Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hollywood, Israel and the Pursuit of Normalcy

By Basil Abdelkarim | Palestine Chronicle | January 17, 2011

While flipping through channels on television last week, I ran across an episode of Friends, the long running hit NBC sitcom (1994-2004), which grabbed my attention. In this episode from 2004, paleontologist and professor Ross Geller proudly announces to his circle of attractive young friends that he has just earned tenure at a New York university. This glorious occasion prompts the young dinosaur expert to break out a bottle of Israeli champagne in celebration. There are actually two references to Israeli champagne (‘Israel’s finest’) in this episode, and these moments are played ostensibly for laughs. (Israel? Champagne? Whoda thunk it?)

Nevertheless, Friends made me wonder. In recent years, I’ve noticed a trend among popular television programs and motion pictures to include bizarre, seemingly random references to Israel. The references are on the surface apolitical – they do not precede a discussion of the conflicts in the Middle East, nor do they offer an overt opinion on the Palestine/Israel crisis. They’re usually brief (perhaps a single exchange), and they add nothing to the underlying story. They stand alone, frequently as the punch line to a joke. But does anyone believe that the television and motion picture industries want us to laugh at Israel? Is that really all that’s going on here?

References to Israel in Hollywood, like references to Palestine or the Arab world, always demand close scrutiny, particularly given the entertainment industry’s shameful penchant for Arab/Muslim vilification and glorification of all things Israel, to say nothing of the fervent public devotion towards Israel shared by countless Hollywood luminaries. What this means is that in Hollywood, there’s really no such a thing as an “innocent” television or movie reference to Israel, no matter how tiny or inconsequential, for Israel is not like other nations. Even a fleeting mention of Israeli champagne, or a humorous reference to the Mossad (another television favorite), warrants further analysis.

So when a character on the hit ABC sitcom According to Jim (2001-2009) reminds Jim that he once planted a tree in Israel in his honor (neither of these characters are Jewish or particularly religious, by the way), there’s nothing innocuous about this fictitious gifting of a tree. Certainly not in an era when Israeli bulldozers routinely uproot ancient Palestinian olive groves and successive Israeli governments devote their collective energies to obliterating centuries of Arab history in the Holy Land.

Which brings us to this central question: what is the point of all of these (on the surface) non-political references to Israel on television and the big screen, in stories which have nothing to do with Israel or Israelis? Are they part of a wide-ranging propaganda campaign? Do they serve a different agenda from that of the more familiar, pervasive Hollywood depictions of Heroic Israel/Israelis or Victim Israel? Or are these merely two sides to the same coin?

To understand one possible explanation for this trend, it bears mentioning that we’re dealing with a more nuanced narrative than the traditional depiction of gallant little Israel. For the “Old” Israel, just think of the 1960 movie Exodus – attractive, noble proto-Israelis triumph against all odds while battling British colonial overlords and Arab primitives. The original, cartoonish version of Israel always implied conflict, for it centers upon the myth of Israel under siege. This is Jewish David confronting the menace of the Arab/Muslim Goliath. Let’s call this the “Neocon” Israel for reasons that will be made apparent shortly. And while still ubiquitous in far-Right circles, (mostly among neoconservatives and the crowd itching for the Apocalypse), this version of Israel has taken a severe pummeling in recent years. A succession of bloody incursions (Gaza, Lebanon), the inhumane siege of Gaza, the escalation of illegal settlements on occupied land, construction of the apartheid wall, and most recently, the brutal suppression of the Gaza aid flotilla – all have chipped away at this myth of Israel as the besieged yet noble “Light unto the nations”.

No, what we’re dealing with in Friends and According to Jim is a softer vision of Israel, but more importantly, an Israel that is neither defined by nor judged on the basis of its treatment of its Palestinian subjects. This is the non-controversial version of Israel, or “Non-Con” Israel, an Israel which exports bad champagne, co-opts environmentalist sentiment (planting trees), and offers up hot young female ex-soldiers as mysterious sex symbols (as in the recent Steve Carell/ Tina Fey comedy Date Night). As for Palestine and the Palestinians – well, they’re not even an afterthought.

I’ve always believed that what apologists for Israeli misdeeds crave the most (after vindication, of course) is normalcy. Normalcy in this context is not a comprehensive peace agreement that restores the basic human rights of native Palestinians while guaranteeing the security of all the peoples of the region. Normalcy, rather, is that elusive state of affairs where all the turmoil and embarrassing headlines (and by extension, the Palestinians themselves) have simply evaporated, magically cleansed from our collective consciousness. Normalcy means an uncontroversial, run-of- the-mill Israel disconnected from Palestinians with a reputation as benign as, say, that of Norway.

Ideally, the Israel PR movement wants us to think of Israel as we might think of Italy or Greece – an ancient land steeped in history and overflowing with a wealth of natural beauty, archeological treasures, and contemporary luxuries alike, a modern marvel whose charming population stands ready to greet visitors with a smile. “Come to Israel, come stay with friends,” declared the comical old Israeli tourism campaign from some years back. Just don’t bring any Arab friends. But if you enjoy sunbathing in the south of France, why not catch some rays on the beaches of Tel Aviv? And why not drink some Israeli bubbly?

Yes, this is a softer, less confrontational Israel, yet this version remains a myth, for it requires a suspension of disbelief. This Non-Con version of Israel is more insidious and in its own way even more damaging than the Neocon Israel, for it ignores Palestinians altogether. Decades of conflict, the deliberate dispossession of an entire people, the ongoing, brutal occupation and siege, institutionalized racism within Israel itself – all are swept under the rug in favor of a sanitized vision of normalcy that lacks any context whatsoever.

Fortunately, not everyone has bought into this charade. No, Israel is not Norway, nor are Israel’s policies normal. That’s why the Israel divestment campaign and the international movement advocating a cultural and academic boycott of Israel continue to gather steam. It’s the same reason that diverse artists, from Carlos Santana to Elvis Costello, have cancelled Israeli concert appearances in recent years. Here in America, people from all walks of life (including courageous young American Jews) are slowly waking up to the realization that an Israel that practices apartheid policies cannot be like other nations.

If one cares about the world, wishing for normalcy should never serve as a substitute for working for justice or promoting basic human dignity. Here’s hoping that future television and motion picture writers remember this lesson. In the meantime, I’d suggest planting a tree in Palestine as a gift to a friend.

As for Israeli champagne, I don’t drink, but for those who do, my advice is simple:

Just say no.

January 18, 2011 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

STL Prosecutor Submits Indictment in Hariri Probe

Al-Manar – 17/01/2011

One hour after denying a press report over the matter, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon confirmed the rumors: the indictment in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri’s case was submitted…

The indictment, believed to be part of the American-Israeli plot against Lebanon and the Resistance, is expected to remain confidential for a while.

INDICTMENT SUBMITTED, TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL

According to a statement issued by the tribunal’s press office, STL Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare submitted the confidential indictment Monday against suspects in the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

“The prosecutor of the tribunal has submitted an indictment and supporting materials to the pre-trial judge,” the tribunal said in a statement in The Hague, where it is based for security reasons.

Bellemare presented the documents, widely believed to unfairly implicate Hezbollah, to the tribunal’s registry at 4:35pm (15:35 GMT), it said.

They “will now be reviewed by the pre-trial judge, Daniel Fransen”, who has to confirm the charges before any arrest warrant or summons to appear can be issued.

The pre-trial judge should need six to 10 weeks to confirm the charges, tribunal registrar Herman von Hebel told journalists in The Hague in December. He could also decide to reject the indictment in whole or in part, or ask the prosecutor for additional information. A trial could follow “four to six months” after the confirmation of the charges, according to Von Hebel.

The STL’s amended rules allows for a trial to be held “in absentia”, meaning without the accused being present, if arrests are impossible.

INDICTMENT RELEASE PART OF POLITICAL EXPLOITATION

The submission’s timing is believed as well to have political meanings, especially after the collapse of the Lebanese government headed by Saad Hariri following the “death” of the Syrian-Saudi initiative aimed at dealing with the repercussions of the indictment.

One day earlier, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said that the release of the indictment was part of the political exploitation of the STL and its indictment. His eminence emphasized that the Americans and Israelis worked hard to accelerate the indictment’s release after obstructing the Saudi-Syrian initiative.

“It is obvious that the Americans and the Israelis were against the Arab effort and they bargained on its failure because they had in mind that the crisis was complicated and eventually, they will not need to interfere. However, when they realized that the process was yielding positive results, they interfered in a decisive way. This is why the efforts stopped so suddenly.”

HEZBOLLAH WILL NOT LET ANYONE DAMAGE ITS REPUTATION

During his Sunday speech, Hezbollah Secretary General also anticipated the indictment’s expected release, vowing that the Resistance group would “defend” itself against likely charges by the tribunal. His eminence warned that Hezbollah will not let anyone damage its reputation and dignity and will not allow anyone to conspire against the Resistance or accuse it of spilling the blood of martyr Rafiq Hariri.

“I reassure those who are still after this project that they are miscalculating,” Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out. “We tell those who believe they can use the indictment to target the resistance that they are extensively miscalculating.”

“I will have another speech in light of what Bellemare will issue in the next couple of days,” Sayyed Nasrallah concluded.

January 17, 2011 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Sea level may drop in 2010

By John Kehr | Watts Up With That | January 17, 2011

Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era.  Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections.  The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate.  The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns.  A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned.  If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.

The best source of sea level data is The University of Colorado.  Only government bureaucracy could put the sea level data in one of the places farthest from the ocean, but that is where it is.  I use both data sets that includes the seasonal signal.  So with and without the inverted barometer applied.  This is the source of the data that is used to show that the oceans are rising.  Of course the rate of rise is greatly exaggerated and if the rate from 1993-2010 is used there will be a 1m rise in the year 2361.

Of course the rate is not constant.  The rate of rise over the past 5 years has been half the overall rate.  At the rate of the past 5 years it will be the year 2774 before the oceans rise a single meter.  Of course a decrease in the rate is technically an negative acceleration in the rate of rise, so technically the rate of rise is accelerating, but in a negative direction.  That statement is misleading though as most people consider acceleration to be a positive effect.

The Inconvenient Skeptc
Sea Level Change

Even more interesting is the fact that from 1992-2005 there was an increase each year.  2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level.  2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level.  That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level.  2010 could likely show a significant drop in global sea level.  By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.  Since the data has not been updated since August it is difficult to guess more precisely, but the data ends at the time of year that the seasonal drop begins to show up.  If the drop does show up as expected it is possible that 2010 will show the largest drop in sea level ever recorded.

The Inconvenient Skeptic
2010 could show a significant drop in sea level from 2009.

Of course what will happen won’t be known until the data for the past 5 months is made available.  I have been patiently waiting for the data to be updated for several months now, but I got tired of waiting and decided to put the information I have out there.

One fact is certain.  A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern.  In order for the IPCC prediction of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100 to be correct, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years.  Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely.  Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved.  The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct.

This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century.  The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.

January 17, 2011 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Avi Shlaim on the Neoconservative Middle East War Agenda

“The influence of the Likud and of its friends in Washington could be detected across the entire spectrum of American policy towards the Middle East,” writes Shlaim.

By Stephen Sniegoski | My Catbird Seat | January 17, 2011

A friend, Phil Collier, an avid student of and sometime writer on Middle East affairs (and  a National Master in chess), recently  informed  me that Avi Shlaim, in his recent book, Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations, had one chapter, “Palestine and Iraq,” that presents a thesis almost identical to what I have written in The Transparent Cabal. This naturally encouraged me to obtain the book, and Collier’s description turns out to be correct.

Now this similarity is quite significant since what I have written on the neocons regarding their strong influence on U. S. Middle East policy and their connection to Israel is taboo in the American mainstream, with even numerous antiwar individuals (especially those with higher status) and publications shying away from my work. But unlike me, Shlaim, a professor of international relations at Oxford, is a recognized scholar, with such notable books on Israel and its neighbors as The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (2001).  And he is also Jewish and an Israeli citizen, who served in the Israeli Defense Forces (possessing dual British and Israeli citizenship), which shelters him from charges of anti-Semitism.   Undoubtedly because of his credentials, his works cannot be ignored, and this book was honored as a Kirkus Best Book for 2009.

Now, in his ten-page  chapter on this subject, Shlaim could only present a much-abbreviated version of the major themes that I elaborate on at length in my 447 page book.   The following are some poignant examples from Shlaim’s work, with my commentary drawing comparisons to The Transparent Cabal.

“The basic premise behind George W. Bush’s policy towards the Middle East reflected this strong pro-Israeli bias,” Shlaim opines. “The premise was that the key issue in Middle East politics was not Palestine, but Iraq.” (p. 297)    This is the essence of my thesis, but it is something many establishment people, including those who have been antiwar, ardently deny when they claim that the elimination of Saddam not only harmed  Israeli interests by empowering Iran, but that this result  was clearly foreseen by  Israelis and supporters of Israel prior to the attack on Iraq and that the government of Israel thus allegedly opposed the war.  The Transparent Cabal, of course, shows that the entire neocon war agenda in the Middle East was directed to advancing Israel’s security by weakening its enemies and that Israeli leaders did, in fact, promote the war on Iraq.   Of course, in the United States, any claim that American Jews promote Israeli interests, no matter how well adduced, invariably elicits accusations of anti-Semitism.

“American proponents of the war on Iraq promised that action against Iraq would form part of a broader engagement with the problems of the Middle East,” Shlaim notes.  “The road to Jerusalem, they argued, went through Baghdad.  Cutting off Saddam Hussein’s support for Palestinian terrorism was, according to them, an essential first step in the quest for a settlement.” (p. 297)  Later he observes:  “One of the main arguments for regime change in Baghdad was to put an end to Iraqi support for Palestinian militants and for what was seen as Palestinian intransigence in the peace process with Israel.” (p. 300)

As I point out in The Transparent Cabal, the neocons maintained that it was the removal of not only Saddam, but most “non-democratic” regimes in the Middle East, which was necessary to bring about a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue.  However, the “peace” the neocons had in mind was one dictated by Israel. Elimination of the Middle Eastern “non-democratic” regimes would facilitate this development because it was just these regimes  that provided moral and material support to the Palestinian resistance, portrayed by the neocons as “Palestinian intransigence.”  Without outside support, the isolated and dispirited Palestinians would ultimately be forced to accede to whatever type of peaceful solution Israel offered, which would create nothing like a viable, Palestinian state, but which would serve to remove Israel’s Palestinian problem and thus help to secure the Jewish nature of the state of Israel.

“The influence of the Likud and of its friends in Washington could be detected across the entire spectrum of American policy towards the Middle East,” writes Shlaim.  “Particularly striking was the ideological convergence between some of the leading neoconservatives in the Bush Administration – such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—and the hardliners in Ariel Sharon’s inner circle.” (p. 298)

I go to great lengths in The Transparent Cabal to highlight the link between the neocons and the hardline Likudniks. In fact, I show that the neocons’ very plan to reconfigure the Middle East paralleled the Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel’s enemies, which was best articulated by Oded Yinon in the early 1980s.

In illustrating the neocons’ identification with Israeli interests, Shlaim underscores the significance of the neocons’ “A Clean Break” paper, writing: “In 1996, a group of six Jewish Americans, led by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, wrote a paper for incoming Israeli prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu.  Entitled ‘A Clean Break’, the paper proposed, in essence, an abrupt reversal of the foreign policies of the Clinton Administration towards the Middle East.” (p. 298)  After mentioning the major goals  of the plan, including the removal of Saddam’s regime, Shlaim declares: “Thus, five years before the attack on the twin towers, the idea of regime change in Baghdad was already on the agenda of some of Israel’s most fervent Republican supporters in Washington.” (p. 299)  Regarding the connection of that policy to actual American interests,  Shlaim opines that “While the authors’ devotion to Israel’s interests was crystal-clear, their implicit identification of those interests with American interests was much more open to question.” (p. 299) Shlaim accepts the obvious  fact that the neocons were influential in shaping Bush policy: “The Bush Administration’s entire policy towards the Middle East was similarly supportive of Israel’s short-term strategic interests.” (p. 299)

It should be noted here that Shlaim, in accord with what I write in  The Transparent Cabal,  makes three taboo points that often lead to charges of anti-Semitism when he observes that the neocons are Jewish, that they are devoted to Israel, and that they were influential enough to shape U. S. Middle East  policy in the interests of Israel.

Shlaim correctly points out  that the neocons’ Middle East war  agenda transcended Iraq: “While Iraq was the main target, the neocons also advocated that America exert relentless pressure on Syria and on Iran.” (p. 300)  In The Transparent Cabal, I show that the neocons only regarded Iraq as the momentary “main target”—it was to be the first step in their plan to reconfigure the Middle East.

Shlaim refers to  Israeli support for the broader neocon Middle East war agenda, which would also primarily benefit that country, not the United States:   “Washington’s policy of confrontation and regime change was fervently supported in Tel Aviv.  Here too the benefit to Israel is much more evident than the benefit to America.   And here too, the US agenda towards the region appears to incorporate a right-wing Likud agenda.” (p. 300)

While fundamentally similar, Shlaim’s analysis does differ with The Transparent Cabal in a few respects.   For example, he depicts the noted Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis as a crucial influence on the neocons, maintaining that he provided “the intellectual underpinning for this policy [the neocon plan of democratizing the Middle East by war].” (P. 299)  While aware that Lewis expressed this Middle East democratization argument, I am not aware that the neocons actually derived this view from him.  To obtain expert opinion on this issue, I contacted Paul Gottfried, probably the foremost historian of neoconservatism, and he also was not aware of any evidence for Shlaim’s claim. Since Lewis is a well-known scholar, some neocons undoubtedly believed that publicizing their connection to him would enhance the credibility of their democratization argument, but whether they actually derived this view from him needs to be proven.

A more significant difference between Shlaim’s argument and that of The Transparent Cabal revolves around an assessment of the results of the neocon policy. While Shlaim holds that the  neocons were attuned to the views of the hardline Likudniks and sought to advance what they considered to be Israel’s security interests,  he seems to drift away from this position in looking at the policy’s results.  Instead, he seems to take the neocon rhetoric on democracy at face value and judges the results by both this standard and how the results affected Israel’s security, as he (a left-wing Zionist, not a hardline Likudnik) sees  it.  “The war on Iraq has not gone according to plan,” Shlaim asserts. “Saddam Hussein and his henchman have been removed from power but the goals of democracy, security and stability have proved persistently elusive. Today the shadow of civil war hangs over Iraq.” (p. 305)

In contrast to Shlaim’s view of Israel’s security, the neocons explicitly sought regional instability to allegedly achieve democracy, as I show in The Transparent Cabal.  And the hardline Likudnik position was to destabilize and fragment Israel’s enemies to enhance Israeli security.  The neocons similarly advocated such an approach in their “Clean Break” agenda, which did not emphasize  democratization.  In short, from the perspective of the neocons and the hardline Likudniks, the instability and the “shadow of civil war” resulting from the US invasion of Iraq were neither surprising nor unwelcome.  Thus the neocons’ plans failed only to the extent that the US has not, or at least not yet, moved on to attack and destabilize Iran and other enemies of Israel.

It is certainly pleasing to see themes that I present emerging  in the mainstream, but I am miffed that my much longer account remains largely ignored.  It would be great if  books such as Shlaim’s would serve to open the door to wider publicity for The Transparent Cabal, which would not simply be of personal benefit but would also provide mainstream readers with the most complete account currently existing of the neoconservative involvement in the war on Iraq and overall U. S. Middle East policy,  and thus serve as a guide to analyzing current U.S.  policy.  However, since Shlaim’s theme is buried among 29 other short chapters, its impact will likely be negligible.  And the overall blackout of these crucial themes will likely continue.

Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history,with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11,and his first major work on the subject, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel” was published February 10, 2003, more than a month before the American attack. He is the author of “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”. Read more articles by Stephen J. Sniegoski. http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/

January 17, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Arrest Warrant Issued Against Israeli National Believed To Be Involved In Dubai Assassination

By Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies – January 17, 2011

Nearly a year after a number of Israeli Mossad Agents assassinated a senior Hamas member, at a hotel in Dubai, the German Authorities issued an arrest warrant against an Israeli national believed to have used a forged German passport to enter Dubai.

The German Weekly Der Spiegel reported that the man, identified as Uri Brodsky, is part of the group of assassins that carried forged passports of several European countries and Australia.

The German authorities believe that Brodsky helped a man identified as Michael Bodenheimer, to obtain a forged German Passport. Bodenheimer entered Dubai using this passport.

Der Spiegel did not specify what new charges were brought against Brodsky but the man is believed to be working for the Israeli Mossad, and also believed to have participated in carrying out the [assassination] at the room of Mahmoud Al Madbouh at a Dubai hotel on January 19. 2010.

Brodsky was taken into custody at Warsaw International Airport; the Authorities arrested him due to a German arrest warrant that was issued by Germany in June. 2010. The District Court in Warsaw ordered the extradition of Brodsky to Germany. But after spending no more than 24 hours imprisoned in Germany, he was released last August after paying a 100.000 Euros bail.

The German Authorities removed the charges regarding passport forgery and instead ordered him to pay a 60.000 Euros fine.

Following the assassination, the authorities in Dubai held extensive investigations and also collaborated with other international agencies and came up with a list of at least 27 agents working for the Mossad to assassinate Al Madbouh.

The authorities in Dubai even presented evidence showing that Mossad agents involved in the assassination used forged foreign passports.

January 17, 2011 Posted by | War Crimes | Leave a comment

Iran to file complaint against Israel

Press TV – January 17, 2011

Iran’s Foreign Ministry caretaker Ali Akbar Salehi says the country will lodge a complaint with international bodies against Israel in connection with the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

In July 2010, Iranian nuclear physics scientist Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was killed when a remote-controlled bomb detonated near his house in the north of the Iranian capital, Tehran.

“Iran’s complaint against the Zionist regime (Israel) will be submitted to international bodies soon,” IRNA quoted Salehi as saying on Monday as he pointed to the role of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, in the assassination of Ali-Mohammadi, a lecturer at the University of Tehran.

Salehi added that Iran’s Foreign Ministry has collected all documents on Israel’s role in the killing of the Iranian scientist.

On January 11, Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said the Islamic Republic has succeeded in overcoming the so-called strong Mossad supported by the US and Western states by managing to penetrate into the depth of the Mossad information system and dismantling its different networks.

His comments came a day after Iran’s Intelligence Ministry said it had dismantled an Israeli spy network and arrested the main perpetrators in connection with the assassination of Ali-Mohammadi.

One of the detained terrorists, Majid Jamali-Fash, confessed that he had received training in a military base outside Tel Aviv.

January 17, 2011 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Leave a comment

Israel’s right-wing future

By Lawrence Davidson | Redress | 17 January 2011

Zeev Sternhell is an Israeli historian and a recognized expert on fascism. He is also an occasional contributor to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. On 14 January 2011 he published a piece originally titled “The Right To Resist“. One never knows about the titles of newspaper pieces, whether they are penned by the author or a sub-editor, but in this case the title did capture the flavour of the writer’s intent. However, by 15 January the title’s connotations proved too much for someone at Haaretz and the piece has now been renamed, “Gov’t Protects the People, Not the Other Way Around”.

Odour of fascism

However you want to title it, Sternhell’s message is clear. He is very concerned about Israel’s right wing government. He thinks the present regime is controlled by dangerous people such as Avigdor Lieberman (the present foreign minister) and a Knesset full of folks who believe that the Israeli “left” are traitors. The present rulers are also the patrons of Israel’s settler movement which Sternhell has always strongly opposed (his house was bombed by these fanatics back in 2008). In other words, as a expert on fascism, he knows it when he sees it, and what he presently sees in Jerusalem at least has intimations of that sort of authoritarianism. The latest intimation is the desire of the Knesset, seconded by Lieberman, to intimidate human rights organizations such as B’Tselem into silence by investigating their sources of foreign income. The suggestion here is that these organizations are linked to a foreign cabal seeking the “delegitimization” of Israel and you can allegedly demonstrate this by following the money trail.

Other Israelis are also upset about this anti-democratic move on the part of their present government. Gideon Levy, one of Haaretz’s regular columnists, has criticized Liebowitz for his part in this affair. But it is Sternhell who has suggested that “not every Knesset decision is legitimate” and when the government acts in a way that undermines democracy, the citizen has “a duty to resist.” Interestingly, he includes in the present sins of the Knesset not only the intimidation of human rights organizations, but also “legislation that would prevent non-Jewish Israeli citizens from living in Jewish communities.”

“When the government breaks the social contract, the citizen has the right to resist”

Sternhell’s position is right out of 17th century British philosopher John Locke’s social contract theory. The bond between citizen and government is contractual. The government’s obligation under the contract is to protect the citizens life, liberty and property. It is the liberty part that Sternhell is suggesting the Knesset is undermining (he makes no mention of the stolen property of Arab-Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories). According to Locke, and Sternhell too, when the government breaks the social contract, the citizen has the right to resist.

Sternhell is not suggesting open rebellion. He has not gone any further than calling for the Knesset’s investigation of human rights organizations to be “ignored”. When the promised investigatory committee is set up, people should “refuse to appear before it”. Actually, this is all well and good. But then what? As an expert on fascism, Sternhell does not really believe that such actions will stop the process he so fears, and he surely does know what is happening to his country. In fact, he divines its fate, “Just as was true in the past, Lieberman-ism [the name he gives to the drift toward fascism in Israel] will most likely destroy the last vestiges of the liberal right”. I take it the last two words really refer to “liberal rights”.

”You see, Zionism really is racism”

A real problem for Sternhell is that Avigdor Lieberman and his Knesset proteges are more representative of Israel than either he or liberal journalist Gideon Levy. Indeed, not just the traditional “left”, but those who fancy themselves as “liberals”, are just about done for in Israel. Some of them know it and are packing their bags to leave. This process has been building for a long time and it makes perfect sense. You see, Zionism really is racism.

This being the case, what is now manifesting itself in Israel is a kind of historical determinism. Let us follow this out step by step:

1. Zionism is a political ideology dedicated to the creation of a state for one select group (A).

2. Most early Zionists were inserted in Palestine after World War I with the help of imperial Britain. Palestine was then a land full of other, non-select, people (B).

3. You have the predictable resistence of B to A. Simultaneously, the discriminatory bias inherent in A’s Zionist ideology becomes manifest in the group’s state building, economic and other institutional activities.

4. On-going resistance only intensifies A’s ideologically driven desire to get rid of all of B. This is rationalized by various references to “self-defence” and, of course, the Holocaust.

5. In order to carry out this long-term goal the lives of the Bs are made ever more harsh.

6. After 1967 you can throw into this noxious mix A’s growing religious fanaticism and territorial expansion.

7. At some point a relatively small number of the A group start to object to the morally corrosive consequences of the nation’s behaviour. They blame the post-1967 expansion.

8. But the majority of the A group will not hear of this second guessing. They turn on the
sceptics and begin to label them traitors.

There is a certain logic to this process and it is hard to see how such a project as Zionism could have played itself out differently. The truth is that the process toward an Israeli-style fascism did not begin (as Sternhell believes) with1967 and the taking of the occupied territories. It did not even begin in 1917 and the Balfour Declaration. It began with the very inception of Zionism.

You just cannot conceive a state for one religiously or racially defined group, and implement it amidst a population of “others”, and not end up with an authoritarian discriminatory society. You can, of course, kill or chase away all the others and then, in your homogeneous solitude, act like you are a democracy.

However, in the post-World War II, post-Holocaust world, this strategy is totally anachronistic and it will fool almost no one on the outside. And, it can only be carried forward by a band of fanatics who don’t care what the rest of the world thinks of them. If you are one of the few on the inside who decides to criticize the process, the fanatics will turn on you with a vengeance. After all, there is nothing worse than a traitor to the sacred cause.

This is exactly the present situation in today’s Israel.

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment

Israel plans 1,400 new units in al-Quds

Press TV – January 16, 2011

An Israeli planning commission is set to give the green light to a new settlement project in East al-Quds (Jerusalem), despite global criticisms against Tel Aviv’s settlement activities.

The two-phase project aims to build 1,400 new housing units near the “Gilo” settlement, located beyond the Green Line, Israel’s Army Radio announced on Sunday.

This would expand Gilo’s borders toward the occupied West Bank.

The plan is one of the largest to be established across the Green Line, and is even bigger than the settlement plans which raised tensions in relations between Israel and the United States.

Jerusalem Council member Meir Margalit (Meretz) said that “the plan is a more serious and dangerous step than all the previous plans for construction beyond the Green Line.”

“This is a confirmation of the death of the peace process,” Margalit told the Army Radio.

Last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and acting Palestinian Authority Chief Mahmoud Abbas agreed to renew direct talks in order to reach a concession on the two-state solution roadmap, erected by the United States.

But the talks faded away after the Israeli regime refused to stop the construction and expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East al-Quds.

In September 2, the talks were re-launched, but were stalled again only three weeks later when Tel Aviv refused to extend a partial 10-month freeze it had imposed on its illegal settlement activities.

The Palestinians say that the settlement construction aims at preventing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Along with other Palestinian and Arab territories, Tel Aviv occupied East al-Quds during the Six-Day War in 1967.

The occupation and later annexation of the city — which the Palestinians have long been demanding as the capital of their future state — has never been recognized by the international community.

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | Leave a comment

5 Children Injured following Israel’s Demolition of El Araqib Village for Ninth Time

Alternative Information Center | 16 January 2011

Israeli authorities demolished the Bedouin village of El Araqib Sunday morning (16 January) for the ninth time in the past six months, and bulldozers from the Jewish National Fund (JNF) remain on the villager’s land, even though the demolitions are completed.

demolition
Previous demolition of El Araqib

Right after the demolition, bulldozers proceeded to plow over the village land, while large number of police and special units are still present in the area. When the families of El Araqib tried to resist, the Israeli authorities shot tear gas and rubber coated bullets. Five children between the ages of 16-17 were injured.

The families of El Araqib claim that today’s demolition and plowing are in preparation for the Jewish Arbor Day holiday of Tu Bishvat this coming Thursday (20 January), on which hundreds of people are expected to come by invitation of the JNF to plant trees in the area.

A large number of Israeli security and special forces arrived at El Araqib at approximately 9.00 this morning and completely demolished the village. And unlike in previous demolitions, the Israeli authorities are currently clearing away all the debris from this morning’s demolition, leaving the villagers with nothing.

“This is a fitting Zionist response to the large demonstration held last night in Tel Aviv in defense of democracy in Israel,” said Yaakov Manor of the Recognition Forum.

On 1 September 2010, the Bedouin residents of the “unrecognized” villages in Israel wrote an unprecedented appeal to US President Barak Obama, requesting his assistance in calling on Israel to recognize the Bedouin traditional ownership of land and to stop demolishing their homes – fundamental rights of all human beings.

The residents of El Araqib, many of whom are in mourning for the recent death of a family member, have already begun to rebuild the village.

Residents of El Araqib are particularly concerned about the ongoing presence of JNF bulldozers on their land, and are requesting that journalists and photographers come to the village to see.

For additional information:

Mumtaz: 050 7701118

Michal: 050 7701119

Samih: 050 7202236

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment

Is the Brazilian flooding catastrophe evidence of another global warming era extreme ?

By Alexandre Amaral  | METSUL Communications Director, Brazil | January 15, 2011

Corpses are still under tons of rocks and mud in the hills of Rio de Janeiro, but some experts are already rushing to the microphones here in Brazil and abroad to declare the worst natural disaster in the Brazilian history as a clear and unequivocal evidence of global warming (a.k.a. global climate disruption).

The Brazilian media is not immune to the frenzy on global warming and extreme weather events. The Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper, one of the most important media outlets in the country, published a report connecting the Rio de Janeiro disaster to the Queensland flooding in Australia and the recent snowstorms in the United States and Western Europe.

To establish the ongoing catastrophe in Brazil as a global warming product is a bogus claim in the view of the staff of MetSul Meteorologia. The same can be said to the events of cold snaps and snow in the Northern Hemisphere – strong negative Arctic Oscillation related – and the massive flooding in Australia, a direct result of the strong and natural derived La Niña event.

Rio de Janeiro is subject to heavy or extreme rainfall every year, but this time the amount of precipitation was very heavy and in a short period of time, creating an inland tsunami-like torrent. The risk of major extreme rain episodes this summer was widely anticipated by MetSul meteorologists as analog years strongly pointed to a summer similar to the ones with disastrous events in the past. Rain gauges in Nova Friburgo measured 300 millimeters (12 inches) of rain in just 24 hours from January 11th to 12th. The tragedy happened in the Sierras of Rio de Janeiro (Região Serrana) where major topographical forcing is usually present in extreme rainfall. Moisture flow from the ocean (SSTs are above average in the South Atlantic) find a natural physical barrier in the mountains of Rio de Janeiro, making the region prone to extreme rainfall during summer months and early autumn.

The most affected cities (Petrópolis, Teresópolis and Nova Fribrugo) are located between mountains as high as 5 to 6 thousand feet and besides rivers cross these towns. The only way the water can take are the valleys and the regional rivers. Due to the regional terrain, the major menace to the population is landslide. For many decades Brazilian authorities allowed construction of homes and buildings in the slopes, so every single year landslides with numerous deaths are recorded in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais.

The front page of the Extra newspaper from Rio de Janeiro (click over the picture for a wider view) published on January 13th 2010 showed that every single year in the last decade witnessed tragedies caused by rain in the state of Rio. The newspaper headline is “Até quando?” (When will it end?). The paper argues: “The government excuse is always the same…it rained an equivalent to…”. The dominant opinion in the Brazilian media and public arena is that these repeated tragedies must be above all attributed to poor risk management and ridiculous urban planning instead of only blaming nature. Despite recognizing the ferocity of the rain, many are calling this week’s tragedy a manmade disaster.

In the state of Rio de Janeiro, there is massive occupation of the slopes and the hills, so landslides tend to be much more devastating and tragedies much more frequent. If this week’s rainfall had happened in the same region 35 years ago, the consequences would have been incredibly less dramatic. Satellite pictures released by the Brazilian Global TV Network show clearly some of the risky areas that concentrate most of the victims (Caleme, Posse and Meudon) as heavily populated nowadays in contrast to low or no land occupation 35 years ago.

There are anecdotal and historic accounts of extreme rainfall in the state of Rio de Janeiro since Brazil was a Portuguese colony in the 1600’s and 1700’s, but meteorological records are not available for that period. Great tragedies caused by rain and landslides in Rio de Janeiro began mainly in the second half of the 20th century coinciding with the demographic explosion and the massive and unorganized occupation of the hills. The risky areas of today, where the tragedies of the modern times use to happen almost every year, were not occupied 100 years ago, and for that reason the vast majority of the tragic events concentrate in the last 50 years.

  • April 1756 – Three days of heavy rainfall caused flooding, home collapses and “lots of victims” all over the town – still small – of Rio de Janeiro.
  • February 1811 – Between February 10th and 17th heavy rains caused a “catastrophe” in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Hills collapsed, the city was flooded and landslides were widespread with a torrent of water and mud invading town. Historical accounts tell of many victims, but there is no official number. The regent prince – designated by Portugal – ordered the churches to be open to serve as shelters.

  • April 1883 – Eleven inches of rain (220 mm) in a matter of four hours flood the city of Rio de Janeiro.

  • April 1924 – Heavy flooding and landslides with fatalities.
  • January 1940 – Flooding and landslides in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Santo Cristo district was the most affected.

  • January 1942 – Flooding and landslides in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The Salgueiro Hill was the the main disaster area.

  • January 1962 – Heavy flooding and several landslides in the city of Rio de Janeiro after 242 mm of precipitation during a storm.
  • January 1966 – The storm of January 2nd, 1966, brought record rainfall to the city of Rio de Janeiro. Flooding and massive landslides caused 250 casualties. Other 70 people died after the storm due to diseases.

  • January 1967 – Heavy rain and landslides provoked the collapses of buildings in the city of Rio. 200 people died and 300 were injured. 300 people died in the states of Rio de Janeiro and Guanabara (today Guanabara and Rio form the state of Rio de Janeiro).

  • November 1981 – Landslides in the Sierras of Rio kill 20 people in the city of Teresopolis.
  • February 1987 – Flooding and landslides kill 292 people. The city of Rio de Janeiro and the Sierras of the state concentrate the damages and the victims.
  • February 1988 – 277 people died in flooding and landslides in the Baixada Fluminense region and in the city of Petrópolis in the Sierras. In the rest of the month hundreds more died in new landslides and flooding. A hospital collapsed, killing 18 people. Damages topped 1 billion dollars.

  • Summer of 1996 – Dozens of deaths in flooding and landslides.
  • January 1999 – Dozens of deaths in flooding and landslides.
  • 2010 – Nearly 100 people died in the cities of Angra dos Reis and Rio de Janeiro due to landslides on January 1st. In April, record rainfall caused over 200 deaths in massive landslides in the cities of Rio and the neighboring town of Niteroi.

Tragic events will happen again in the future, but can be less dramatic if some steps are taken urgently and seriously: improvement of risk management, urban reorganizing, investments in weather forecast and monitoring equipments and staff, a new media approach to weather warnings’ importance and a good public governance. History proves these areas will be hit again, but we as society have the power to mitigate the consequences. It is a matter of serious and urgent public priority for our authorities and the population’s will.

(note there’s much more here at METSUL’s blog)

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Watch the Watchers

Hallmarks of Spook Behavior

By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN | CounterPunch | January 14, 2011

This was not the first time I was approached by a spook, or the first time I have pegged one in my midst, but it was the first time I was approached by a man claiming to be an Iraqi-American. In the rush that usually occurs after one speaks publicly with several people waiting to chat, I tried to listen politely as I offered Nabil my attention. After five minutes, though, I found myself feeling bad for getting a little annoyed at him. He carried on about loving America and loving Iraq and seemed to be trying to hint at something beyond this — making vague references to what the U.S. was doing to Iraq. Finally I said to him, “Why are you telling me this?” After all, I speak publicly about these things, why did he feel he needed to tell me what I was already speaking about?

Unfortunately, I rarely recall specifics of what people say to me after I make a speech – or perhaps Nabil was being purposefully vague, because it seemed to me that he really wasn’t saying anything. Yet, he wouldn’t let me go. I told him several times that I needed to leave, as I had a long drive ahead of me. Several other people wanted to speak to me, yet Nabil continued to follow me around and try to talk to me — about what, I could not discern. Finally, I said that if things continued as they were in this country, it would eventually collapse. This seemed to deeply satisfy him. He said that people here didn’t care what happened in Iraq. They would care only if it happened to them.

I left him then and only the next morning did it occur to me that what Nabil was trying to do was to goad me into making a declaration of some unlawful or violent intent. That was when it occurred to me that Nabil was a spook: a paid informant or an undercover operative.

My first thought was that the FBI must not keep very good records or train their operatives very well because they had sent numerous others on the same or similar missions. They had to know that I am a staunch believer in nonviolence and in the rule of law — not to mention the United States Constitution. Anyone reading my multitude of articles must know this.

But more importantly, Nabil’s activities reveal a government policy that post-9/11 activists have long suspected exists: the FBI is not only monitoring peace activists but is working to entrap such people. Several recent cases offer further proof of this conclusion: the outing of paid FBI informant, “Anna,” in the West Coast “Green Scare” cases and the arrests of the Miami “Liberty City Seven” on the basis of an affidavit by an FBI operative.

In both of these cases, the FBI clearly did more than infiltrate and monitor groups that they believed might pose a threat to national security. In each case, the FBI goaded, provoked, provided funding and materials, and in the Liberty Seven case, even demanded the individuals sign a loyalty oath to al-Qaeda. In fact, so desperate was the FBI to capture the Miami miscreants that arrests were made despite the fact that the seven had all already walked away from the alleged conspiracy, which makes the case almost a sure loser for the government.

The FBI has monitored me at least since I first spoke out (post-9/11) at a town meeting in front of a panel of Muslim community members and overt FBI agents. A few weeks after this, a markedly taciturn and unfriendly man showed up at a Unitarian Universalist church meeting at which I was asked to speak about the PATRIOT Act. This was a congregation of mostly senior citizens who all knew each other, yet nobody knew the man, who avoided looking at or speaking to anyone, but sat and listened intently to my every word – leaning forward in his chair, all his antennae up — and then rapidly disappeared thereafter.

Spooks have infiltrated groups I’ve chaired. One handsome man of uncertain ethnic origins showed up at a start-up meeting for the Bill of Rights Defense Coalition in South Florida. I was facilitating the meeting and caught this young man staring at me in rapt fascination more than once. Why would he be so interested in me? My youthful beauty? Sorry. My charming and electric personality? Right.

Well, when he saw me see him looking at me, he stopped his appreciative stares. Although he said he was from Pittsburgh, another member of the group who hailed from there found he knew nothing about the city. He never returned to our group. But he did start showing up at another group allied with ours and he continued to monitor that group for quite a while, until he showed up in new all-black duds (imitating the Black Block anarchists, we supposed) at the 2003 FTAA protests in Miami and thereafter was never seen again.

These are hallmarks of spook behavior. Mark them.

Another young man joined the volunteers for a large Forum on Dissent Since 9/11 we had planned. He professed no interest in politics, was completely ignorant of most of the issues which concerned us, and disappeared shortly before the event, claiming he had decided to relocate and start a new life. Meantime, he had access to lists of speakers and volunteers.

Both of these men had never been seen before and were never seen thereafter.

You know what my reaction to all this is? I wonder why my government is spending my tax dollars to monitor me, an upright, loyal citizen who believes more deeply in the Constitution and laws of this country than do most U.S. officials sworn to uphold them. I was a patriot before it was popular to say so. I will defend free speech more strongly and at greater personal risk than most members of the ACLU (and I have proof of that). (I actually take the time to answer hate mail!)

If there really are so many horrible, dangerous terrorists out to get us, why, then, is the FBI wasting time and resources trying to provoke me into making some unlawful statement? Why are our intelligence agencies infiltrating meetings of peace groups, like the one in Lake Worth, Florida that NBC News discovered was attended by the DOD?

I attended that meeting and was one of its organizers and presenters. The subject was counter-recruitment. Is that a national security threat? Am I? The only threat I or these other peaceful persons could possibly pose would be to government officials themselves engaged in violent or unlawful activities, in lying to the public, in engaging in wars of aggression, in unlawfully detaining and torturing people, many of whom have been shown to be completely innocent, and in evading and intentionally violating federal laws. Why is the FBI not banging on their doors? Why is not the DOJ bringing charges against them?

This piece was originally published in the 9/21/2006 print edition of CounterPunch.

Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D., M.S.I.E., is the founder of the 12th Generation Institute, and author of THE TWILIGHT OF DEMOCRACY: THE BUSH PLAN FOR AMERICA (Common Courage Press, 2004) and Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious (Michael Weise Productions, 2007). She is currently working under contract with Bucknell University Press on a biography of Leonora Sansay, an early American novelist who was involved in the Aaron Burr Conspiracy, and on a screenplay about the conspiracy. She can be reached at jennifer.vanbergen@gmail.com.

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

Israel Tested Stuxnet on Iran, with US help: Report

Al-Manar – 16/01/2011

US and Israeli intelligence services collaborated to develop a destructive computer worm to sabotage Iran’s nuclear efforts, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The newspaper quoted intelligence and military experts as saying Israel has tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, which allegedly shut down a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges in November and helped “delay its ability to make its first nuclear weapons.”

The testing took place at the heavily guarded Dimona complex in the Negev desert housing the Middle East’s sole, albeit undeclared nuclear weapons program. Experts and officials told the Times the effort to create Stuxnet was a US-Israeli project with the help, knowingly or not, of Britain and Germany.

“To check out the worm, you have to know the machines,” a US expert told the newspaper. “The reason the worm has been effective is that the Israelis tried it out.”

There has been widespread speculation Israel was behind the Stuxnet worm that has attacked computers in Iran, and Tehran has blamed the Jewish state and the United States for the killing of two nuclear scientists in November and January.

Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s strategic affairs minister and former military chief, said last month that a series of “technological challenges and difficulties” meant Tehran was still about three years away from being able to build nuclear weapons.

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said international sanctions against Iran would only be effective if they were backed by a “credible” military threat.

The Stuxnet worm apparently included two major parts, one intended to make Iran’s nuclear centrifuges spin out of control.
Another secretly recorded normal operation at the nuclear plant, then played those recordings back to the site’s operators so all would appear usual during the sabotage operation, according to the Times.

Stuxnet targets computer control systems made by German industrial giant Siemens and commonly used to manage water supplies, oil rigs, power plants and other critical infrastructure.

Most Stuxnet infections have been discovered in Iran, giving rise to speculation it was intended to sabotage nuclear facilities there.

The report came after Clinton, who was on a five-day trip to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar last week, urged Arab states to stay focused on sanctions against Iran.

The UN Security Council last June imposed a fourth round of sanctions against Iran in a bid to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Iran says its aims are peaceful, denying charges by Israel and the West that its uranium enrichment work masks a drive for nuclear weapons.
The Islamic republic is set to hold a new round of nuclear talks with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States in Istanbul on January 21 and 22.

January 16, 2011 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »