Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

Dr Allan Boesak speaks to MEM during the Russell Tribunal

Reverend Allan Boesak calls Israeli apartheid “more terrifying” than South Africa ever was .

Dr. Hanan Chehata 
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/3079-reverend-allan-boesak-calls-israeli-apartheid-qmore-terrifyingq-than-south-africa-ever-was

Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:50 .
‘When we built up the sanctions campaign it was not with governments in the West.’

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

The Reverend Allan Aubrey Boesak is a veteran of the South African anti-apartheid struggle. He is the former president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and is a signatory of the South African Christian response to the Kairos Palestine Document. This year he gave expert testimony at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine session in Cape Town, at which he spoke to MEMO’s Hanan Chahata.

Rev. Allan Boesak said of the Israeli policy of apartheid: “It is worse, not in the sense that apartheid was not an absolutely terrifying system in South Africa, but in the ways in which the Israelis have taken the apartheid system and perfected it, so to speak; sharpened it. For instance, we had the Bantustans and we had the Group Areas Act and we had the separate schools and all of that but I don’t think it ever even entered the mind of any apartheid planner to design a town in such a way that there is a physical wall that separates people and that that wall denotes your freedom of movement, your freedom of economic gain, of employment, and at the same time is a tool of intimidation and dehumanisation. We carried passes as the Palestinians have their ID documents but that did not mean that we could not go from one place in the city to another place in the city. The judicial system was absolutely skewed of course, all the judges in their judgements sought to protect white privilege and power and so forth, and we had a series of what they called “hanging judges” in those days, but they did not go far as to openly, blatantly have two separate justice systems as they do for Palestinians [who are tried in Israeli military courts] and Israelis [who are tried in civil, not military courts]. So in many ways the Israeli system is worse.”

Hanan Chahata: You were one of the signatories of the South African Christian response to the Kairos Palestine Document. In this you said that the Palestinian experience of apartheid is “in its practical manifestation even worse than South African apartheid”. Can you explain what you meant by this?

Allan Boesak: It is worse, not in the sense that apartheid was not an absolutely terrifying system in South Africa, but in the ways in which the Israelis have taken the apartheid system and perfected it, so to speak; sharpened it. For instance, we had the Bantustans and we had the Group Areas Act and we had the separate schools and all of that but I don’t think it ever even entered the mind of any apartheid planner to design a town in such a way that there is a physical wall that separates people and that that wall denotes your freedom of movement, your freedom of economic gain, of employment, and at the same time is a tool of intimidation and dehumanisation. We carried passes as the Palestinians have their ID documents but that did not mean that we could not go from one place in the city to another place in the city. The judicial system was absolutely skewed of course, all the judges in their judgements sought to protect white privilege and power and so forth, and we had a series of what they called “hanging judges” in those days, but they did not go far as to openly, blatantly have two separate justice systems as they do for Palestinians [who are tried in Israeli military courts] and Israelis [who are tried in civil, not military courts]. So in many ways the Israeli system is worse.

Another thing that makes it even worse is that when we fought our battles, even if it took us a long time, we could in the end muster and mobilise international solidarity on a scale that enabled us to be more successful in our struggle. The Palestinians cannot do that. The whole international community almost conspires against them. The UN, which played a fairly positive role in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, takes the disastrous position of not wanting to offend its strong members like the United States who protect Israel. So even in the UN, where international law ought to be the framework wherein all these things are judged, where international solidarity is not an assumption but is supposed to be the very foundation upon which the UN builds its views on things and its judgements as to which way it goes, the Palestinians don’t even have that.

Palestinians are mocked in a way that South Africans were not. In a sense, the UN tried in our case to follow up on its resolutions to isolate the apartheid regime. Here, now, they make resolutions against Israel one after the other and I don’t detect even a sense of shame that they know there is not going to be any follow up. Under Reagan the United States was pretty blatant in its so called constructive engagement programme and in its support for the white regime in South Africa, but what the United States is doing now in the week that UNESCO took the decision to support the Palestinian bid for a seat in the United Nations, to withdraw all US financial support; to resort immediately to economic blackmail, that is so scandalous. So in all those ways I think we are trying to say that what is happening in Israel today is a system of apartheid that in its perfection of that system is more terrifying in many ways than apartheid in South Africa ever was.

HC: During an event celebrating black history month earlier this year you likened the US Civil Rights Movement to the South African struggle against apartheid. Would you liken both of those struggles to the Palestinian struggle today?

AB: I have just finished a chapter for a book that I hope will be out next year in which I speak of the similarities between the civil rights struggle, the anti-apartheid struggle, and the Arab Spring and the lessons we can draw from them.

I think it is fascinating in so many different ways. It’s almost as if I personally lived through the difficult choices that people have to make in North Africa and in the Middle East every day. As every day goes by my admiration for them grows. I see what is happening in Syria and in Yemen and that there is still relatively little violence on the part of the protesters. You can still see that their basic fundamental goal is to get rid of the tyranny through non-violent protest and it is amazing to watch. I do believe that there is such a thing as historic moments that never disappear from which people learn. South Africa learned so much from Ghandi in India; Martin Luther King learned from Ghandi; we learned from Martin Luther King and we had our own traditions and I’m sure the young Arab people who saw some of these things happening are drawing on that. 1994 (when the first democratic government of South Africa was formed) and the 1980s are not that far behind us. Many of those people who are participating today were sat in front of their televisions watching when we were in the streets day after day after day braving the dogs and the guns and the tear gas, burying our people, funeral after funeral. When I see the funerals taking place in the Arab world I think of the time Archbishop Tutu and I buried 27 people (actually 42 were killed but the police would not release the other bodies); I think of that when I see bodies being carried out to be buried Friday after Friday in the Arab world.

Our struggle had all sorts of political ideologies but it was never completely secularised. The faith, as Archbishop Tutu said this morning, that there is a God of justice who will help us sustain the struggle is an amazing thing. When I see all those thousands of Muslims go down and bow down before Allah I must say, when I saw it for the first time I looked at my wife and I said, I tell you now, if people sustain that, all those tyrants will be quaking in their boots and they know that they will not be able to hold out against that power.

I believe that, just as a few years ago the civil rights struggle in the United States, and then more especially the anti-apartheid struggle, became the moral standard by which the world was judged in terms of its taking sides in terms of right or wrong and getting on the right side of the human revolution for humanity and for justice and for the restoration of dignity and for the future for children; that particular moment in history where the world is invited to participate in this revolution for the sake of the good and for the sake of the future and for the sake of justice; and where that decision hinges upon evil and wrong on the one side and justice and right on the other side and will mark the world in a way that says this is a litmus test for international solidarity and for international law and justice, that test today comes from the Arab Spring.

HC: The Arab Spring or Palestine?

AB: You have the Arab Spring taking place but at the hub of it all is Palestine. I believe that what is happening now would not have happened if it had not been for the perennial struggle of the Palestinian people. They may not be mentioned every time but I can tell you now that if it was not for them, nothing like the Arab Spring would ever have happened in the Middle East.

Just as we thought, when we watched Martin Luther King or when we went through our own struggle, that the face and direction of history and the world, whether they like it in the West or not and whether or not they come to it with hidden agendas for the sake of greed or whatever, it does not really matter; what is happening in the end is that something fundamental is changing in the Middle East and thereby something fundamental is changing in the history of the world. Those people, I believe, who are going through that revolution now will, for instance, never make the same mistakes that their parents and grandparents made, thinking that the West is always good and that the deals we make with the West are always for the good of our people. There is a new critical element that has come in. Never again will people think the same; what I am hoping is that the Arab revolutions will be so sustainable and so successful and morally so strong that they will force the West to think differently about themselves in terms of the viewpoints and stands they take on events.

