Eight hours of terror in southern Israel

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Would you have advised the US to follow this policy after 9/11? Instead of treating al Quaida as an enemy who killed Americans on their home soil in an unprovoked attack? I'm glad we took the fight to them. It was the morally correct thing to do.

Besides, "track, locate, incarcerate" would have implied Israel sending forces into sovereign Lebanese territory to execute an "extraordinary rendition" policy and bring back perpetrators to Israel. The US comes in for criticism for such policies, as does Israel - for example Abdel Karim Obeid.

Yes I would have. It is far better to get a little condemnation than to kill even one innocent soul.

[scandal 951]

I've heard it before, not from this source but this is one of many who have made the comparison:

When Jonathan Lichtenstein's play, Memory, arrived in New York, some Jews were so outraged they walked out of the theatre. Others gave a standing ovation.

People make the comparison. I've heard it done. That doesn't make it right. I would have been one who would walk out on this play.

Besides, whatever inspired you to make the comparison, the fact remains that it was you, here today on this thread, did make that comparison and use the word "valid" in making it. I don't agree with you. I believe it's invalid and disrespectful to the memories of the victims of the Nazis. It's also not helpful in solving the problems of today in the Middle East. I would encourage you to reflect on that, and consider if you still feel it's valid. The choice is yours, of course.

[Golden Gate 530]

Netanyahu: I deceived US to destroy Oslo accords

Damaging video released

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

24 July 2010

Jonathan Cook considers the significance of a video that has surfaced showing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu boasting about his ability to manipulate the United States and his success in destroying the Oslo accords with the Palestinians.

There is one video Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, must be praying never gets posted on YouTube with English subtitles. To date, the 10-minute segment has been broadcast only in Hebrew on Israel’s Channel 10. [Editor’s note: A version of the Natanyahu video with English subtitles is now available and can be viewed, together with the translated English transcript, here.]

Its contents, however, threaten to gravely embarrass not only Mr Netanyahu but also the US administration of Barack Obama.

The film was shot, apparently without Mr Netanyahu’s knowledge, nine years ago, when the government of Ariel Sharon had started reinvading the main cities of the West Bank to crush Palestinian resistance in the early stages of the second intifada.

Binyamin Natanyahu “dismisses the US as ‘easily moved to the right direction’ and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel ‘absurd’."

At the time Mr Netanyahu had taken a short break from politics but was soon to join Mr Sharon’s government as finance minister.

On a visit to a home in the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank to pay condolences to the family of a man killed in a Palestinian shooting attack, he makes a series of unguarded admissions about his first period as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999.

Seated on a sofa in the house, he tells the family that he deceived the US president of the time, Bill Clinton, into believing he was helping implement the Oslo accords, the US-sponsored peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, by making minor withdrawals from the West Bank while actually entrenching the occupation. He boasts that he thereby destroyed the Oslo process.

He dismisses the US as “easily moved to the right direction” and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel “absurd”.

He also suggests that, far from being defensive, Israel’s harsh military repression of the Palestinian uprising was designed chiefly to crush the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat so that it could be made more pliable for Israeli diktats.

All of these claims have obvious parallels with the current situation, when Mr Netanyahu is again Israel’s prime minister facing off with a White House trying to draw him into a peace process that runs counter to his political agenda.

“The contemptuous view of Washington Mr Netanyahu demonstrates in the film will confirm the suspicions of many observers ... that his current professions of good faith should not be taken seriously.”

As before, he has ostensibly made public concessions to the US administration – chiefly by agreeing in principle to the creation of a Palestinian state, consenting to indirect talks with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, and implementing a temporary freeze on settlement building.

But he has also enlisted the powerful pro-Israel lobby to exert pressure on the White House, which appears to have relented on its most important stipulations. tbody>

The contemptuous view of Washington Mr Netanyahu demonstrates in the film will confirm the suspicions of many observers – including Palestinian leaders – that his current professions of good faith should not be taken seriously.

Critics have already pointed out that his gestures have been extracted only after heavy arm-twisting from the US administration.

More significantly, he has so far avoided engaging meaningfully in the limited talks the White House is promoting with the Palestinians while the pace of settlement building in the West Bank has been barely affected by the 10-month freeze, due to end in September.

In the meantime, planning officials have repeatedly approved large new housing projects in East Jerusalem and the West Bank that have undercut the negotiations and will make the establishment of a Palestinian state – viable or otherwise – far less likely.

The video proved that Netanyahu was a “con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes... Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.”

Gideon Levy, columnist, Ha’aretz

Writing in the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, the columnist Gideon Levy called the video “outrageous”. He said it proved that Mr Netanyahu was a “con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes”. He added that the prime minister had not reformed in the intervening period: “Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years.”

In the film, Mr Netanyahu says Israel must inflict “blows [on the Palestinians] that are so painful the price will be too heavy to be borne … A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority, to bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing”.

When asked if the US will object, he responds: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction… They won’t get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

He then recounts how he dealt with President Clinton, whom he refers to as “extremely pro-Palestinian”. “I wasn’t afraid to manoeuvre there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton.”

His approach to White House demands to withdraw from Palestinian territory under the Oslo accords, he says, drew on his grandfather’s philosophy: “It would be better to give two per cent than to give 100 per cent.”

He therefore signed the 1997 agreement to pull the Israeli army back from much of Hebron, the last Palestinian city under direct occupation, as a way to avoid conceding more territory.

“There must be at least a very strong suspicion that Mr Netanyahu is as firmly committed today as he was then to destroying any chance of peace with the Palestinians.”

“The trick,” he says, “is not to be there [in the occupied territories] and be broken; the trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.”

The “trick” that stopped further withdrawals, Mr Netanyahu adds, was to redefine what parts of the occupied territories counted as a “specified military site” under the Oslo accords. He wanted the White House to approve in writing the classification of the Jordan Valley, a large area of the West Bank, as such a military site.

“Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give [them] the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came … did I sign the Hebron agreement. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accords.”

Last week, after meeting Mr Obama in Washington, the Israeli prime minister gave an interview to Fox News in which he appeared to be in no hurry to make concessions: “Can we have a negotiated peace? Yes. Can it be implemented by 2012? I think it’s going to take longer than that,” he said.

There must be at least a very strong suspicion that Mr Netanyahu is as firmly committed today as he was then to destroying any chance of peace with the Palestinians.

Leaked video exposes Israeli Premier Netanyahu’s contempt for USA and intention to deceive Palestinians

In this video, leaked and aired on Israeli Channel 10 TV, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is seen speaking candidly back in 2001 at a constituent's home about the Oslo accords, the peace process, Bill Clinton and the United States. He brags about having "stopped" Oslo accords and refers to America as something to be "moved in the right direction", citing polls showing Americans' support for Israel.

Transcript of video – courtesy of Institute for Middle East Understanding

[binyamin Netanyahu] Turn off the camera so that we can elaborate on this.

[Narrator]: A few minutes later... the camera is turned on again and Netanyahu begins to speak without quotation marks and without masks.

[Netanyahu] Now we're beginning to understand the meaning of the slogan “Yesha Zeikan Judea, Samaria and Azza are here”. Yesha is everywhere, what is the difference?

What does Arafat want? He wants one big settlement [implies Palestinians see all of Israel as a settlement].

[Woman] Yes that's what my daughter-in-law who came from England says [i.e. they, the Palestinians, see Tel Aviv as a settlement also].

[Natanyahu] Tel Aviv is also a settlement. From their [Palestinians] point of view, our territorial waters are also theirs. The fact is that they want us in the sea. Over there... [gestures] in the distant water.

The Arabs now are preparing for a campaign [or war] of terror, and they think that this will break us.

The main thing is, first and foremost, to hit them hard. Not just one hit... but many painful [hits], so that the price will be unbearable. The price is not unbearable, now. A total assault on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to a state of panic that everything is collapsing ... fear that everything will collapse... this is what we'll bring them to...

[Woman interrupts] But wait a minute, at that point the whole world will say “What are you occupiers”...

[Natanyahu interrupts] The world will say nothing. The world will say that we are defending ourselves.

“I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction... Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis] ... so they say it...” [i.e. so what?]

[Woman] Aren't you afraid of the world Bibi?

[Natanyahu] No. Especially now, with America, I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction. They [the Americans] will not bother us. Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis]... so they say it... [so what?] Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It's absurd! We have such [great] support there! And we say... what shall we do with this [support]?

Look, the other administration [that of Bill Clinton] was pro-Palestinian in an extreme way. I was not afraid to manoeuvre there. I did not fear confrontation with Clinton. I was not afraid to clash with the UN. As it is, I am paying the price in the international arena... So I might as well receive something of equal value in exchange.

[Child] But never mind that. We gave them things, and we can't take them back. Because they won't give them back to us.

[Natanyahu, gestures to let child speak] First of all, Oslo is a system [or package of things]. You're right... I do not know what can and cannot be taken back [from the Palestinians]

[Woman] He [the child] has political opinions, believe me.

[Natanyahu] He's right.

[Woman] He said such things to Arik Sharon that I told him: that's not – that's not a child's opinion. The Oslo accords are a disaster.

[Natanyahu] Yes, I know that and you know that... but the people need to know

[Woman] Right. But I thought that the prime minister did know, and that he'd do everything so that, somehow, not to do critical things, like handing over Hebron, that...

“I interpret the [Oslo] accords in such a way that will enable me to stop this rush towards the 1967 borders.”

What were the Oslo accords? The Oslo accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: "Will you act according to them?" and I answered: "Yes, subject to reciprocity and limiting the withdrawals." But how do you limit the withdrawals? I interpret the accords in such a way that will enable me to stop this rush towards the 1967 borders. [so] how do we do it?

[Narrator] The Oslo accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different stages, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

[Natanyahu] No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I'm concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

[Woman] Right [laughs]. The Beit She'an settlements. The Beit She'an Valley.

[Natanyahu] How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what defined military sites were. I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time ... which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: "I'm not signing." Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.

[Woman interrupts] And despite that, one of our own people, excuse me, who knew it was a swindle, and that we were going to commit suicide with the Oslo accord, gives them, for example, Hebron. I never understood that.

[Natanyahu] Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It's the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: "What would your father say?" I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father's position?... He's not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two per cent than to give a 100 per cent. And that's the choice here. You gave two per cent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal, instead of 100 per cent.”

The trick is not to be there and break down. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.

[Woman] May you say that as prime minister.

[Natanyahu] In my estimation that will happen.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

My link

Edited August 21, 2011 by Golden Gate

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

People make the comparison. I've heard it done. That doesn't make it right. I would have been one who would walk out on this play.

Besides, whatever inspired you to make the comparison, the fact remains that it was you, here today on this thread, did make that comparison and use the word "valid" in making it. I don't agree with you. I believe it's invalid and disrespectful to the memories of the victims of the Nazis. It's also not helpful in solving the problems of today in the Middle East. I would encourage you to reflect on that, and consider if you still feel it's valid. The choice is yours, of course.

I value your friendship too much to continue this train of thought. I will not argue with you over it, it will only continue to engender hurt feelings. I support any and all efforts for a peaceful resolution to the situation.

[scandal 951]

I value your friendship too much to continue this train of thought. I will not argue with you over it, it will only continue to engender hurt feelings. I support any and all efforts for a peaceful resolution to the situation.

Thank you. Let's carry on. You and I agree on far more than we disagree. I always appreciate your civility, even in the rare cases when we disagree. I, too, wish for peace. Beemhera b'yamenu. Quickly and in our own times.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The IDF quietly abandons its spin on Eilat attack

The IDF admits that the Eilat attackers weren’t Gazans, but buries the news

Some 34 days ago, a group of terrorists attacked several points on the Israeli-Egyptian border, near Eilat. While the attack was still going on, Security Minister (the term “Defense Minister” does not capture the Soviet/Socialist undertones of the title) Ehud Barak quickly claimed that the responsibility for the attacks rests with the Gazan Popular Resistance Committees. A short time later, the PRC’s leadership was assassinated from the air.

Several hours later, however, the official version of events began to crumble (see here). Even though the IDF claimed the attackers came from the Gaza Strip – nobody explained how, precisely, that happened, and the IDF Spokesman backed down from this claim for a short while – the IDF did not publish the names of the attackers, which it generally does, and there were no signs of mourning in Gaza.

When I published those points earlier, I found myself under attack by a gaggle of Hasbara useful idiots, who claimed that Hamas could have suppressed mourning so as to distance itself from the attack – which is an interesting point, given that nobody actually blamed Hamas for the attack.

So, 34 days later, why were there no mourning huts in Gaza? Because the attackers weren’t Gazans. Quietly and without drawing attention, Yediot Ahronot published yesterday (Wednesday) a report on pg. 13, which says that the IDF’s internal investigation reached the conclusion that all of the attackers were Egyptians or residents of Sinai – and we know the three attackers killed by the Egyptians were Egyptians.

The investigation also claims that the attackers were trained by the PRC, but this looks like an excuse to whitewash the acts of the IDF in retrospect. We have facts: the bodies of the attackers are those Egyptian nationals. And then we have conjecture: that they were trained by the PRC. We have no evidence to support this conjecture, and must treat it as such – and a suspect one. I mean, the IDF has been spouting disinformation about this attack for a month now. Why should we believe what it says without proof? Also, we should remember that a few days after the attack, the IDF killed an Islamic Jihad operative, and then claimed he was responsible for funding the attack. Again, we have no proof for this. It may be the truth. It may be just an attempt to justify an attack on a Palestinian target of opportunity.

So, to sum, the IDF’s position nowadays looks like this: The attack near Eilat, which nearly sent the IDF into a major offensive in the Gaza Strip, was carried out by Egyptian nationals, trained by the PRC and funded by the Islamic Jihad. Now, this could happen – stranger things have; it is commonly heard in Israel that Australian messianic Jews of a heretical sect have once funded the campaign of a secular Israeli politician, who was once married by a Conservative rabbi and who changed his name so that it would sound more American. It could happen – but it contradicts what the IDF so stridently told us about a month ago. Then, it kept repeating the attackers were Gazans. That, afrer all, was the casus belli.

In short, the IDF and Barak – not necessarily in this order; the army may well have been trying to cover for the lies of its minister – lied to our faces, nearly dragged us into a major offensive, all of which took place during a massive social protest which put the military’s budget at risk, and protecting that budget is the army and its minister’s first priority. When the chairman of the Security and Foreign Relations Knesset Committee tried to summon senior IDF and ISA officers, the security minister and the prime minister blocked them from testifying. In a normal country, parliament would create an investigative committee and/or announce the army is out of control; in Israel, it ends with a hidden headline on pg. 13 on a day full of international news, and the army and its minister can count on the fact no one would remember, or make a fuss.

http://972mag.com/the-idf-quietly-abandons-its-eilat-spin/23652/

So how many of the wrong people did Israel murder this time ?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So how many of the wrong people did Israel murder this time ?

Apparently none, they just misidentified them.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Apparently none, they just misidentified them.

* At least 7 people in Gaza that had nothing to do with the Eilat attack

* 6 Egyptian police officers who had nothing to do with the Eilat attack

Unless you're not counting Arabs, that equals at least 13 people

[Pooky 3,828]

* At least 7 people in Gaza that had nothing to do with the Eilat attack

* 6 Egyptian police officers who had nothing to do with the Eilat attack

Unless you're not counting Arabs, that equals at least 13 people

So Egypt wants the Israeli government to apologise for the deaths in Eilat, deaths which have always been admitted by the Israelis as in error.

Would they also be prepared to condemn their own nationals who carried out the premeditated murder of Israelis?

More to the point, are you prepared to condemn the PRC and the Egyptian nationals who carried out the cold-blooded murder of Israeli nationals?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So Egypt wants the Israeli government to apologise for the deaths in Eilat, deaths which have always been admitted by the Israelis as in error.

Would they also be prepared to condemn their own nationals who carried out the premeditated murder of Israelis?

More to the point, are you prepared to condemn the PRC and the Egyptian nationals who carried out the cold-blooded murder of Israeli nationals?

You've got things a bit muddled.

#1. Egypt wants the Israeli government to apologize for the deaths of the six Egyptian police officers in Egypt, which Israel murdered by mistake while supposedly chasing militants across the border.

#2. I have no way of knowing what the government of Egypt will do.

#3. I don't know which organization carried out the attacks, if any. However, it seems the PRC was not involved as originally claimed. I would like to get all the facts before rushing to conclusions.

[Pooky 3,828]

You've got things a bit muddled.

#1. Egypt wants the Israeli government to apologize for the deaths of the six Egyptian police officers in Egypt, which Israel murdered by mistake while supposedly chasing militants across the border.

#2. I have no way of knowing what the government of Egypt will do.

#3. I don't know which organization carried out the attacks, if any. However, it seems the PRC was not involved as originally claimed. I would like to get all the facts before rushing to conclusions.

I rather think you are the one in a muddle.

You don't murder by mistake. Look up the definition of murder in any dictionary.

What is no surprise is that you refuse to condemn any terrorism against Israelis, only acts you call terrorism by Israelis.

Anyone truly interested in peace in this troubled part of the world would be prepared to condemn killing of innocent civilians by either side in a heartbeat.

Until the killing stops, regardless of what happens in the U.N., there won't be peace in this part of the Middle East.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I rather think you are the one in a muddle.

You don't murder by mistake. Look up the definition of murder in any dictionary.

What is no surprise is that you refuse to condemn any terrorism against Israelis, only acts you call terrorism by Israelis.

Anyone truly interested in peace in this troubled part of the world would be prepared to condemn killing of innocent civilians by either side in a heartbeat.

Until the killing stops, regardless of what happens in the U.N., there won't be peace in this part of the Middle East.

I've always condemned terrorism. Yet I've never trolled threads trying to derail discussions with random demands that pro-Israelis condemn Israel's various of acts of terror.

Palestinians aren't the occupiers; Israel is. As long as Israel is conducting a belligerent military occupation - one that the entire world has condemned as illegal, including the U.S. - Palestinians have the right to resist.

[Pooky 3,828]

I've always condemned terrorism. Yet I've never trolled threads trying to derail discussions with random demands that pro-Israelis condemn Israel's various of acts of terror.

Palestinians aren't the occupiers; Israel is. As long as Israel is conducting a belligerent military occupation - one that the entire world has condemned as illegal, including the U.S. - Palestinians have the right to resist.

If the Palestinian terrorists targeted only the Israeli military, that would be resistance.

But they target Israeli civilians. That is murder.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Pooky

[mawilson 2,133]

What is no surprise is that you refuse to condemn any terrorism against Israelis, only acts you call terrorism by Israelis.

Bingo!

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

If the Palestinian terrorists targeted only the Israeli military, that would be resistance.

But they target Israeli civilians. That is murder.

Do you really want me to post the statistics of Palestinian children who die from being shot in the head by Israeli snipers ?