeeze." Netanyahu asserted that eight months ago, the Hamas government had been on the brink of collapse, but had become stronger because Israel became weaker as a result of the Lebanon war. Without elaborating, Netanyahu said it would be easier to weaken Hamas than to strengthen Abbas.
¶6. (C) Netanyahu commented that Shimon Peres had admitted to him that the Oslo process had been based on a mistaken economic premise, and as a result European and U.S. assistance to the Palestinians had gone to create a bloated bureaucracy, with PA employees looking to the international community to meet their payroll. Netanyahu predicted that Palestinians would vote for Abbas if they believe that he can deliver the money. He suggested putting in place an "economic squeeze with an address," so that Hamas would receive the popular blame. Asked if Fatah knew how to conduct an election campaign, Netanyahu said the Palestinian patronage system should be forced to collapse, which would have an immediate impact since the entire Palestinian economy was based on graft and patronage. Instead, he asserted, the opposite was happening. Hamas was also handling the prisoner release issue well since they had created the impression that Hamas was in control of the process and "sticking it to the Israelis."
¶7. (C) Congressman Ackerman asked if Abbas would survive politically. Netanyahu said he was unsure, since politics were stressful, especially Palestinian politics. The policy, he added, should be to starve the NUG. If any money is given, it should go directly to Abbas. Netanyahu said it was not clear the GOI has a policy, there was a general climate of weakness.
Lebanon War Failures
--------------------
¶8. (C) Turning to the Second Lebanon War, Netanyahu said the problem was not the war's goals but rather the disconnect between goals and methods. If the IDF had used a flanking move by a superior ground force, it could have won easily. Instead, Israel "dripped troops into their gunsights," an approach he termed "stupid." The top leadership had lacked a sense of military maneuver. In addition, they had been afraid to take military casualties, but instead got many civilian casualties. If Olmert had mobilized the reserves in ten days, seized ground, destroyed Hizballah in southern Lebanon, and then withdrawn, he would be a hero today. Instead, Netanyahu predicted, Olmert will not last politically. Olmert's current public support levels of three percent were unsustainable.
A New Government?
-----------------
¶9. (C) Netanyahu said the pressure on Olmert was accumulating as a result of corruption investigations as well as the impending release of the Winograd Commission's interim report. Olmert could be pushed out as a result of a rebellion within the Kadima Party. Kadima members are realizing they cannot allow Olmert to stay in power, but Kadima itself might collapse since it was a "fake party." Netanyahu described several options, including Kadima replacing Olmert, a new coalition formed in the Knesset, or Netanyahu's preferred option, new elections. New elections, he stated, are supported by sixty-five percent of the public. Netanyahu insisted he was in no rush since he was "enjoying the time with his family" and rebuilding the Likud Party. Likud was reaching thousands of new supporters, including many highly educated professionals and high tech entrepreneurs, through the internet.
¶10. (C) Netanyahu asserted there was a growing sense in the public that he had been right in the last election. Unilateral "retreats" (i.e. such as the withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon) were the wrong way to go. Israel had allowed an Iranian enclave to establish itself in Gaza. Syria was arming itself for the first time in 20 years, Hizballah had rearmed since the war, and Gaza was being turned into a bunker. Egypt was not doing on a twelve mile front along the Gaza border what Jordan was doing on a 150-mile front. The way out was to stop Iran, thereby dealing with the octopus, not just its tentacles.
Right of Return the Acid Test
-----------------------------
¶11. (C) Netanyahu stated that a return to the 1967 borders and dividing Jerusalem was not a solution since further withdrawals would only whet the appetite of radical Islam. Ackerman asked if the Palestinians would accept peace based on the 1967 lines. Netanyahu said he would not agree to such a withdrawal since the 1967 lines were indefensible, but he added that the "right of return" was the real acid test of Arab intentions. Instead of Israel making more step-by-step concessions, Israel should insist that further concessions be linked to reciprocal steps toward peace. The Palestinians must drop the right of return and accept Israel's right to exist. The Arab initiative did not meet this standard since it keeps the right of return open. Israel will only have a peace partner when the Palestinians drop the right of return. Asked whether Israel could accept case by case exceptions, Netanyahu insisted not one refugee could ever return. Israel, after all, was not asking for the right of Jews to return to Baghdad or Cairo.
¶12. (C) Netanyahu said UNSCR 242 was not a bad formula since it did not specify precisely from which territories Israel would withdraw. After the withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon, there was deep disillusionment among Israelis about the principle of land for peace. Even the noted Israeli leftist writer AB Yehoshua had said in a recent interview that he despaired about peace because the Arabs wanted all of Israel. From 1948 to 1967, the conflict had not been about occupied territories, but that point had been obscured by "effective propaganda." The root of the conflict was an Arab desire to destroy Israel, which had now become part of the larger ambitions of radical Islam.
¶13. (C) The 1967 borders were not the solution since Israel was the only force blocking radical Islam's agenda of overrunning Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu proposed that Israel offer to work with the Saudis against Iran. If Iran was not stopped, there would be no agreement with the Palestinians, and the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt would come under tremendous pressure. There could be no deterrence against "crazies" such as Ahmadinejad. Netanyahu advised Congress to expedite the legislative effort for divestment. If that did not work, we could reconsider other options. Congressman Ackerman said that if Netanyahu came to Washington, he would hold a hearing on divestment.
¶14. (U) CODEL Ackerman did not have the opportunity to clear this message.
JONES
| | Wikileaks: Israel vs Hamas & Gaza (refugees)3 | Talking Strangulation - 26.01.2011 17:24
09TELAVIV2473 2009-11-12 15:03 2010-12-19 21:09 SECRET Embassy Tel Aviv
VZCZCXRO6141
OO RUEHROV
DE RUEHTV #2473/01 3161551
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 121551Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4192
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 TEL AVIV 002473
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY STEINBERG
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/12/2019
TAGS: PREL PGOV PTER MOPS KWBG IS IR
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR THE VISIT OF DEPUTY SECRETARY
JAMES STEINBERG
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Luis G. Moreno, Reason 1.4 (b) (d)
¶1. (S) Summary. Israel is deceptively calm and prosperous. The security situation inside Israel is the best since the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the economy has weathered the storms of the international economic crisis, and Netanyahu's governing coalition is stable, for the time being at least. Yet outside the storm is gathering and Israelis of many different political outlooks agree on the need to seize the initiative, even while they disagree about what exactly should be done. Israelis see Iran as the primary regional threat, both due to its nuclear program and its projection of power directly into Gaza and southern Lebanon. The Israeli navy's seizure of a ship loaded with a huge shipment of Iranian arms November 3 has provided tangible proof of Iran's involvement in arming Hamas and Hizballah. Syrian intentions are also a source of concern, as Israeli analysts see Asad moving closer to Iran and Hizballah even as Syria improves its relations with the West. The sharp decline in Israel's long-standing strategic relationship with Turkey is adding a new element of instability into the picture. Prime Minister Erdogan's rhetorical support for Ahmedinejad and his dismissal of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program is feeding the sense here of impending crisis, although the robust U.S.-Israeli security relationship is profoundly reassuring to Israeli security officials and the general public alike. Finally, the failure to re-launch Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the political crisis in the Palestinian Authority is deeply disturbing to Israelis who still believe in a two-state solution. Even GOI skeptics are worried that the lack of a political dialogue and talk of a collapse of the PA are undermining the bottom-up approach they advocate as the alternative to a final-status agreement. Netanyahu insists that he is ready to start negotiations immediately without preconditions, but he will not negotiate on the basis of former PM Olmert's offer of a year ago. The opposition Kadima Party's number two, former IDF Chief of Staff and former Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz, has generated considerable attention with a new peace plan that is based on offering the Palestinians a state with temporary borders in the next year or two, to be followed by intensive final status negotiations. Few here believe the Palestinians will accept this idea, but it may serve to push Netanyahu toward offering a peace initiative of his own. End Summary.
Calm Before the Storm?
----------------------
¶2. (S) Israel in the fall of 2009 is deceptively calm on the surface. Israelis are enjoying the best security situation since the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the result of Israeli intelligence successes in destroying the suicide bombing network in the West Bank as well as good security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority's security forces. The Israeli economy has successfully weathered the world economic crisis, with only a slight uptick in unemployment and no major impact on the financial system. PM Netanyahu's center-right coalition is stable, and faces no significant challenge from the opposition Kadima Party. Netanyahu personally enjoys approval ratings over sixty percent, and appears to have benefited politically from the media obsession with reports of frictions with the U.S. Administration. Netanyahu so far has managed the more right wing elements of Likud and other rightist elements in the coalition, although tensions with the far right are likely to reemerge over peace process issues, including a temporary settlement freeze or a decision to make good on Barak's pledges to evacuate illegal outposts. There are signs of a growing split within the Labor Party, and Foreign Minister Lieberman continues to face the strong possibility of several criminal indictments for money laundering and obstruction of justice, but none of this threatens the stability of the coalition, at least not yet. The latest polls indicate that Likud would gain three seats if elections were held now.
And Looming Threats
-------------------
¶3. (S) Despite this good news for the government, Israelis are even more anxious than normal these days. Sixty-one years after the establishment of the State of Israel, Israelis sense a growing tide in the world challenging not just the occupation of territory seized in 1967, but even against the existence of the Jewish state within any borders. The GOI's alarm and outrage over the Goldstone Report was based on their view that the report represented an attempt to deny Israel the right to react military to terrorist threats. Security is indeed good and Israel's borders are generally the quietest they have been in years, but it is common knowledge that Hamas in Gaza and Hizballah in Lebanon both now possess rockets capable of hitting the greater Tel Aviv area, Israel's main population and economic center. When discussing Iran's nuclear program, sophisticated Israeli interlocutors note that the issue is not just whether a nuclear-armed Iran would launch nuclear-tipped missiles at Israel - although that possibility cannot be dismissed - but rather the regional nuclear arms race that would ensue and the impact of the resulting uncertainty on Israeli elites and foreign investors alike. Israel's remarkable high-tech economy is a great achievement, but it also makes Israel exceptionally vulnerable to a host of private decisions to live and invest elsewhere. Growing alienation among Israel's twenty-percent Arab minority and the increasing domination of Israeli Arab politics by an elite that identifies with Palestinian nationalism further complicates Israel's internal scene.
¶4. (S) Painstakingly constructed relations with Israel's neighbors are also fraying. Even optimists about relations with Egypt and Jordan admit that Israel enjoys peace with both regimes, but not with their people. The transformation of Michel Aoun into Hizballah's primary Lebanese ally may be the final nail in the coffin of Israel's decades-old relations with Lebanon's Maronite Christians. Finally, Israelis are deeply alarmed by the direction of Turkish foreign policy, and see Erdogan and Davutoglu as punishing Israel for the EU's rejection of Turkey while driving Israel's erstwhile strategic ally into an alternative strategic partnership with Syria and Iran.
Gaza Dilemmas
-------------
¶5. (S) Gaza poses its own set of dilemmas. The IDF general responsible for Gaza and southern Israel, Major General Yoav Galant, recently commented to us that Israel's political leadership has not yet made the necessary policy choices among competing priorities: a short-term priority of wanting Hamas to be strong enough to enforce the de facto ceasefire and prevent the firing of rockets and mortars into Israel; a medium-priority of preventing Hamas from consolidating its hold on Gaza; and a longer-term priority of avoiding a return of Israeli control of Gaza and full responsibility for the well-being of Gaza's civilian population. Israel appears determined to maintain its current policy of allowing only humanitarian supplies and limited commercial goods into Gaza, while sealing the borders into Israel. There are indications of progress in the indirect negotiations with Hamas over the release of Gilad Shalit in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, many of them hardened terrorists,but it is difficult to predict the timing of such a deal. Shalit's release would likely result in a more lenient Israeli policy toward the Gaza crossings, but a large prisoner exchange would be played by Hamas as a major political achievement and thus further damage the standing of Abu Mazen among Palestinians.
Security Cooperation with the U.S. Reassuring
---------------------------------------------
¶6. (S) Especially given the sense of growing threats from all directions, Israelis from the Prime Minister on down to the average citizen are deeply appreciative of the strong security and mil-mil cooperation with the U.S. The U.S.-Israeli security relationship remains strong, as indicated by the joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense exercise Juniper Cobra 10 in which over 1,400 American personnel tested Israel's defense - and U.S. support thereof - against ballistic missile threats in the region . The United States remains committed to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME), and has taken a number of steps to alleviate Israeli concerns over some potential U.S arms sales to the region, including the creation of four new QME working groups to further discuss these arms transfers. These working groups will soon begin deliberations, focusing on previous arms transfer agreements, mitigation measures for the planned U.S. F-15 sale to Saudi Arabia, technical mitigation issues, and intelligence policy.
¶7. (S) While the United States and Israel may not agree on some U.S. arms transfers to the region, these QME working groups will ensure a transparent process so that Israel is not surprised by any U.S. potential transfer. As it does in assessing all threats, Israel approaches potential U.S. arms sales from a "worst case scenario" perspective in which current moderate Arab nations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan) in the region could potentially fall victim to regime change and resume hostilities against Israel. It is primarily for this reason that Israel continues to raise concerns regarding the F-15 sale to Saudi Arabia, especially if the aircraft are based at Tabuk airfield near the Israeli border. We have deflected Israeli requests for additional information regarding the F-15 sale until we receive an official Letter of Request (LOR) from Saudi Arabia.
¶8. (S) Finally, an argument can be made that Israel has continued to raise concerns over the F-15 sale as leverage in its attempts to modify its purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Israel remains highly committed to the JSF as a successor to its aging F-16 fleet, although budgetary considerations have raised some doubts how Israel will be able to afford it. Nevertheless, Israel continues to press for the inclusion of an Israeli-made electronic warfare(EW) suite, indigenous maintenance capacity, and a lower cost per aircraft into its JSF purchaseplans, and has repeatedly raised these issues with SecDef.
Impasse with the Palestinians
-----------------------------
¶9. (C) Polls show that close to seventy percent of Israeli Jews support a two-state solution, but a similar percentage do not believe that a final status agreement can be reached with the Palestinian leadership. Expressed another way, Israelis of varying political views tell us that after Abu Mazen spurned Ehud Olmert's peace offer one year ago, it became clearer than ever that there is too wide a gap between the maximum offer any Israeli prime minister could make and the minimum terms any Palestinian leader could accept and survive. Sixteen years after Oslo and the Declaration of Principles, there is a widespread conviction here that neither final status negotiations nor unilateral disengagements have worked. While some on the left conclude that the only hope is a U.S.-imposed settlement, a more widely held narrative holds that the Oslo arrangements collapsed in the violence of the Second Intifada after Arafat rejected Barak's offer at Camp David, while Sharon's unilateral disengagement from Gaza resulted in the Hamas takeover and a rain of rockets on southern Israel. Netanyahu effectively captured the public mood with his Bar Ilan University speech last June, in which he expressed support for a two-state solution, but only if the Plestinian leadership would accept Israel as the ation-state of the Jewish people and the Palestiian state would be demilitarized (and subject toa number of other security-related restrictions o its sovereignty that he did not spell out in deail in the speech but which are well known in Wahington). Palestinian PM Fayyad has recently temed Netanyahu's goal a "Mickey Mouse state" due to all the limitations on Palestinian sovereignty that it would appear to entail.
¶10. (S) Abu Mazen's stated intent not to seek another term is widely seen here as an effort to put pressure on Washington to put pressure on Israel to meet Palestinian terms for starting negotiations. Abu Mazen's statements have likely reinforced his image among Israelis as a decent man, and certainly a different breed from Arafat, but a weak and unreliable leader. Yet even some of the Israeli officials, including Avigdor Lieberman and Sylvan Shalom, who have been most skeptical about the prospects for a final status agreement in the near term, are now expressing concern at the lack of engagement with the PA and the prospects of the PA collapsing. Advocates of a bottom-up approach are finally realizing that without a political process, the security cooperation and economic development approach will become unsustainable. Netanyahu has told us that he considers Abu Mazen to be his negotiating partner, and in his latest public statements has stressed that he is not interested in negotiations for their own sake, but rather seeks a far-reaching agreement with the Palestinians, but it remains unclear to us how far Netanyahu is prepared to go. Netanyahu is interested in taking steps to strengthen Abu Mazen, but he will not agree to the total freeze on Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that Abu Mazen insists is a requirement for engaging with Netanyahu.
Israeli Choices
---------------
¶11. (C) Former Defense Minister and former IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz generated a lot of media attention this week when he announced a peace plan that calls for establishing a Palestinian state with temporary borders on sixty percent of the West Bank, then entering final status negotiations. Mofaz' approach is similar to ideas that have been floated quietly over the past few months by Defense Minister Barak and President Peres, and Mofaz claims that both Barak and Peres support his plan. Mofaz' plan is in part an effort to undermine the political position of his rival for Kadima party leadership, former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, presumably drawing on her experience negotiating with the Palestinians during the Olmert government, says she opposes the idea of an interim solution, but instead supports intensive final status negotiations, perhaps this time with direct U.S. involvement. Livni and Mofaz both stress that they are motivated by a sense of urgency and that time is not on Israel's side.
¶12. (C) Netanyahu still holds the political cards here, however, and we see no scenarios in which Livni or Mofaz become prime minister in the near future. As Mofaz told the Ambassador earlier this week, Netanyahu may wait until the Palestinian elections, if they are in fact held in January, but the initiative is in his hands. If the Palestinians continue to refuse to engage on terms that Netanyahu can accept, it is possible that Netanyahu could turn his attention to Syria. Media reports that Netanyahu asked President Sarkozy to deliver a message to Asad may turn out to be accurate, but as with the Palestinians, Netanyahu will not resume talks with Syria where they left off under Olmert, but will insist on negotiations without preconditions.
CUNNINGHAM
| | Wikileaks: Israel vs Hamas & Gaza (refugees)4 | Talking Strangulation - 26.01.2011 17:30
09TELAVIV2777 2009-12-23 10:10 2010-11-28 18:06 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy Tel Aviv
VZCZCXRO3883
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHTV #2777/01 3571034
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 231034Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4704
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 7238
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 0898
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TEL AVIV 002777
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/23/2019
TAGS: PREL PGOV KNNP MASS SY TU FR KWBG IR IS
SUBJECT: CODEL SKELTON'S MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
NETANYAHU
Classified By: DCM Luis G. Moreno, Reason 1.4 (b) (d)
¶1. (C) Summary. CODEL Skelton met with Prime Minister Netanyahu November 16 at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem. Their discussion covered Netanyahu's meeting with President Obama the previous week, Netanyahu's interest in resuming negotiations with the Palestinians, the Iranian nuclear program and options for tougher sanctions, possible negotiations with Syria, U.S.-Israeli cooperation on missile defense, and Israel's objections to the Goldstone Report. Netanyahu said his meeting with the President was the best meeting that they have had. He stressed that he had told the President that he is ready to negotiate with Abu Mazen now, and contrasted Israel's position with the PA's setting of preconditions for negotiations. Netanyahu listed steps the GOI has taken to support Abu Mazen, noting that the PA is "doing a good job" on security. A nuclear Iran, however, would "wash away" all progress as well as undermining Israel's peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Netanyahu said that Iran is vulnerable to sanctions and urged the U.S. to increase the pressure on Iran, with likeminded countries if Russia and China will not support new sanctions in the Security Council. Netanyahu commented that there is broader Arab and European support for tough sanctions than in the past, although the Arabs may not say so publicly. Netanyahu praised President Obama's commitment to missile defense, and commented that U.S.-Israeli cooperation on missile defense sends a strong signal to Israel's enemies. He thanked the CODEL for the Congress' support. Netanyahu said Israel faces three main threats: Iran's nuclear program, the build-up of rockets and missiles in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, and the Goldstone Report, which condemned Israel for defending its civilian population from years of rocket attacks. Netanyahu said Israel will need to ensure that a future Palestinian state cannot launch rockets at Israel's international airport or critical facilities. End Summary.
Let's Get on with Negotiations
------------------------------
¶2. (U) CODEL Skelton, consisting of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D, MO) and Mrs. Skelton, Representative Steve Israel (D-NY), Representative Tim Murphy (R, PA), Congressional Staff members Phil McNaughton, Michael Casey, and John Wason, Military aides Colonel Jeff Koch and PolCouns met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu November
¶16. Netanyahu was joined by Deputy National Security Adviser Rear Admiral (reserve) Avriel Bar Josef, media adviser Mark Regev, policy adviser Ari Harrow, and a Congressional liaison officer from the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
¶3. (C) Netanyahu began the meeting by noting his appreciation for his meeting with President Obama at the White House the previous week. Netanyahu described his conversation with the President as "the best we've had so far." He said that regarding negotiations with the Palestinians, he told the President, "let's get on with it." Netanyahu stated that his government had removed hundreds of obstacles and roadblocks in the West Bank, helping the West Bank economy achieve a seven percent growth rate, adding "and we can kick it up to ten percent growth." Netanyahu said his Bar Ilan address last June had been difficult for him, but it had united Israelis in support of accepting a demilitarized Palestinian state. The current GOI had also restrainted construction in settlements more than its past several predecessors.
¶4. (C) Netanyahu then contrasted his efforts with the PA, which he said is maintaining a "political and economic boycott" of Israel, setting preconditions for negotiations, supporting the Goldstone Report in the UN, and is now talking about a unilateral declaration of independence. Israel wants to engage, but the Palestinians do not. Netanyahu quoted a Palestinian official as saying that the PA had "exhausted the negotiating process," then noted that the Palestinians have not even started to talk to his government. The real difference, he pointed out, is that Abu Mazen is facing elections, while Israel has already conducted its elections. Netanyahu also commented that the Palestinians had initially expected the U.S. to "deliver Israel" on all of their demands, but are now realizing that this will not happen. President Obama understands, he stated, that Israel is ready to move forward. The alternatives to negotiations are bad for everyone. Netanyahu said that if Abu Mazen would engage, they would confront all the issues. The process would not be easy, but it has to get started.
¶5. (C) Netanyahu said the West Bank had remained quiet during Operation Cast Lead because the Palestinians do not want to live under Hamas' rule. He asserted that according to recent polls, Abu Mazen and Fatah would easily win an election, even in Gaza. Netanyahu stressed that he was not pushing for the Palestinians to hold elections, but was instead focused on promoting the expansion of the West Bank economy by removing both physical and bureaucratic obstacles. He acknowledged that the PA is "doing a good job" on security, though he added that PA leaders are not aware of everything Israel is doing to support the PA's security. If we could add a political process to the cooperation that currently exists, we could get security, economic development, and peace. Netanyahu warned, however, that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the peace process would be "washed away." Even Israel's peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan would come under enormous pressure.
Iran Sanctions
--------------
¶6. (C) Chairman Skelton noted that his Committee is following Iran closely. Netanyahu said he had advised the President to stick to the deadline on the TRR offer, adding that it is also important to ask Iran to stop its enrichment activities. Netanyahu commented that there is a new mood in the major European capitals in support of sanctions. The U.S. does not need to depend on the Security Council, but can work with likeminded countries. Sanctions should focus on Iran's importation of gasoline, while also focusing on opening up the information networks. The U.S. should lead the world toward tougher sanctions, or more of the Arab states will start appeasing Iran, as Qatar is doing. Netanyahu summed up his advice as: "stick to the deadline, be firm on the terms, and apply sanctions" if Iran does not comply. He thought Russia may be more inclined than in the past, but it would be best not to count on the Security Council. Having set a deadline, the P5 1 should stick to it. The Western powers at least will go along. We should close the gap between understanding the problem and acting on it, he said. Netanyahu said Israel's problems with Iran are not limited to its nuclear program. Even without a nuclear umbrella, Iran is sending hundreds of tons of weapons to Syria, Hamas and Hizballah. The ship seized November 3 by the Israeli Navy had on board two thirds of the amount of rockets fired at Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War.
¶7. (C) Representative Israel asked Netanyahu about the timetable for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu responded that Iran has the capability now to make one bomb or they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two. It is important to bear in mind that the Iranian regime was exposed as a fraud during their presidential elections. The Iranian people detest the regime and have shown great courage in the streets. The exposure of the Qom facility also helped convince doubters in the international community that Iran has a weapons program. Iran has a weak economy and a fractured political system, so it is vulnerable to sanctions. The time to act diplomatically is now, Netanyahu said, adding that we still have a year or two to stop the Iranian program. Netanyahu said he thought President Obama understands Iran perfectly. The Arab leaders hope Iran will be stopped, there is broad Arab and European support for "vigorous steps." Chairman Skelton asked whether the Arabs would state their support publicly. Netanyahu replied they might not, but it would not make a large difference since the Arab "street" will not rise up in support of the Iranian regime.
Ready to Talk to Syria
----------------------
¶8. (C) Regarding Syria, Netanyahu urged the U.S. to press Damascus to stop supplying arms to Hizballah. Noting that he had stopped in Paris to meet President Sarkozy on his way back to Israel from Washington, Netanyahu confirmed media reports that Sarkozy had offered to mediate between Israel and Syria. Netanyahu said he would prefer direct negotiations with the Syrians, but added that he would accept France as a mediator. President Asad, however, still wants Turkey as the mediator. Noting that Turkish PM Erdogan had recently stated that he would prefer to meet with Sudanese President Omar Bashir than with Netanyahu, Netanyahu asked how the Turks could be fair mediators.
Working Together on Missile Defense
-----------------------------------
¶9. (C) Netanyahu said that in addition to peace with the Palestinians and Iran, he and the President had discussed joint U.S.-Israeli efforts on missile defense. Netanyahu commented that he had personally visited the Juniper Cobra joint military exercise. The program has reached a phase at which it is possible to monitor incoming missiles with a good lead-time, but it is still very expensive to intercept "crude rockets" such as those fired from Gaza. The information shield is moving ahead nicely, but the physical shield is lagging behind. Netanyahu observed that it is very important for the U.S. and its allies to be able to defend themselves against missile attack. Chairman Skelton noted that U.S. personnel who briefed the CODEL were very optimistic about the program. Netanyahu said only the U.S. and Israel are currently working on missile defense. This cooperation sends a powerful message to Israel's enemies he noted, and thanked the CODEL and the Congress for their support.
Goldstone Report a Key Threat
-----------------------------
¶10. (C) Netanyahu commented that Israel currently faces three principal threats: Iran's nuclear program, missile proliferation and the Goldstone Report. Goldstone gave terrorists immunity to attack Israel if they fire from populated areas. During Cast Lead the IDF send thousands and flyers, text messages and phone calls to civilians, warning them to get out of the way, yet Israel was accused of war crimes. Hamas and other terrorists fired 12.000 rockets into Israel from Gaza, Netanyahu said, noting that Israel is the only country in the world faced with threats to annihilate it. Netanyahu asked the CODEL to imagine a situation in which Israeli Air Force pilots must consult with lawyers before they can travel abroad. Former PM Olmert, former FonMin Livni and DefMin Barak could be hauled before the International Criminal Court. Netanyahu said he could not accept that IDF soldiers could be charged with war crimes for protecting their country from constant attack. The deaths of several hundred civilians in Gaza was "tragic," Netanyahu said, but there was no deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel. Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime, but what should Israel do when terrorists deliberately target Israeli civilians and then hide within their civilian population?
¶11. (U) CODEL Skelton did not clear this cable.
CUNNINGHAM
| | Gaza - PA, Israel & USA terrorisme | PalesALeakJAS - 26.01.2011 18:17
The Palestine Papers
The al-Madhoun assassination
Documents include handwritten notes of 2005 exchange between PA and Israel on plan to kill Palestinian fighter in Gaza.
David Poort Last Modified: 25 Jan 2011 20:08 GMT
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/01/palestina-41.html
---------------------------------------------------
PALESTINE PAPERS, PEACE AND CONCESSIONS
Laura Flanders
January 24, 2011
The “Palestine Papers,” published by the Guardian and Al-Jazeera, which cover decades of failed so-called peace negotiations, show among other things just how much the Palestinian Authority was willing to sacrifice, and how much more the Israeli government still wanted.
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/01/israel-as-rogue-state-331.html
-------------------------
Can the US Support UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements?
Yes We Can!
Tuesday 25 January 2011
by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
A key resolution on the Israel-Palestine conflict is now before the UN Security Council. Largely echoing stated US policy, the resolution embraces negotiations, endorses the creation of a Palestinian state and demands an immediate halt to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But even though the resolution echoes US policy, President Obama is under pressure to veto the UN resolution from forces in Washington who want to protect the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
Can President Obama say no to this pressure? Yes, he can!
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-203.html
-----------------
I strongly doubt the president of the U SA'y (I) will...
| | Refugee rights of little concern to PA | The Electronic Intifada - 26.01.2011 18:41
Refugee rights of little concern to PA, documents reveal
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 25 January 2011
More has been revealed in the Palestine Papers, Al Jazeera's expose that uncovers internal documents and secret correspondence from the last decade of negotiations between the Israeli government, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority and the United States.
Yesterday the network, which has shared its information with the UK's Guardian newspaper, released documents related to several "core issues," including the Palestinian refugees' right of return.
Also released were papers detailing plans by the Israeli government to barter the citizenship of Palestinians in Israel in an effort to create a purely Jewish state, and minutes of meetings outlining the recalcitrance of the administration of US President Barack Obama to abide by previous policy agreements.
Al Jazeera began releasing its cache of more than 1,600 documents on Sunday, with the first batch related to dramatic concessions by the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority on the issue of illegal Israeli settlements in Jerusalem and "land swaps." The network labeled the dealings as "unprecedented" in the decades-long history of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
The Electronic Intifada's co-founder and executive director, Ali Abunimah, has been given special access to the documents and has helped analyze them for Al Jazeera.
Monday's release of documents expose startling concessions by the PA on the rights of Palestinian refugees, a key issue since Israel's establishment and the ethnic cleansing of approximately 800,000 indigenous Palestinians in 1947-48.
The Palestine Papers reveal that PA leaders were willing to limit the number of Palestinian refugees able to return to their homeland to only "a symbolic amount" -- one document put the number at ten thousand per year for a period of ten years. There are more than five million Palestinian refugees in the global diaspora, including hundreds of thousands in refugee camps inside the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip; Lebanon; Syria and Jordan.
In March 2007, Palestine Liberation Organization chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Palestinian refugees "would not have voting rights on a possible peace deal with Israel," wrote Laila al-Arian ("PA selling short the refugees," Al Jazeera English, 24 January 2011).
"I never said the diaspora will vote," Erekat stated during a meeting with then foreign minister of Belgium Karel De Gucht in March 2007. "It's not going to happen. The referendum will be for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Can't do it in Lebanon. Can't do it in Jordan."
Al Jazeera stated that the papers "also reveal that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed that 1,000 Palestinian refugees be allowed to return annually to Israel over a period of five years -- totaling just 5,000, a tiny fraction of those displaced after Israel's creation."
Al Jazeera added, "While Erekat conceded the rights of Palestinian refugees to determine their own fate, during such meetings Israeli negotiators made clear their vision for the refugees."
Following those concessions, in June 2008 then foreign minister Tzipi Livni flatly told the Palestinian negotiations team that Israel would not budge on the issue of Palestinian right of return. "... [T]hey should instead hope for charity 'from [Microsoft founder Bill] Gates and his like,'" Livni stated ("Qurei to Livni: "I'd vote for you"," 24 January 2011).
Livni subsequently rejected any right of return for Palestinian refugees, Al Jazeera reported, telling former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei that "we will not agree to 194." United Nations resolution 194 guarantees the right of Palestinian refugees expelled since 1948 to return to their land and homes.
Condoleezza Rice, then US Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, suggested Chile and Argentina as possible states that could absorb Palestinian refugees, the Palestine Papers also show.
Additional documents reveal plans by Israeli leaders to purge its Palestinian citizens by way of "land swaps," in an effort to build a purely Jewish state. Al Jazeera revealed that Livni and Israeli governmental advisors listed a number of Palestinian towns and villages that they proposed would be annexed to a future Palestinian state ("Expelling Israel's Arab population?," 24 January 2011).
These land swaps would be implemented without the consent of Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship, according to the Israeli plan.
Writing in Al Jazeera, The Electronic Intifada's Ali Abunimah said that Livni "made it clear that only Jews were guaranteed citizenship in Israel and that Palestinian citizens do not really belong even though they are natives who have lived on the land since before Israel existed" ("A dangerous shift on 1967 lines," 24 January 2011).
Livni stated "Israel [is] the state of the Jewish people -- and I would like to emphasize the meaning of 'its people' is the Jewish people -- with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3,007 years."
It was also revealed that the Obama administration was willing to ignore prior agreements under the George W. Bush-era "Road Map" in favor of placating Israeli ambitions to continue the state's illegal settlement project, possibly opening the door to Israeli plans of "population transfers."
It was clear, Abunimah reported, that US envoy George Mitchell continued to pressure the Palestinian negotiating team to "adopt formulas the Palestinians feared would give Israel leeway to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank without providing compensation."
However, Mitchell did not demand of the Israeli side that they agree to certain terms of reference for US-brokered peace negotiations. According to Abunimah, "... the US position perhaps unwittingly opens the door to dangerous Israeli ambitions to transfer -- or ethnically cleanse -- non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to create an ethnically pure 'Jewish state.'"
"The Obama administration's failure to press Israel to accept the international consensus that the Palestinian state would be established on all the territories Israel occupied in 1967, except for minor adjustments, dooms the two-state solution," he added.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that despite the upset following the Palestine Papers leak, she believes the negotiations should continue.
Meanwhile, PA officials have admonished Al Jazeera for the document leak, with top officials calling the Palestine Papers "fabricated" ("PA negotiators reject leaked report," 24 January 2011).
Speaking on Al Jazeera English on 24 January, PLO official Nabil Shaath acknowledged the veracity of the documents published by Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera says the network "will not reveal the source(s), or detail how they came into our possession." More Palestine Papers documents will be released in the coming days.
The network said that it will expose information on the "security cooperation" plans between the PA and Israel, as well as documents including "private exchanges between Palestinian and American negotiators in late 2009, when the Goldstone report [on the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza] was being discussed at the United Nations."
The entire Palestine Papers archive is being made available online on the Al Jazeera English website: " http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/".
| | PA offered Israel "biggest Yerushalayim" | The Electronic Intifada - 26.01.2011 18:49
Documents reveal PA offered Israel "biggest Yerushalayim" in history
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 24 January 2011
The Al Jazeera network has begun to release documents it secretly obtained that expose dramatic concessions made by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) to the Israeli government and US officials.
The leaked files, which Al Jazeera has dubbed "The Palestine Papers," contain more than 1,600 internal documents related to the last decade of peace negotiations. The network has also shared the information with the Guardian newspaper in London.
"These documents -- memos, e-mails, maps, minutes from private meetings, accounts of high level exchanges, strategy papers and even power point presentations - date from 1999 to 2010," Al Jazeera stated in its introduction to the report ("Introducing the Palestine Papers," 23 January 2011).
On Sunday, Al Jazeera released documents that prove the PA's willingness to concede areas of occupied East Jerusalem to the Israeli state. The Electronic Intifada's co-founder and Executive Director, Ali Abunimah, was given special access to the documents and helped analyze them for Al Jazeera.
Speaking from Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar, Abunimah said "The cover has finally been blown on a 'peace process' where there has been no transparency, honesty or accountability to the Palestinian people by those who claimed to negotiate in their name. What saddened me most as I reviewed hundreds of documents was to see how Palestinian negotiators -- with no mandate from the Palestinian people -- viewed the basic rights and interests of the Palestinian people not as objectives to be secured, but as obstacles to be fudged or mere bargaining chips to be frittered away to secure a 'deal' that could save the skins of the Palestinian Authority at almost any price."
Among Al Jazeera's significant revelations are major offers by the PA to Israel in the context of settlements in East Jerusalem, including major portions of the Old City that adjoin the Haram al-Sharif (the Dome of the Rock, the second-holiest site in Islam) ("'The biggest Yerushalayim,'" 23 January 2011).
During a January 2010 meeting with David Hale, advisor to US President Obama, PA Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat was quoted in the documents leak saying that in his plan, Israel would be given "the biggest Yerushalaim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in Jewish history."
Even as Israeli leaders repeated their unwillingness to negotiate on the issue of Jerusalem, Al Jazeera reveals, Palestinian Authority officials kept offering concessions on areas in the city, without demanding Israeli concessions in return.
In the meeting with Hale, Erekat said: "Israelis want the two-state solution but they don't trust. They want it more than you think, sometimes more than Palestinians. What is in that paper gives them the biggest Yerushalaim in Jewish history, symbolic number of refugees return, demilitarized state ... what more can I give?"
PA leaders also proposed "unprecedented" land swaps with the Israeli government, Al Jazeera revealed.
In 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with PA President Mahmoud Abbas after the PA offered to allow the Israeli state to annex most of the East Jerusalem settlements without demanding concessions in return. Olmert reportedly showed Abbas a map of the newly-proposed swaps, which outlined Israel's plan to annex more than 10 percent of the West Bank.
This map included the annexation of major settlement blocs such as Maale Addumim and Ariel "in exchange for sparsely-populated farmland along the Gaza Strip and the West Bank," Al Jazeera stated ("The 'napkin map' revealed," 23 January 2011).
"Abbas was not allowed to keep a copy of the map, and so the 73-year-old Palestinian president had to sketch a copy by hand on a napkin," the network added.
According to Al Jazeera, the Palestinian negotiations team "did not explicitly endorse or reject the Olmert offer ... it did warn that continued settlement growth [particularly in East Jerusalem] would make any agreement 'much more difficult.'"
In an article on the Al Jazeera English website, Daud Abdallah, director of media research institution Middle East Monitor, reported that the PA was willing to "disown parts of the besieged Arab neighborhoods in the city" ("'Shocking revelations' on Jerusalem," 23 January 2011).
"Worse still," Abdallah wrote, "Saeb Erekat ... displayed clear 'flexibility' regarding the sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif."
Al Jazeera revealed that Erekat offered "creative" suggestions on the legal status of the Old City and Palestinian land in occupied East Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif.
In mid-October, 2009, Erekat told Hale and US State Department legal adviser Jonathan Schwartz, "Even the Old City can be worked out except for the Haram and what they call Temple Mount. There you need the creativity of people like me ..."
Abunimah, who will provide on-air analysis about the documents on Al Jazeera English during four days of coverage, said that, "What we can discern immediately from these documents is that the US-brokered negotiations, especially under the Obama administration, can never lead to the restoration of Palestinian rights and that the two-state solution is basically dead. In the long term, we will have to ask how the peace process charade, revealed in these papers, was allowed to continue for so long as Israel continued its relentless colonization of Palestinian land and the Palestinian Authority that was supposed to be a step on the road to freedom become a sophisticated tool of continued Israeli occupation."
More Palestine Papers documents will be released in the coming days.
Later this week, the network said it will expose details about compromises the PA has considered regarding the Palestinian refugees' right of return, as well as detailed information on the "security cooperation" plans between the PA and Israel.
Additionally, documents including "private exchanges between Palestinian and American negotiators in late 2009, when the Goldstone report [on the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza] was being discussed at the United Nations" will be released, Al Jazeera stated.
"The material is voluminous and detailed," the network said. "It provides an unprecedented look inside the continuing negotiations involving high-level American, Israeli, and Palestinian Authority officials."
The entire Palestine Papers archive is being made available online on the Al Jazeera English website: http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/.
------------------------------------------
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11745.shtmlv
| | Canada's double standards | Yves Engler - 26.01.2011 19:55
Canada's tax system currently subsidizes Israeli settlements that Ottawa deems illegal, however, the Conservative government says there's nothing that can be done about it.
In June of last year, Guelph activist Dan Maitland emailed Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon concerning Canada Park, a Jewish National Fund of Canada initiative built on land Israel occupied after the June 1967 War. Three Palestinian villages (Beit Nuba, Imwas and Yalu) were demolished to make way for the park.
A few weeks ago Maitland received a reply from Keith Ashfield, Minister of National Revenue, who refused to discuss the particulars of the case but provided "general information about registered charities and the occupied territories." Ashfield wrote that "the fact that charitable activities take place in the occupied territories is not a barrier to acquiring or maintaining charitable status."
This means Canadian organizations can openly fundraise for settlements Ottawa (officially) deems illegal under international law and get the government to pay up to a third of the cost through tax credits for donations. To justify the government's position, Ashfield cited a September 2002 Federal Court of Appeal case (Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel v. Minister of National Revenue), which reversed the Canadian Revenue Agency's previous position.
The exact amount is not known but it's safe to assume that millions of Canadian dollars make their way to Israeli settlements every year. In 1997, when it was more of a legal grey area, tax lawyer David Drache claimed that "there are hundreds of [Canadian] organizations ... supporting organizations directly or indirectly beyond the Green Line," referring to the internationally-recognized armistice line between Israel and the occupied West Bank.
In the late 1990s, Israel's largest settler group, Yesha, raised more than $700,000 a year in Canada. When former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited in the mid-1990s, the Canadian Arab Federation's Jehad Aliweiwi said he "left with more than $1 million in tax-deductible funds, with no secret as to the destination." Through the 1990s the Press Foundation was probably the largest known source of funds for settlements, raising as much as $5 million annually for settlers in the occupied West Bank town of Hebron and in the occupied Golan Heights, which was captured from Syria in 1967.
Illegal settlements are not the only questionable activities in Israel that Canadians subsidize through their tax system. A mid-1990s survey found more than 300 registered Canadian charities with ties to Israel, a relatively wealthy country. Every year Canadians send a few hundred million dollars worth of tax-deductible donations to Israeli universities, parks, immigration initiatives and, more controversially, "charities" that aid the Israeli army in one way or another.
One example is Aid to Disabled Veterans of Israel or Beit Halochem (Canada), which brings soldiers singled out as heroes by the Israeli military on trips to Canada. Many Canadians, including the Charles R. Bronfman Foundation, support the Libi Fund -- "The Fund For Strengthening Israel's Defense." In early 2008, Major Gil Chemke, a member of the Israel's elite search and rescue team, toured the country on behalf of the Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel (CMDAI), which operates in the occupied West Bank. Established to assist wounded soldiers and the population during disasters, CMDAI has raised millions of dollars. Chemke drummed up financial contributions for CMDAI by showing "behind-the-scenes video footage of a rescue operation in Lebanon for a female air crew member whose helicopter was shot down by Hizballah" during Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon.
Established in 1971, the Association for the Soldiers of Israel in Canada (ASI) provides financial and moral support to active duty soldiers. In 2009, ASI (Canada) -- which provides tax receipts through the Canadian Zionist Cultural Association -- and El Al airlines granted a 50 percent discount on flights to Israel from Canada for families of "lone soldiers" who join the Israeli military.
While it's legal -- and government will foot part of the bill -- to finance charities linked to a foreign army responsible for numerous war crimes and settlements that contravene international law, Ottawa has made it illegal for Canadians to aid a hospital operated by the elected Hamas government.
Ottawa's post-11 September 2001 terrorist list makes it illegal to financially assist Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Palestine Liberation Front, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups associated with these organizations. Only one Israeli group, the marginal Kahane Chai, is on the list.
On 25 December, Hamas criticized Canada for re-listing it a "terrorist" entity. "The decision is a clear bias to Israel," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum told Xinhua. "This encourages Israel to commit more crimes against the Palestinian people."
Ottawa makes it difficult for Canadians to support many Palestinian groups all the while subsidizing expansionist and militaristic Israeli institutions. Canadians of good conscience should protest and demand change.
Yves Engler's most recent book is Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid.
-------------------
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11731.shtml
Yves Engler, The Electronic Intifada, 13 January 2011
| | The Seattle School Boycott of 1966 | Brooke Clark - 26.01.2011 20:18
What do we want? Integration. When do we want it? Now!
This familiar chant from the civil rights movement reflected the desires of Seattle parents of school age children in 1966. That year, for two days, K-12 students poured out of Seattle ’s public schools and attended “freedom schools” to protest racial segregation in the Seattle school system. Excitement was in the air as the students learned about African America history that was not taught in the public school system. All organizers and participants were striving for an end to segregation, and for two days, the students attended integrated schools, and used an innovative kind of direct action to turn their schoolwork into activism for social change. This essay tells the story of that boycott—from its origins to its effect on Seattle’s students and politicians.
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
The problem of segregation in Seattle was very easy to identify, as it was across the entire country. But the solution was very complex. De facto segregation—in which public spaces were supposedly integrated but housing and employment discrimination still confined African Americans to certain poor neighborhoods—was the problem in the north. This kind of segregation—different from the explicit prohibitions in the South— proved difficult for supposedly liberal Seattleites to acknowledge or take action to remedy. When interviewed by the Seattle Times, one black Seattle resident commented that,
“The biggest fault most Negroes find with the Seattle white-power structure is that it doesn’t seem to recognize the problem even exists.”
---------------------
see for more:
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/school_boycott.htm
| | US Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel | M.L.Koning - 26.01.2011 20:35
The US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) announced that over 500 academics have endorsed the boycott.
This is a major victory for the growing academic and cultural boycott of Israel, and for the movement for justice and equality in Israel, as defenders of the status quo in Israel have repeatedly observed that the legitimacy of the state of Israel in the global court of public opinion is threatened by the boycott movement.
------
Responding to the call of Palestinian civil society to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement against Israel, we are a U.S. campaign focused specifically on a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, as delineated by PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel).
PACBI writes:
“In light of Israel’s persistent violations of international law, and Given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israel’s colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies, and Given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine, and In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions;
Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression, We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.
These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”
-----------------------
source:
http://usacbi.wordpress.com/
| | US activists face new repression | N. Barrows-Friedman & M. Clare Murph - 26.01.2011 20:52
US activists face new repression as political prisoners fight for justice
For decades the United States government has attempted to criminalize work in the Palestinian community in support of their national liberation cause. But in recent years this repression has increased dramatically. The Electronic Intifada spoke with the daughter of Sami al-Arian and the daughter of Ghassan Elashi -- both political prisoners in the US -- about the impact this repression has had on their families' lives. And in an Electronic Intifada exclusive, Hatem Abudayyeh, an organizer and community leader whose home in Chicago was raided by federal agents on 24 September 2010, spoke to the press for the first time about his family's story.
The Electronic Intifada spoke with al-Arian, Elashi and Abudayyeh as activists across the United States prepare for emergency demonstrations as the subpoenas for three anti-war and solidarity organizers to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago are being reactivated by the Department of Justice.
The three activists are among the 14 who received subpoenas during and soon after coordinated FBI raids on homes and offices across the Midwestern US on 24 September. The government says that the raids and subpoenas are part of an investigation into "material support" of foreign terrorist organizations but it has not arrested or charged anyone.
A grand jury, no longer in use anywhere outside the US, is an investigative tool that allows the government to compel citizens to testify even if they are not suspected of any crime.
The 14 targeted activists are involved with various peace with justice groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Group-Chicago, Students for a Democratic Society, the Twin Cities Anti-War Committee, the Colombia Action Network, Fight Back! newspaper, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization and the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera. All the activists had submitted letters to the US attorney -- the local Department of Justice prosecutor who convenes the grand jury -- stating their intent not to testify; the Department of Justice had withdrawn the original subpoenas, but the grand jury was still convened.
The three activists receiving reactivated subpoenas are expected to be offered "immunity" -- meaning that they face the choice of informing the government about the activities of other organizers or being jailed for the duration of the grand jury, and possibly facing further charges for criminal contempt of court.
"What [the US government] is doing is gathering political intelligence to indict people under this idea of providing material support for terrorism," attorney Michael Deutsch, part of the legal defense team for the activists, told The Electronic Intifada. "The grand jury is not an independent body. It is controlled by the US Department of Justice and they decide who is subpoenaed and what the outcome of the grand jury investigation is. It is a tool of the FBI and the justice department to repress political activists."
---------------
see more:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11626.shtml
| | Studs condemns US government witch hunt | Students for Justice in Palestine - 26.01.2011 21:16
The Students for Justice in Palestine (US) on 29 December 2010:
"For if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night."
- James Baldwin, in an open letter to Angela Davis, 19 November 1970
As students at over fifty American universities, we unequivocally condemn the abuse of grand jury subpoenas to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by university students and anti-war activists speaking and organizing against Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinian people. Since 24 September 2010, the FBI has served at least 24 grand jury subpoenas on students and activists in a secret investigation that many have called a witch hunt. We call upon Attorney General Eric Holder and United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to respect the civil rights and free speech of all those who support the Palestinian struggle for freedom by immediately withdrawing grand jury subpoenas which threaten the First Amendment rights of students and activists around the country.
The government's assault on organizations and individuals who support the Palestinian struggle for freedom has become increasingly authoritarian. The abuse of laws criminalizing "material support for terrorism" is unprecedented and, had they been implemented at the time of South African apartheid, would have effectively criminalized broad American support for the anti-apartheid movement. At the apparent behest of US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the government today has cast a net so wide that it has entangled journalists, college students, and peace activists. We know that a campaign so indiscriminate will seriously impinge on the First Amendment and other civil rights of people living in the United States. This will, in particular, affect active and outspoken students on university campuses, especially those of Palestinian descent.
It is not only our right but also our moral duty to speak and act against American foreign policy and its destructive impact on innocent people around the world. Today, America unfortunately stands behind Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people with money, weaponry, and diplomatic support. We seek to reverse this situation so that American foreign policy stands on the side of people who work towards justice. We reject the government's efforts to isolate the Palestinian people by severing them from their non-violent supporters abroad. Therefore we stand in solidarity with the victims of our government's campaign both in America and around the globe.
If Attorney Fitzgerald's campaign marks the morning of a new day, then we are certain of what awaits us in the night. Like Baldwin before us, we live in an age in which silence is not only criminal but suicidal -- we shall, therefore, make as much noise as we can.
----------------------
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11705.shtml
| | Protest on Tuesday Jan. 25, 2011 | Stop FBI Repression - 26.01.2011 21:23
Committee to
Stop FBI Repression
Organizing to stop FBI repression of anti-war and international solidarity activists
Protest on Tuesday Jan. 25, 2011
Show your solidarity with the nine newly subpoenaed activists who are being called before a grand jury in Chicago on January 25.
We are calling for protests on Jan. 25 across the country and around the world to show our solidarity. Hundreds of organizations and thousands of people will be protesting at Federal Buildings, FBI offices, and other appropriate places.
-------------------
http://www.stopfbi.net/
| |
| aanvullingen | |