HC: Christianity is under threat in the Holy Land. People tend to forget that this is not an issue between Jews and Muslims; there are Christian Palestinians too. There has been a disturbing trend over the years, which has seen Christian Palestinians leaving the Holy Land because of the extraordinary difficulties that Israel has placed on their lives. In what ways has the occupation affected Christians?

AB: The Christian community in Palestine has been decimated in many ways. By doing this the Israelis are doing two things: they are simplifying the presentation of the struggle as if it is only between Jews and Arabs, with the result that Christians outside think that there is nothing and nobody for us to be in solidarity with. Hence, the Christian Zionists, those ultra conservative fundamentalists in the United States who have for so long helped to dictate foreign policy under the Bush and Reagan administrations, they can say “it’s not about us; it’s not about Christians and Christian witness, it’s about those Muslims”; that, I think, is the intention. I’m hoping that those of us who are Christians outside the Middle East will keep that fact alive and will find ways and means to inject that argument into every single political situation so that the discourse that goes forward and gives rise to action does not push aside the reality of Christians in the Middle East, especially in the Holy Land.

The second thing they are doing is that they are dislodging, not just denying, but dislodging the roots of the Christian faith in the Middle East; that’s where it all started. If you dislodge that it’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face – you are cutting yourself off from the most ancient roots of Christianity and that will set the Christian church adrift, and in the end that will not be good for Israel. So I’m glad to see that the World Council of Churches is rising up again. It is not nearly as radical as it should be, it’s not nearly as clear as it should be nor as hard-nosed as it should be on this issue, but at least it is taking up the Palestinian issue and responding to the situation in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere where Christians are under pressure. In doing so they must remember that this is not just a Christian cause; it’s not important just because of the Christians involved, but also because the future of humanity is at stake.

HC: There are an estimated 50 million Christian Zionists worldwide. How would you counsel them with regards to their support for the state of Israel which is based, they would say, on Biblical reasoning?

AB: It’s like with so many things, it’s the way that people read and interpret the Bible and so we must just make sure that we are as clear and as enthusiastic and as open about our understanding of the Bible and as willing to engage our understanding of the Bible as they seem to be. There must be ways; we have just not been imaginative enough. I think one reason is because we have not, until very recently, realised the very dangerous nature of the views that those people hold, not just for Palestinians and for Muslims in general but also for the Christian Church itself. Now that we begin to see how deadly that kind of logic is, how absolutely anti-Christian and anti-human that logic is, we have no excuses left.

HC: Israel is demanding that Palestinians recognise it as an exclusively “Jewish state”. How would you respond to this demand?

AB: They can’t. There is no such thing as a specifically Jewish state. You can’t proclaim a Jewish state over the heads and the bodies and the memories of the people who are the ancient people who live there. That is Palestinian land we are talking about. Most of the Jews who are there come from Europe and elsewhere and have no claim on that land and we mustn’t allow it to happen to the Palestinians what happened to my ancestors who were the original people in this land (South Africa) but now there are hardly enough of them to be counted in the census. That is Palestinian land and that should be the point of departure in every political discussion.

HC: In the past you urged Western countries to impose economic sanctions on the South African apartheid regime. Would you support a similar call for sanctions against the state of Israel?

AB: Absolutely! Pressure, pressure, pressure from every side and in as many ways as possible: trade sanctions, economic sanctions, financial sanctions, banking sanctions, sports sanctions, cultural sanctions; I’m talking from our own experience. In the beginning we had very broad sanctions and only late in the 1980s did we learn to have targeted sanctions. So you must look to see where the Israelis are most vulnerable; where is the strongest link to the outside community? And you must have strong international solidarity; that’s the only way it will work. You have to remember that for years and years and years when we built up the sanctions campaign it was not with governments in the West. They came on board very, very late.

It was the Indian government and in Europe just Sweden and Denmark to begin with and that was it. Later on, by 1985-86, we could get American support. We never could get Margaret Thatcher on board, never Britain, never Germany, but in Germany the people who made a difference were the women who started boycotting South African goods in their supermarkets. That’s how we built it up. Never despise the day of small beginnings. It was down to civil society. But civil society in the international community could only build up because there was such a strong voice from within and that is now the responsibility of the Palestinians, to keep up that voice and to be as strong and as clear as they possibly can. Think up the arguments, think through the logic of it all but don’t forget the passion because this is for your country.

Click here to read the full South African Response to the Kairos Palestine document:


http://www.oikoumene.org/gr/resources/documents/other-ecumenical-bodies/south-african-response-to-kairos-palestine-document.html

Palestinians to re-enact the Civil Rights movements “Freedom Riders”

Dear friends,

In hours, brave Palestinians will risk attack and arrest to board public
buses that are forbidden to Arabs. This could be the beginning of a
game-changing, non-violent Palestinian spring
– direct action to win  freedom and a new state. Avaaz is webcasting the action LIVE — click to   watch, and provide the global solidarity the activists need to win:

 

In the next few hours, history could be made in
Palestine.
A small number of brave Palestinians will risk
attack and arrest to commit a forbidden act — they will board a public bus.

Lacking their own state, Palestinians are forbidden to use buses and roads
reserved for non-Arabs — part of a host of race-based rules that US President
Jimmy Carter has called “apartheid”. 50 years ago, African-Americans
in the US challenged these rules by simply and non-violently refusing to follow
them. In a few hours, Palestinians will take the same approach, and their
actions will be live webcasted by Avaaz teams at the link below.

As diplomats stall in the fight for a Palestinian state, the Palestinian people
are taking the fight into their own hands, one public service at a time. And
they’re doing it with the simple, elegant and unstoppable moral force of
non-violence in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The
Palestinian spring begins right now – click below to watch it LIVE, register
support, and give these brave activists the global solidarity and attention
they urgently need to win:


http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl

Non-violence is the game-changing force in this long-standing conflict.
Boarding buses is a symbolic act, but so was Gandhi’s salt march, and Rosa
Park’s own courageous ride on a segregated bus in the US. Just as non-violent
protest was able to topple dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, so can it finally
free the Palestinian people from 40 years of crippling military oppression by a
foreign power.

There are many dangers. Israel has been arming the extremist settler population,
a tactic which is likely, if not intended, to provoke awful violence that will
draw the news cameras away from the brave acts of non-violence. Even the
Palestinian authorities are pushing back on the action which they fear will
start a democratic protest movement that they cannot control. But these few
brave Palestinians have had enough, and if we stand with them now, we can
help them ignite a flame that will burn its way all the way to a free and
peaceful Palestinian state:


http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl

We have no idea what will happen in the next 24 hours. Maybe the authorities
will crush this brave action. Maybe it will spark into a massive conflagration.
Maybe it will sow the first seed of an unstoppable movement with tremendous
integrity. But we can watch it live, and lend our voices to the effort. And
maybe one day, we can tell our grandchildren that we were there when
Palestinians boarded the buses that would ultimately take them to freedom.

With hope and determination,

Ricken, Emma, Alice, Raluca, Pascal, Diego and the rest of the Avaaz team

Sources:

I Woke Up This Morning with My Mind Set on Freedom


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/i-woke-up-this-morning-wi_b_1087407.html

Freedom Riders: 1961 and the struggle for racial justice


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19foner.html

Palestinian Freedom Rides echo the Civil Rights Movement


http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/news/3888-freedom-rides

‘Freedom Rides’ to Resume in Palestine


http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=17242

Nathan Geffen: Why is the South African Jewish Board of Deputies rejecting a two-state solution?

Why is the SAJBD rejecting a two-state solution?

Nathan Geffen
30 October 2011

 

Nathan Geffen says board shouldn’t be defending narrow interests of current Israeli govt

On 12 May 1948 the Provisional State Council of Israel decided by 6 votes to
4 to declare their state on the expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine,
two days later. It was also decided not to indicate the borders of the new state
in the declaration on independence, so as to leave open the possibility of
expansion beyond the 1947 UN partition plan.

Under Ben Gurion’s leadership, the early state began using a combination of
diplomacy and military force to acquire territory. Even in 1948 Israel had
military supremacy. Although it had a technological disadvantage until an arms
shipment arrived from Czechoslovakia, Israelies outnumbered the opposing forces
at all stages of the war.

Ben Gurion put the world to terms on recognizing Israel’s existence. He also
understood then something that has been true for the following 62 years:
non-specification of borders suits the strong.

The leadership of the Arabs in Palestine rejected the UN partition plan. As a
matter of principle we can understand it; they were allocated one third of the
land while constituting two thirds of the population. But the 1948-49 war left
them with less land and the permanent displacement of 700,000 men, women and
children.

The bid by the Palestinian Authority for United Nations recognition is an
attempt to transcend this history. It has opponents both left and right. Some on
the left advocate a single state, hoping to put aside national and religious
identities in a secular country. Considering that Germany and France – which in
two world wars killed millions of each other’s soldiers – now have an open
border and a common currency, it is possible that one day there will be normal
relations between Israelis and Palestinians, but a one-state solution is
currently inconceivable.

Unlike in South Africa where urbanization made black people the majority in
the cities, in Israel there is effective territorial separation, due in part to
the substitution of Palestinian labour by migrant workers from Asia. This is a
political fact which must be reckoned with by proponents of a one-state
solution. The Israeli military cannot be wished away, nor the root of its
support: a combination of Jewish nationalism across the world and the fear of
genocide.

For those interested in moving towards a just solution in
Israel and Palestine, stopping the settlement enterprise must be the first
objective. And this is the great strength of the current Palestinian move
towards recognition of statehood; although it won’t immediately give them the
reality of independence, it does define their aspirations in crystal clear
terms, drawing the border along the internationally recognized pre-1967 line,
rendering every settlement a violation of sovereignty, exposing the Israeli
occupation for the unilateral annexation that it is, and showing that the goal
of the Palestinian Authority is not to drive the Jews into the sea.

The Israeli right-wing, which is firmly in control of the country, opposes UN
recognition of Palestinian statehood precisely because it brings to a head the
questions they were hoping to spin out into eternity. They argue that the move
is ‘unilateral’ and therefore wrong. But as Yael Dayan, the chair of the Tel
Aviv city council asked recently: “Isn’t the occupation unilateral? Are both
sides occupying?”

What do the Palestinian, Israeli, US, EU and South African governments have
in common? They all claim to support a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Palestinian bid has exposed very clearly
that Israel and its allies are only ready to pay lip-service to the idea. The
truth is that the current Israeli government –and indeed all recent ones– are
not ready for a two-state solution. The occupation is not a source of sufficient
moral discomfort to Israelis. Except for the minority who do combat military
service, the oppression of Palestinians is out of sight and mind for the average
Israeli.

It is against this background that the Palestinian Authority has played its
gambit. It is undoubtedly risky, but what else is left for the Palestinian
leadership to do to try and shake the status quo? Betrayed by successive US
governments, increasingly excluded from the Israeli economy and with its
citizens suffering severe restrictions on movement and political organisation
what other options are left?

The Jewish Board of Deputies and South African Zionist Federation expressed regret that the South
African government has indicated its support for the Palestinian bid, with the
feeble excuse that the Palestinian decision is unilateral. They never oppose
Israel’s unilateral actions. The Zionist Federation’s position is unsurprising.
Its agenda as a front for the settler movement is barely disguised. It is
consistently to the right of even the Israeli ambassadors sent to South Africa.
Former Ambassador Alon Liel recently endorsed the Palestinian bid, stating: “I’d
like to see a state that will vote against Palestinian statehood. History will
judge them, and that includes Israel.”

It is however deeply disappointing, albeit expected, that the Board of
Deputies took the same position.

The Board has an important mission:

“The SAJBD works for the betterment of human relations between Jews and all
other peoples of South Africa based on mutual respect, understanding and
goodwill, and to protect the civil liberties of South African Jews. It is
committed to a South Africa where everyone will enjoy freedom from the evils of
prejudice, intolerance and discrimination.”

There is nothing about
supporting the narrow interests of the current Israeli government.

To a large extent the Board tries hard to fulfil its mission, especially the
Cape Town chapter. But it consistently fails when it takes positions on Israel.
The Board’s job is to represent South African Jews, defend our civil rights –no
matter what our positions on Israel– and to build ties with other communities.
By publicly opposing the Palestinian bid and our government’s position on it,
the Board does a disservice to its mission and to South African Jews.

Opposition to Palestinian statehood also does a disservice to Israelis.
International recognition of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, with its
capital in East Jerusalem, would give Israel recognition of West Jerusalem,
something it has never had before.

Let us hope that sense prevails before it is too late.

Nathan Geffen is visiting researcher at the Centre for Social
Science Research, UCT.

Diocese of Natal resolution on Palestine and Israel

From Rev Janet Trisk:

At its 117th session the synod of the
Anglican diocese of Natal in the Province of Southern Africa considered the
situation in Palestine and Israel. Speakers shared their own experiences of the
conditions under which Palestinians live and compared and contrasted these to
conditions for Black people in South Africa under apartheid. One speaker warned
against equating the modern state of Israel with God’s chosen people. The following
resolution was passed on 7 October 2011:

This Synod

Noting:

  1. The dispossession of  the people of Palestine from their land and the denial
    of their citizenship rights in the land of their birth
  2. The support of a military-industrial complex in Israel and the monopolising of
    natural resources
  3. The call in the Kairos Palestine document for a non-violent solution to the
    occupation

Resolves to:

  1. Commend the Palestine Kairos document for study by all our congregations
  2. Urge all parishes to observe the annual WCC week of Prayer for Palestine, but
    praying every Sunday for the peace of Jerusalem.
  3. Work and pray for a just peace in Israel and Palestine
  4. Develop Bible studies that would emphasise the reign of God rather than violence and
    land dispossession

Settlements in the West Bank: Peace, or piece by piece – Marthie Momberg

Marthie Momberg, an Afrikaans author from Stellenbosch,
is currently participating in an international humanitarian initiative in the
Holy Land on the SA Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Accompanier Programme (www.eappi.org). She writes from the West Bank,
Palestine. This article appeared in the Sunday Independent on 2 October 2011

Settlements in the West Bank: Peace, or piece by piece?

In his recent address to the United Nations, Palestinian
leader, Mahmoud Abbas, referred to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT) as “a systematic confiscation … that is eating up large
tracts of [Palestinian] land, dividing it into separate and isolated islands
and cantons, destroying family life and communities and the livelihoods of tens
of thousands of families.”

My team and I report on human rights abuses for three
months. We live in the ancient village of Yanoun, but also work in surrounding
villages and in the Jordan Valley, all in the Occupied West Bank.

Today my breakfast consists of grapes that we received
from a Palestinian shepherd as we passed him and his flock of sheep earlier
this morning. We do daily walks to monitor the roads of Yanoun. This is a
pleasant task, especially now that it is no longer so sweltering hot. With our
binoculars we search the hills for anything out of the ordinary such as new
(illegal) structures or the presence of (often armed) Israeli settlers. The
sheep, goats, donkeys, horses and the olive, fig, almond and pomegranate trees
stand by as we watch over the farming community. We, in turn, are watched from
another hill by members of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) – who should ensure
peace on both sides, but often collaborate with Israeli settlers.

Providing a protective presence to the Palestinian people
is one of our main priorities.  Local
farmers lived and worked here since the eighteenth century but today there are
only 75 inhabitants left after Yanoun was nearly wiped off the face of the map
in 2002. Israeli settlers invaded the village and forced everybody from their
homes. According to Mayor Rashed Murrar “They came with dogs and guns, every
Saturday night. They beat men in front of their children. One Saturday they
said that they didn’t want to see anyone here next Saturday … the whole village
left that week.”

Some families returned but only after intense
international media focused on their plight and with the assistance of an
Israeli peace group, Ta’ayush.  Since
2003 EAPPI members have provided a protective presence to the villagers.

However, Israeli inhabitants from the nearby Itamar
settlement still harass the town. Six months ago, on the 5th of March, they
polluted the water well (the only source of water for the inhabitants). A month
later, on the 27th of April they invaded the village with dogs. During the
night, on the 2nd of July, settlers together with over 30 armed IDF soldiers
launched a full incursion into the village to search, allegedly, for stolen
sheep (which was never found, the crime never proved, the harassment never
interrogated). Last month, on the 7th of August, when confronted by the EAPPI
team, the armed settlers and soldiers claimed to be carrying out “research” at
the Palestinian water well.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East
Jerusalem since 1967. All settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention. Peace talks came to a standstill a year ago precisely
due to Israel’s continuous expansion of settlements. Between the start of the
peace talks and now, Jewish settlers in the West Bank have doubled – they now
number just over half a million people, living in 121 settlements, at
approximately 100 outposts and they control more than 42 percent of the West
Bank.

The settlers gradually, piece by piece, confiscate land
in the West Bank and cultivate it with water at Israeli State subsidized rates.
All this while Palestinian houses, roads, wells and clinics are demolished and
they themselves are denied building permits and free access to roads, churches,
mosques, hospitals and schools.

Many of the Israeli settlers come from different parts of
the world and have no immediate genetic affiliation with the land.  Yet they claim: “This is the land of our
fathers and grandfathers…This is the land of Israel” – these are slogans on
posters placed by Israelis on the main road between Hebron and Jerusalem, in
the Occupied Palestinians Territories.

Since my arrival in the West Bank two weeks ago, I have
witnessed many forms of humiliation and oppression. In fact, on my third day
here, I attended the funeral of a young Palestinian man who was shot in a
nearby village after Israeli settlers damaged the olive groves for a third time
in three weeks, during prayer-time on Friday.

I write this as I sit outside the community center with
the mayor of the village.  We are waiting
for a delegation from Ramallah to discuss the construction of a road on
Palestinian soil that settlers began work on early this morning. He has already
contacted the Palestinian District Co-ordination Office but they in turn need
to ask the Israeli authorities to intervene.
There was no response from the Israeli authorities. “Maybe the Red Cross
would help,” the mayor said, “maybe.”

We both watch the settlers and their tractors work on
their new road that snakes downhill. We need no binoculars to do so, they are
so close. I do not know what to say to the mayor.  I am thinking of the shepherd, the women from
whom we buy almonds, yoghurt, cheese and eggs, the children who play in front
of our house at night.

Tonight we shall sleep under the bright security
spotlights that light up the houses and gravel roads. I do not sleep well
here.

Marthie Momberg writes in her personal capacity


http://marthiemombergblog.wordpress.com


http://www.eappi.org

 

DISCLAIMER:
Marthie Momberg currently works for the South African Council of
Churches as an Ecumenical Accompanier serving on the World Council of Churches’
Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). The views
contained in this e-mail and in her blog are personal and do not necessarily
reflect those of the South African Council of Churches or the WCC.  If anyone would like to publish the
information contained here or in her blog, or place it on a website, please
first contact dudu.masango@gmail.com
or the EAPPI Communications & Advocacy Officer (eappi-co@jrol.com) for permission.

 

tel.: +(972) 054 7446328
+(972) 059 551 2274

What South African can learn from Germany about restitution

 

Institute for Historical Review

West Germany’s Holocaust payoff to Israel and world Jewry

Mark Weber

The passions and propaganda of wartime normally diminish with the
passage of time. A striking exception is the Holocaust campaign, which seems to
grow more pervasive and intense as the years go by. Certainly the most
lucrative expression of this seemingly endless campaign has been West Germany’s
massive and historically unparalleled reparations payoff to Israel and world
Jewry for the alleged collective sins of the German people during the Hitler
era. Since 1953, West Germany has paid out more than $35 billion in reparations
to the Zionist state and to millions of individual “victims of National
Socialism.”

How did this remarkable program get started? How lucrative has it been?
What does it suggest about the “six million” figure? And what are its
social and political implications?

Bowing to pressure

In September 1945, shortly after the end of the Second World War, Jewish
leader Chaim Weizmann submitted a memorandum on behalf of the Zionist Jewish
Agency to the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and
France “demanding” (in the words of the Encydopaedia Judaica)
“reparations, restitution and indemnification due to the Jewish people
from Germany” The western Allies lost no time in responding favorably to
Weizmann’s demands.See 1. The American government was
particularly eager to have the Germans pay up.See 2. As a result, the German government set
up by the western Allies at Bonn in 1949 never had any real choice but to
acknowledge the alleged collective guilt of the German people during the Hitler
era and pay what was demanded.

Indeed, a major provision of the treaty of May 1952 by which the United
States, Britain and France granted “sovereignty” to the Federal
Republic of (West) Germany obligated the new state to make restitution.See 3.

West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer
laid the emotional and psychological groundwork for the reparations program
when he solemnly declared to the Bundestag on September 27, 1951:

The Federal government and the great majority of the German people are
deeply aware of the immeasurable suffering endured by the Jews of Germany and
by the Jews of the occupied territories during the period of National Socialism
… In our name, unspeakable crimes have been committed and they demand
restitution, both moral and material, for the persons and properties of the
Jews who have been so seriously harmed …

Adenauer went on to promise speedy conclusion of restitution and
indemnity laws and announced that reparations negotiations would begin soon.
Accordingly, delegations representing the Bonn government, the State of Israel
and an ad hoc organization of Jewish groups began talks in the Netherlands in
March 1952.

The representative of the Jewish organizations was the “Conference
on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Inc.” or “Claims
Conference,” a body formed for the sole purpose of demanding maximum
reparations from the German people. The 20 member organizations represented
Jews in the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Argentina, Australia and
South Africa. Jews in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and the Arab countries
were not represented.See 4.

The West German government was under pressure to conclude quickly a
reparations agreement satisfactory to the Jews. In his memoirs, Chancellor
Adenauer wrote:

It was clear to me that, if the negotiations with the Jews failed, the
negotiations at the London Debt Conference [which were going on at the same
time] would also run aground, because Jewish banking circles would exert an
influence upon the course of the London Debt Conference which should not be
under-estimated. On the other hand it was self-evident that a failure of the
London Debt Conference would bring about a failure of the negotiations with the
Jews. If the German economy was to achieve a good credit standing and become
strong again, the London Conference would have to be ended successfully. Only
then would our economy develop in a way that would make the payments to Israel
and the Jewish organizations possible.See 5.

Zionist leader Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress
and chairman of the Claims Conference, warned of a worldwide campaign against
Germany if the Bonn officials did not meet the Zionist demands: “The
non-violent reaction of the whole world, supported by wide circles of non-Jews,
who have deep sympathy with the martyrdom of the Jewish people during the Nazi
period, would be irresistible and completely justified.”See 6. The London Jewish Observer was more
blunt: “The whole material weight of world Jewry will be mobilized for an
economic war against Germany, if Bonn’s offer of reparations remains
unsatisfactory.”See 7.

The talks culminated in the Luxembourg Agreement, which was signed on
September 10, 1952 by West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Israeli Foreign
Minister Moshe Sharett and World Jewish Congress President Nahum Goldmann.

A Legal Novelty

This agreement between the West German government, on the one hand, and
the Israeli state and the Claims Conference, on the other, was historically
unprecedented and had no basis or counterpart in international law. For one
thing, the State of Israel did not exist at the time of the actions for which
restitution was paid. Moreover, the Claims Conference had no legal authority to
negotiate and act on behalf of Jews who were citizens of sovereign countries.
Jews were represented in an internationally recognized treaty with a foreign
state not by the governments of the countries of which they were citizens, but
rather by a supranational and sectarian Jewish organization.

It was as if the Catholic citizens of the United States had allowed
themselves to be represented in a treaty with a foreign government not by the
U. S. government, but rather by some ad hoc supranational Catholic organization
or by the Vatican. The Luxembourg Agreement thus legally implied that Jews
everywhere, regardless of their citizenship, constitute a distinct and separate
national group and that world Jewry was a formal party to the Second World War.See 8.

Nahum Goldmann, a co-signer of the Agreement, was one of the most
important Jewish figures of this century. From 1951 to 1978, he was president
of the World Jewish Congress, and from 1956 to 1958, he was also president of
the World Zionist Organization. In his autobiography, the German-born Goldmann
recalled his role in the negotiations and the remarkable nature of the
agreement:

My negotiations with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and his
associates, which culminated in the Luxembourg Agreement of 1952, make up one
of the most exciting and successful chapters of my political career.

There hardly was a precedent for persuading a state to assume moral
responsibility and make large-scale compensation for crimes committed against
an unorganized ethnic group lacking sovereign status. There was no basis in
international law for the collective Jewish claims …See 9.

In a 1976 interview, Goldmann said that the agreement “constituted
an extraordinary innovation in the matter of international rights” and he
boasted that he had obtained 10 to 14 times more from the Bonn government than
he had originally expected.See 10.

The Payoff for Israel

The agreement meant economic security for the new Zionist state, as
Goldmann explained in his autobiography:

What the Luxembourg Agreement meant to Israel is for the historians of
the young state to determine. That the goods Israel received from Germany were
a decisive economic factor in its development is beyond doubt. I do not know
what economic dangers might have threatened Israel at critical moments if it had
not been for German supplies. Railways and telephones, dock installations and
irrigation plants, whole areas of industry and agriculture, would not be where
they are today without the reparations from Germany. And hundreds of thousands
of Jewish victims of Nazism have received considerable sums under the law of
restitution.See 11.

Goldman said in 1976:

Without the German reparations, the State of Israel would not have the
half of its present infrastructure: every train in Israel is German, the ships
are German, as well as the electricity, a large part of the industry …
without mentioning the individual pensions paid to the survivors … In certain
years, the amount of money received by Israel from Germany exceeds the total
amount of money collected from international Jewry-two or three times as much.See 12.

As a result of the West German reparations program, wrote Jewish
historian Walter Laqueur:

The ships laden with German capital goods began to call at Haifa
regularly and unfailingly, becoming an important — ultimately a decisive –
factor in the building up of the country. Today [1965] the Israeli fleet is almost
entirely “made in Germany,” as are its modern railway equipment, the
big steel foundry near Acre, and many other enterprises. During the 50′s and
early 60′s about one-third of investment goods imported into Israel came from
Germany … In addition to all this, many individual Israelis received
restitution privately.See 13.

It is difficult to exaggerate the impact of the program: the five power
plants built and installed by West Germany between 1953 and 1956 quadrupled
Israel’s electric-power-generating capacity. West Germans laid 280 kilometers
of giant pipelines (2.25 and 2.5 meters in diameter) for the irrigation of the
Negev (which certainly helped to “make the desert bloom”). The
Zionist state acquired 65 German- built ships, including four passenger
vessels.See 14.

Payments to Individuals

West German reparations have been paid out through several different programs,
including the Federal Indemnification (or Compensation) Law (BEG), the Federal
Restitution Law (BReuG), the Israel Agreement, and special agreements with 12
foreign countries (including Austria).See 15. By far the most important of these has
been the BEG indemnification law, which was first enacted in 1953 and revised
in 1956 and 1965. It was based on a compensation law promulgated earlier in the
American zone of occupation.

In the words of a background article about the reparations program that
appeared in a 1985 issue of Focus On, an official publication of the Bonn
government, the BEG laws “compensate those persecuted for political,
racial, religious or ideological reasons-people who suffered physical injury or
loss of freedom, property, income, professional and financial advancement as a
result of that persecution.” It also “guarantees assistance to the
survivors of the deceased victims.”See 16.

The BEG compensation law defined “persecution” and “loss
of freedom” very liberally. It stipulated payments for Jews who had simply
been required to wear the yellow star, even in Croatia, where the measure was ordered
by non-Germans. Payments were also ordered for any Jew who was ever in a
concentration camp, including the one in Shanghai, China, which was never under
German control. The BEG law authorized payments to any Jew who was ever
arrested, no matter what the reason. This meant that even Jews who were taken
into custody for criminal acts were entitled to German “compensation”
for “loss of freedom.”See 17.

The 1965 revision of the BEG specified that Germany was to be held
accountable for measures taken by Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary as early as
April 1941, if these actions had deprived the victims of all their freedom. The
fact that these countries acted against the Jews in 1941 independently of
Germany did not matter.See 18.

Significantly, the many Jewish survivors living in the Soviet Union and
the other Communist countries of eastern Europe were not covered by West
Germany’s BEG compensation program.See 19. And, of course, Jewish “Holocaust
survivors” who died before the West German compensation law (BEG) was
enacted in 1953 or before it really became effective in 1956 also never
received BEG restitution money.

The Canadian Jewish News reported in December 1981 that by the end of
1980, “The number of successful claimants is 4,344,378. Payments have
reached 50.18 billion German marks.”See 20. The Focus On article cited above noted
that between October 1953 and the end of December 1983, the West German
government paid out 56.3 billion marks on a total of 4,390,049 claims from
individuals under the BEG legislation.See 21.

Nevertheless, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution stated in 1985 that
about half of the Jewish “survivors” in the world have never received
reparations money. “An estimated 50 percent” of the Holocaust
“survivors throughout the world are on West German pensions,” the
newspaper reported.See 22. In addition to survivors in Communist
countries who are not entitled to West German compensation, the paper reported
that many Jewish survivors living in the United States have never received
reparations money. The paper found that 79 percent of the Jewish
“Holocaust survivors” living in the Atlanta area had, at one time or
another, asked the Bonn government for restitution. About 66 percent received
something.

About 40 percent of those receiving BEG compensation money live in
Israel, the Focus On article reported, while 20 percent live in West Germany
and 40 percent live in other countries.See 23. It would thus appear that about 80
percent, or 3.5 million, of the 4.39 million claims are from Jews.

Although the number of BEG compensation claims is larger than the number
of individual claimants, it is nevertheless difficult to reconcile these figures
with the legendary “six million” Jewish wartime dead, particularly
since at least half of the world’s Jewish “survivors” never received
German compensation.

Conclusion

The Luxembourg Agreement obligated the West German government to pay
three billion German marks to the State of Israel and 450 million marks to
various Jewish organizations. Accordingly, the West German Finance Minister
announced in 1953 that he expected that the reparations payments would
eventually total four billion marks. Time would prove this a ludicrous
underestimate.See 24.

By 1963, the German people had already paid out 20 billion marks, and by
1984 the total had risen to 70 billion.See 25. In late 1987 the West German
parliament approved an additional 300 million marks in “restitution to the
victims of National Socialist crimes.” The Bonn government announced at
that time the 80 billion marks had already been paid out and estimated that by
the year 2020 the payoff would total 100 billion marks which, at recent
exchange rates, would be the equivalent of $50 billion.See 26.

Although the West German reparations program is accepted and often
praised in the democratic West, it is also, at least implicitly, strikingly
undemocratic in two fundamental respects:

First, it regards Jews not as equal and fully integrated citizens of
whatever country they live in, but rather primarily as members of an alien and
cosmopolitan national group.

Second, it is based on the premise that the German nation, including
even the Germans who grew up since 1945, is collectively guilty of terrible
crimes, contrary to the democratic notion of individual responsibility for
crime.

West Germany’s lucrative and historically unparalleled payoff to Israel
and world Jewry is a legacy and permanent reminder of Germany’s catastrophic
defeat in 1945 and subsequent domination by foreign powers.

Notes

  1. “Reparations,      German,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 14, pp. 72-73.
  2. D. v. Westernhagen, “Wiedergutgemacht?,” Die Zeit, No. 41, Oct. 5,
    1984, p. 33.
  3. “Restitution in Germany,” Focus On, May 1985, p. 2.
  4. K. Lewan, Journal of Palestine Studies, Summer 1975, pp. 48-49.
  5. Konrad Adenauer, Erinnerungen 1953-55 (Stuttgart 1966), pp. 140-142. Quoted in:
    K. Lewan, Joumal of Palestine Studies, Summer 1975, pp. 53-54.
  6. Quoted in. K. Lewan, Joumal of Palestine Studies, Summer 1975, p.54.
  7. J. Kreysler and K. Jungfer, Deutsche Israel-Politik (Munich 1965); p. 33.
    Quoted in: K. Lewan, Joumal of Palestine Studies, Summer 1975, p. 54.
  8. L. Sebba, The Annals of the American Academy of Polihcal and Social Science,
    Vol. 450, July 1980, p. 206.
  9. N.  Goldmann, The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann, p. 249.
  10. LeNouvel  Observateur, Oct. 25, 1976, p. 120. See also interview with Robert
    Faurisson in The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1981 (Vol. 2, No.
    4), pp. 350, 373.
  11. N. Goldmann, Autobiography, p. 276.
  12. Le Nouvel Observateur, 25 Oct. 25, 1976, p. 122.
  13. W. Laqueur, Commentary, May 1965, p. 29.
  14. Nicholas  Balabkins, West German Reparations to Israel. Cited in K. Lewan, Journal
    of Palestine Studies, Summer 1975, p. 42.
  15. “Restitution  in Germany,” Focus On, May 1985.
  16. “Restitution  in Germany,” Focus On, May 1985, p. 3.
  17. R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Vol. 3, p. 1166.
  18. R. Hilberg, Destruction, Vol. 3, p. 1173.
  19. R. Hilberg, Destruction, p. 1170. The New York Times reported in 1983 that
    the clients of the New York office of the Conference on Material Claims
    Against Germany “are primarily newly arrived Russian Jewish] victims
    of the Nazi era” (D. Margolick “Soviet Emigre Lawyer …,”
    The New York Times, Thursday, March 10, 1983, p. B2.)
  20. Canadian
    Jewish News, 11 Dec. 1981, p. 4.
  21. “Restitution in Germany,” Focus On, May 1985, p. 3.
  22. The  Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 31, 1985,14A,15A,17A.
  23. “Restitution      in Germany,” Focus On, May 1985, p. 3.
  24. D.  v. Westernhagen, Die Zeit, Oct. 5, 1984, p. 36.; “Restitution in
    Germany,” Focus On, May 1985.
  25. D. v. Westernhagen, Die Zeit, Oct. 5, 1984, p. 36.
  26. “Bundestag  Approves Additional DM 300 Million for Victims of Nazis,” The Week in
    Gerrnany (New York German Information Center), December 11, 1987. The
    dollar value of the German mark has fluctuated over the years. A recent
    exchange rate was 50 cents per mark.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1988 (Vol. 8, No. 2), pages
243-250.

Israel to attack Iran before September?

Senior Israeli, US Intelligence Figures Warn of Israeli Attack Against Iran

Thursday 28 July 2011
by: Richard Silverstein, Truthout         | News Analysis

 

In 2010, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a meeting of the seven senior ministers in his government responsible for major policy decisions of war and peace. He and his Defense Minister Ehud Barak  sought approval for an Israeli attack on Iran.

What they didn’t bargain for was the adamant opposition of almost all the senior military and intelligence chiefs including Meir Dagan (Mossad), Yuval Diskin (Shabak), Gabi Ashkenazi (Israel Defense Forces). Alternate versions of the story also include President Shimon Peres and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence chief Amos Yadlin among the opponents. Dagan in particular, who was invited to the meeting to brief the ministers, waged war on the plan.

Maariv says (Hebrew only) that Dagan came to believe that the two leaders were intent on getting Israel into a “dangerous military adventure in Iran.” Now that those who opposed the attack have departed the scene, Israel’s former top spy worries that “there is no one to stop them.”

Because Dagan has a reputation as a man of steel willing to take on any mission no matter how lethal on behalf of the nation, the ministers were likely taken aback by his opposition. Enough bolted from Bibi’s camp to torpedo the plan and it has not been revived since then.

Until now. In the past few months, Dagan, who was forced into retirement by the prime minister, at least in part because of his subversion of the plan to attack Iran, has become downright voluble (he usually maintains a studious silence in public and never makes speeches or gives interviews). He has practically been on a jihad against the idea of an Israel assault on Iran. The result has shocked those who follow the Israeli intelligence and policy debate concerning Iran.

The former Mossad director warns that all the military-intelligence chiefs who massed to stifle the war initiative in 2010 are gone. New figures have replaced them. Individuals whose views on the subject aren’t well known and perhaps not even formed. Further, these new leaders have much more to prove both to their boss, the prime minister, and their respective constituencies. So, Dagan worries, they might embrace an Iran adventure when more seasoned operatives like their predecessors might’ve acted more cautiously in the face of the daunting repercussions of a possible Israel attack.

In one of his rare public utterances, Dagan called Bibi’s plan one of the lamest ideas he’s heard in ages:

“It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”

Dagan said that the problem [in attacking Iran] doesn’t involve his doubting the abilities of the Israeli Air Force, but rather whether it could perform the job to its completion and attain all its objectives. When asked what would happen after such an attack, Dagan continued: “There will be war with Iran. This is one of the things we know how to start, but not how to end.” He noted that Iran could be expected to fire its missiles into Israel for many months afterwards. It could be expected to engage Hezbollah with its tens of thousands of Grad rockets and hundreds of long distance SCUDs. Iran can also engage Hamas on its behalf and Syria might join the war.

These ideas are nothing new inside Israel. There have been intelligence and military analysts saying precisely this for some time. But never before has the voice been that of someone as senior, someone tested in the crucible of battle as Dagan has been.

The response of the prime minister and his supporters was swift and sharp. They accused the former spy chief of sour grapes, having political motives, angling for the prime minister’s job etc. But the damage has been done. Dagan’s public opposition has undoubtedly emboldened those remaining within the intelligence apparatus to raise their voices as well against such a foolhardy plan.

Months ago, when it first was exposed, I denounced Israel’s Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear plants in Bushehr and Natanz, a project likely organized by the cyber warfare personnel of the Mossad and the IDF’s Unit 8200. But the appeal of this form of nonviolent sabotage of Iran’s nuclear capability is clear. For Dagan, it represented a way to divert the war camp from its plans. Doubtless, he argued to the senior ministers when they deliberated war that he should be given a chance to see how much damage he could do to Iran without dropping a single bomb. The fact that Stuxnet had a serious, but short-term impact in delaying the progress of Iran’s uranium enrichment program can only be seen as a success by the anti-war camp.

Recently, the Knesset intelligence committee invited the new chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to address the question of Israel’s options concerning Iran. Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused Gantz permission to testify even though the hearing would’ve been secret. I have speculated that one of the reasons for Barak’s refusal may’ve been either foreknowledge or concern that Gantz might not give a robust endorsement of the military option to the Knesset members.

At any rate, the committee compelled Gantz to testify and overcame the resistance of Barak. But the Israeli media has not revealed the substance of what the general said.

Another argument raised by the Israeli pro-war camp behind the prime minister is that the ex-Mossad director destroyed whatever deterrent Israel had over Iran by opposing such a war. As a loyal servant of the state, he would have weighed this possibility carefully. No one could dismiss lightly such criticism, nor would Dagan. There can only be one reason he would take such a drastic step by criticizing Bibi so intensively (in three separate statements) and publicly: he really believes the prime minister intended and still intends to go to war against Iran. And he believes such a war would be an utter disaster should it happen.

The split we’re seeing here rarely happens in Israeli politics. Usually, at least superficially, the military, intelligence and political echelons circle the wagons when it comes to important life or death issues. There is rarely anyone with the guts or courage to stand against the prevailing consensus.

So, what we’re seeing with Dagan’s cri de coeur may be historic and certainly is dramatic. The question is – can Dagan prevail? Can he derail a government plan to attack Iran? If he can’t, he is setting himself up as the sole sane one who resisted temptation and tried to speak truth to power. This should stand him in good stead politically if there is anything left of Israel to lead should the Bibi-Barak coalition take Israel into its next military adventure.

Dagan’s principled opposition to war against Iran mirrors the role played by Robert Gates, the recently departed US defense secretary. He conceded in a farewell New York Times interview that he’d been a key opponent of a plan for war against Iran concocted by Dick Cheney. In the end, President Bush sided with Gates and against Cheney, which likely explains the decided coolness between the two during the last year or so of the Bush presidency.

But with specter of a possible willing president looming, will new Defense Secretary Panetta and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs abandon the pragmatism of predecessors and support an Iran attack?

UPI intelligence correspondent Richard Sale has consulted extensively with former senior intelligence sources on this subject. Those individuals are telling him that Israel is planning to attack Iran before the September UN meeting at which Palestinian statehood will be discussed and possibly approved. He wrote to me some weeks ago:

… Some US intelligence officials think that such a surprise [attack] on Iran could possibly take place in … September when [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Mullen retires. It would [be] political war with its object to divert attention from Palestine.

… Senior US intelligence officials are saying that just recently a big US military force has been conducting large contingency planning drills in preparation for an intervention if Israel attacks Iran. Planning for a US intervention is very far advanced.

… But perhaps the chief thing that counts here is that senior members of the US intelligence are resisting such notions with all the force that they can.

More recently, Sale wrote:

… The news is dismaying. Israel is planning a surgical strike against Iran. I’ve been talking to former senior agency officials and officials in military intelligence. Not only is [it] “very far along” in planning for a regional war, the Obama administration has signed off on it.

It will happen soon, before September … This is no drill.

If this is right, the timing of the attack couldn’t be more propitious for Israel, as it will likely either derail, or at the least delay, the statehood vote. It would also further reinforce the conviction of many that the Netanyahu government is using the issue of Iran as a pressure valve to deflect world attention from something that is a much higher priority for the current Israeli government: maintaining the occupation.

To be fair, I find the statement that the US is “planning for a regional war,” and that Obama has “signed off on it” to be alarmist. Even if the US has signed off on an Israeli attack and possible US support for it, I doubt we’re wishing or willing to instigate a regional war.

I spoke recently with a retired defense analyst who is one of my heroes of the Vietnam era. He told me that while he believed the US president would not approve in advance an Israeli assault on Iran, Obama would not stand in the way of one, as Eisenhower did in 1956 when he found out about the Suez attack after hostilities began. Rather than going to the mat to oppose Israel, once he discovered the attack was too far along to stop it, Obama would, the analyst believes, fall into line and participate in whatever supporting role he felt was appropriate.

Given the resounding “success” of and approval generated by the Bin Laden assassination, I, too, think it likely Obama would support an Iran attack. A September attack could complicate the November mid-term elections, but if it was deemed successful (i.e. caused serious damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities) it would further inoculate the Democrats and ensure success at the polls.

The retired defense analyst did, however, add that he found it unlikely that, in this day and age, Israel would be able to get far enough along operationally for such an attack without the US finding out about it enough in advance to kill it, or at least severely crimp Israel’s style.

Further confirmation of the thesis advanced by Richard Sale, the intelligence correspondent, comes from no less likely a source than Jeffrey Goldberg, who avidly reported a year ago during an interview with Netanyahu that the Israel premier likely planned to attack Iran. In writing this month of the reasons behind Meir Dagan’s “going native” on Bibi & Barak, Goldberg describes the thinking of Israeli sources who explained Dagan’s motivation:

[They] suggested that Netanyahu wants to change the subject from his difficulties with the Palestinians. It’s no secret that the prime minister has been outfoxed by the Palestinian leadership lately and that Israel is desperately trying to stop a Palestinian independence initiative at the United Nations. Netanyahu is capable of great cynicism and he has made clear that the peace process doesn’t interest him very much.

While a former senior IDF commander and political leader who has served as a past source for my work refused to confirm this specific story (in order not to expose Israeli operational plans), he did not rule it out. Further, he did confirm that there is a specific Israeli military contingency for such an attack. In fact, Maariv’s generally right-wing Ben Caspit, who’s becoming uncharacteristically dovish regarding the Iran attack scenario, notes it prominently (Hebrew only) in this article:

When Bibi Netanyahu became prime minister he received a briefing on the [Iran] military option being planned. The meeting was prolonged. Then another was planned. And another. Till finally Bibi spent a full 20 hours considering the matter. And according to an aide, “his eyes sparkled” the whole time.

We know Ehud Olmert asked George Bush for a green light to attack Iran and that while Cheney pushed for it, Bush ultimately declined. If Olmert was willing to go to war, why would we doubt that Bibi would, too? Bibi, who casts the ayatollahs practically as Satan’s emissaries on earth. We also know that Bibi is obsessed with Palestinian and world efforts to “delegitimize” Israel. And that the September UN vote is one of the top threats on this list. So, why would anyone think he’d be too dainty to use Iran to foil Palestinian statehood? Especially if he was reasonably certain it would redound to his credit (as delusional as such an assumption might be to more pragmatic souls).

Returning to Sale’s prediction, where he noted an attack could come after the retirement of Admiral Mullen – the latter has made some statements indicating he’s less than enthusiastic about the prospect of the US supporting an attack on Iran. Now, in their (Gates’ and Mullen’s) stead we will have Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey. One would presume that these newcomers would be much less willing to go out on a limb and be iconoclasts than their predecessors, and more likely to support an Iran attack if the president did. It’s almost a mirror image of the situation in Israel, and grounds for fear of what may lie ahead come September.

When considering what the motives of these former US intelligence officers may be, they read the same reports about Meir Dagan’s worries as you and I. And as Seymour Hersh has noted in his fine reporting on the views of the US military echelon on Iran, many within the system see war against Iran as a terrible idea. So, some of their retired brethren may be acting as their stalking horses, sounding their own alarm to the US public, warning, as Dagan has in Israel, of the severe blowback from a military adventure against Iran.

Is it possible there will be no military operation against Iran? Certainly. But I believe that both Dagan and Sale’s sources are exercising an abundance of caution in putting out the word. They don’t want to take the chance of trusting in pragmatism only to find out to their dismay that the pragmatists lost and the fantasists took us to war.

From
http://www.truth-out.org/senior-israeli-us-intelligence-figures-warn-israeli-attack-against-iran/1311796492

False prophets for Israel…

Beck, Hagee: False Prophets For Israel

 By Rev. Ted Pike
25 July 11

The Guardian reports that during a dinner with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2002 Rupert Murdoch said “he didn’t see what the Palestinian’s problem was.” Yet his son James (now head of Murdoch’s News Corp.) replied it was because “they were kicked out of their f—ing homes and had nowhere to f—ing live.”

James Murdoch’s speech reveals a spiritually darkened soul. Yet his mind was capable of clearly understanding the thorn that has made the Mideast bleed: the 1948 expulsion by Israel of 800,000 Palestinians into concentration camps.

Last week 5,000 evangelicals gathered in Washington D.C. at the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference to agree with televised Prime Minister Netanyahu who said, “When you support Israel, you don’t have to choose between your interests and your values; you get both.” He encouraged the attendees to think of Israel as “indistinguishable” from America. Also, Haaretz says:

“News commentator Glenn Beck worked the audience into a frenzy, decrying the historical persecution of Jews, insisting that Israel cannot cede control over territories it controls, and calling upon the conference attendees to declare that they, too, are Jewish… Beck repeated a refrain that Netanyahu had introduced earlier, appealing to audience members to self-identify as Israelis and Jews themselves. He exhorted, “When we see Israelis not as part of us, but as us, we can move to the next level as human beings,” adding, “Let us declare ‘I am a Jew,’ they cannot kill all of us.”

What these two demagogues are really recommending is that millions of evangelicals, restricted both genetically and theologically from ever becoming fully Jewish, give themselves mind, soul and body to total identification with and support and unconditional approval of Israel.

Prior to the CUFI conference, Beck said, “[Christian Israel supporters] see tragedy coming down the pike unless we take a stand…Many of us were asleep for a long time…We are waking up to what could be on the horizon: . . .the vaporization of Israel and the end of the Western way of life as we know it,”…Beck said the way to prevent such a tragedy was to stand together, be righteous and decent and protect one another.”  (These may be values Israel attempts to implement to fellow Jews but emphatically do not apply to Palestinians.)

Beck also said that it’s time to “get the Christian community in America to wake up and start standing up [for Israel].” Again, there is a problem: Israel stands by its sordid record of human rights abuses unapologetically, especially against the people of Gaza today. How can evangelicals support a nation perpetuating injustice? It can’t be done by asserting that it has been God’s will to imprison millions of Palestinian refugees for more than half a century under inhumane conditions of human rights deprivation, boycott and outright murder.

Instead, Israel-first evangelicals, following Beck and Hagee, opt to express their support for the pariah state through emotional extravaganzas and simplistic, pseudo-Biblical rhetoric that flatters Israel. Several attendees at the CUFI conference are quoted as affirming the following, which they believe are solid biblical grounds for unquestioning support of Israel.

  • God promises to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse (criticize) Israel.
  • God promises to the Jews rights to own and occupy Israel unconditionally forever.
  • Israel does no wrong worthy of criticism. Even if a few Israelis did bad things, no sin of any magnitude can change their status as God’s chosen, “the apple of His eye.”

Such pablum is repeated by Hagee, Beck and their pro-Zionist followers as if it were biblical law. Hagee: “The truth is not what you think it is – it’s what the Bible says.” In reality, such evangelical, Zionist Bible-thumping is only righteous-sounding, Zionist propaganda. Unable to counter criticism of Israel rationally, Israelophiles have just one recourse: to go on the flattery offensive, further corrupting Israel. This is what Beck plans for late August when evangelicals worldwide will participate via satellite in his “Restoring Courage” conference in Jerusalem. “He said the event would be attended by 30 American political figures, 70 international politicians and citizen delegations from 100 countries around the world. . .” Already scheduled are 700 evangelical viewing parties of the gala event.

This will be a gathering of false prophets and their devotees, much like the 850 false prophets in ancient Israel who gathered on Mount Carmel against Elijah (I Kings 18:19). Those desired to establish their defiant premise that the nation could reject Jehovah (Jesus) and worship Baal and yet dwell in the land under divine blessing. Little has changed today as Beck, Hagee, and Israel persist in their claim that nearly six million Israelis can dwell in Palestine in rejection of Christ.

Yet the Jehovah-rejecting northern tribes found out differently. In 722 B.C., God enforced His terms of “no obedience, no occupation.” The entire northern kingdom went into captivity under the Assyrians and eventually was blown into oblivion across the arid Mideast sands.  Scripture says a similar fate will befall disobedient Israel today when a new “Assyrian,” the Anti-Christ, expels false Israel (Is. 10:5). God will rain judgment on the Great Harlot, Babylon, and her false prophets, who, like Beck and Hagee, prophesy peace to a nation which should be scouring its conscience with self-doubt and remorse, leading to repentance. “There is no peace, says the Lord unto the wicked.” (Is. 48:22) (See, “Babylon the Great’ is Israel“)

Is constructive criticism of Israel really cursing God’s chosen people? Is it really anti-Semitism?  Scripture says, “The wounds of a friend are faithful.” If Beck and Hagee were really the friends of Israel, they would be hosting an international conference not to flatter Israel but to encourage the Jewish state to end the free speech restrictions and persecutions of Christians and Palestinians which cause Israel to be increasingly despised by the world.

Instead, millions of evangelicals this summer will further corrupt Israel by flattery, only strengthening her and PR surrogate ADL/B’nai B’rith to create hate laws. Such laws increasingly plague the very Christians who believe Israel can do no wrong.

Since I began to publicly speak out concerning the Zionist threat in 1984, I have yet to receive an intelligent and systematic rebuttal from any evangelical. Instead, the truth I present is usually responded to by very short bursts of defamation of me as “anti-Semitic.” Any system of thought that cannot rationally defend itself but must habitually respond with emotion or defamation is condemned to a relatively brief life in the history of ideas. That is, unless it is artificially kept alive by massive media or cultural empowerment. Such, unfortunately, is the advantage of Israel and its evangelical sycophants, whose fanaticism and vast numbers continue to help outrace oblivion.

Unprepared by reason or true Scriptural authority to respond to massive worldwide criticism of Israel, evangelicals have floundered on the defensive in the last several years. Yet, Beck and Hagee, working intensely to revive pro-Israel ardor in the days ahead, could help create a tidal wave of unprecedented pro-Israel zeal, taking many evangelicals to a new level of spiritual adultery with the Great Harlot.

From:
http://losingfreedom.org/2011/07/25/beck-hagee-false-prophets-for-israel/

Bertrand Russell’s last message, 31 January 1970

Bertrand Russell’s Last Message

By Bertrand Russell

This statement on the Middle East was dated 31st January, 1970, and
was read on 3rd February, the day after Bertrand Russell’s death, to an
International Conference of Parliamentarians meeting in Cairo.

The latest phase of the undeclared war in the Middle East is based upon a
profound miscalculation. The bombing raids deep into Egyptian territory will not
persuade the civilian population to surrender, but will stiffen their resolve to
resist. This is the lesson of all aerial bombardment.

The Vietnamese who have endured years of American heavy bombing have
responded not by capitulation but by shooting down more enemy aircraft. In 1940
my own fellow countrymen resisted Hitler’s bombing raids with unprecedented
unity and determination. For this reason, the present Israeli attacks will fail
in their essential purpose, but at the same time they must be condemned
vigorously throughout the world.

The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and
instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every
stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to “reason” and has suggested
“negotiations”. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it
wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by
violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation
from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression. The
aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has
the right to annexe foreign territory, but because every expansion is an
experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate.

The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were
described recently by the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as “the moral
millstone around the neck of world Jewry.” Many of the refugees are now well
into the third decade of their precarious existence in temporary settlements.
The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a
foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was
that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently
homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer
is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is
abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which
they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing
conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse
from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept
a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of
the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine
settlement in the Middle East.

We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the
suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this
suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today
cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of
the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number. of
refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to
military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging
from colonial status, to continued impoverishment as military demands take
precedence over national development.

All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that
any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires
that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all
the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world campaign is needed to help
bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East.

From:
http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5576-RussellMidEast.htm

Russell Tribunal press conference in Cape Town 19/7/2011

Please see the following video on youtube: 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers