‘Son of Hamas’ warns U.S. fatally falling for lies

‘Peaceful’ Muslims following Quran’s dictate to establish ‘global Islamic state’

CAIR, casting itself as a human rights organization, has often been called on by government and media to represent Muslims in the U.S. But it’s origin as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is now widely documented, including in the WND Books best-selling expose “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

CAIR and some of its leaders were confirmed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted of helping fund Hamas. An FBI letter to lawmakers in April 2009 explained the bureau suspended all formal contacts with CAIR because of evidence the group was founded as a front in the U.S. for Hamas. Among numerous government relationships, CAIR leaders had regular meetings with top FBI brass on security issues and helped lead FBI Muslim “sensitivity training” sessions.

At the Holy Land Foundation trial, the FBI presented a transcript from a wiretap of a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia in which Hamas supporters sought to establish Muslim organizations in the U.S. “whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous.” CAIR was soon founded by two Palestinian participants in the Philadelphia meeting, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad.

The Fox News Channel’s Martha MacCallum with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad

Wiretaps revealed Ahmad argued for using Muslims as an “entry point” to “pressure Congress and the decision makers in America” to change U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. One FBI official quoted in “Muslim Mafia” says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida only in their methods.

“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics,” the official explained.

CAIR, meanwhile – which has more than a dozen former and current leaders with known associations with violent jihad – is trying to keep alive a lawsuit against WND and two investigators behind “Muslim Mafia.”

While CAIR repeatedly has denied it receives foreign support, the covert operation that produced “Muslim Mafia” obtained video footage that captured CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper boasting of his ability to bring in a half million dollars of “overseas money,” including from Saudi Arabia.

Money continues to flow in the other direction, as well, Yousef said.

He noted the FBI documented that the Holy Land Foundation sent $12.4 million from the U.S. to Hamas committees. But based on his 10 years of experience as a spy for the Israeli internal security service Shin Bet, he believes many times that amount has been smuggled to Hamas in cash.

As an example, Yousef cited the case of a Palestinian terror operative he met in prison who was arrested transporting $100,000 after Shin Bet provided information to law enforcement authorities.

“I guarantee you that there still people who collect money in mosques that go directly to Hamas in cash,” Yousef said. “And this is a problem that the government doesn’t have control over. Obama doesn’t have control over this money.”

‘Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood’

Hamas itself was formed in 1987 as part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to advance the movement by spinning off new organizations, Yousef said.

“If they have a confrontation with Israel as the Muslim Brotherhood, they are going to pay a very high price,” he explained. “So they choose people like my father, from the Muslim Brotherhood originally, and they ask them to establish an independent movement that shares the same exact doctrine.”

As WND reported, Yousef worked alongside his father, Sheik Hassan Yousef, in the West Bank city of al-Ghaniya near Ramallah while secretly embracing Christian faith and serving as a Shin Bet spy. Since publicly declaring his faith in August 2008, he has been condemned by an al-Qaida-affiliated group and disowned by his family.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in the 1920s in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Turkish empire, considers itself an instrument of the charge Muslims have been given since Islam’s founding 1,400 years ago – to make the Quran and Allah’s authority supreme over the entire world.

Along with CAIR, prominent U.S. organizations launched by Muslim Brotherhood leaders include the Muslim Students Association, North American Islamic Trust, the Islamic Society of North America, the American Muslim Council, the Muslim American Society and the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Yousef said, “we have to ask ourselves all the time, what is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood? Ask them, ‘What do you want?’”

He said the Muslim Brotherhood “will keep the hope and the ultimate goal very clear in the eyes of every Muslim who belongs to the organization that one day [we will] establish an Islamic state and establish Shariah law.”

In unusually candid moments, CAIR leaders have expressed that aim.

CAIR founder Ahmad was reported telling a Muslim group in the San Francisco Bay area that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant and that the Quran should become the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth. CAIR spokesman Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune he wants to see the U.S. become a Muslim country “through education.”

The West, Yousef said, has fallen for the “lie” that there are two types of Islam, radical and moderate. While there may be individual Muslims who are radical or moderate, Islam itself is not moderate, he contends.

“Let’s learn what Islam says about itself,” Yousef said. “Forget about what the Muslim Brotherhood, what al-Qaida, what Hezbollah – what even Americans or Westerners say about Islam. Let’s study and see what Islam says about itself, then we will understand why we have this problem.”

‘Buying the lie’

American foreign policy, especially under President Obama, he said, has “bought the lie of Muslim groups who are trying to make Islam look good in the eyes of Westerners.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Because of that approach, he said, Muslim leaders such as Feisal Abdul Rauf have developed “the courage to come forward with a very aggressive symbol” of Islamic authority, the proposed Islamic center and mosque near the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

“If it was any other American president, we wouldn’t have this aggressive step,” Yousef contended.

He noted the State Department has designated Rauf an ambassador to the Muslim world despite the imam’s unwillingness to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group.

“Of course, he cannot condemn Hamas, because he knows that Hamas is an organization that is doing the will of Allah,” Yousef said. “How can he condemn an organization that serves the same god that he worships every day five times?”

Yousef pointed out Rauf  has claimed Obama based his highly publicized Cairo speech to the Muslim world last year on a chapter from the Arabic version of Rauf’s book, “A Call to Prayer From the World Trade Center: Islamic Dawah in the Heart of America Post-9/11.” Obama asserted in the speech that violent extremists have exploited tensions between Muslims and the West, insisting Islam was not part of the problem but part of promoting peace.

‘This is the red line’

Mosab Hassan Yousef

Defenders of the proposed Ground Zero mosque cite American Muslims’ First Amendment freedoms to practice their religion.

But Yousef makes a distinction between Islam and other religions, arguing Islam is a subversive system that threatens America’s very existence.

“Even if it’s a religion, and 1.5 billion people around the world believe in it, this doesn’t mean that they are right; and this doesn’t mean that we compromise with them,” he said. “We tell them, ‘You’re accepted, but guess what? This is the red line: We don’t compromise with your god. We don’t compromise with your belief system.’”

Yousef reasoned that he certainly would not be allowed to create a religion in which he demanded that his followers kill everyone who doesn’t embrace his beliefs.

“Will I be able to register this religion here and build my symbols for this religion in this country?” he asked. “I will go to jail for that – and all my followers as well.”

‘A matter of life and death’

No one in the Middle East has the courage or the power to confront Islam, he said, but transformation can start in the most powerful country in the world.

“Instead of giving Islam credit, this is the country where we can start to fight – not against Muslims, against the bad teachings of Islam.”

Americans can begin, he said, by “understanding the real nature of Islam.”

“I am telling you, this is not a matter of politics,” he said. “It’s a matter of life and death. It’s a matter of hundreds of millions who have been killed because of this deadly ideology of Islam that has been here 1,400 years.”

Mosab Hassan Yousef in 2008 interview with Al-Hayat TV (Middle East Media Research Institute)

“This is the time” to speak out, he said, “especially here in America. This is the time to stand firm and strong against this crazy, big system.”

Yousef said that while some may want to “scare people about Islam” for some kind of financial or personal profit, he is speaking out because of his concern for America and as “a person who loves my people.”

“I cannot wait for them to be liberated,” he said of his fellow Palestinians and Muslims worldwide. “And when I see the example of liberty and freedom in this country, I want this to go to my people.”

If America leads the way in confronting Islam, change can come, he said.

“But if the country of liberty and freedom welcomes a radical and violent belief that wants to destroy everything, we won’t be able to defeat them,” he said.

“This is why we need to work all together. This is not for America only. This is for the world. This is for the future of humanity.”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

To the above, please add the news in the press that the opposition in Egypt is uniting with Mohammad El Baradei making now common front with The Muslim Brotherhood. Then see the arming by France and Russia of the weak Lebanese army and the Syrian army with the high chance that some of the arms will end up with the Syrian directly sponsored pro-Brotherhood groups. What is by now forgotten is that once, under President Nasser of Egypt – Syria, Egypt, and Iraq (one star, two stars, three stars on their flags) were supposed to unite and form the kernel of the new Arab Islamic Nation. In this context what do you think of the arming of Saudi Arabia by the US? How will fault line develop? Is this doable?

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Israel, U.S. Seek to Block French Anti-Tank Missile Sale to Lebanon (Jerusalem Post)
Israel and the U.S. are attempting to prevent a French-Lebanese arms deal, the Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat reported Friday.
French Defense Minister Herve Moran offered to sell Lebanon 100 HOT anti-tank missiles for the Gazelle helicopters already in use by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).
Washington has grown increasingly skittish over arming the Lebanese military amid concerns that the LAF may become engaged in a fight with Israel, an American ally, or be co-opted by the terrorist group Hizbullah.
See also European Anti-Tank Missiles Effective Against Explosive Reactive Armor (army-technology.com)
HOT is a long-range anti-tank mi ssile that can be operated from a vehicle or helicopter.
The HOT 3 has a 6.5 kg. tandem charge warhead which is effective against Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), penetrating up to 1,300 mm.
When the missile reaches the target, the forward charge is ejected, which explodes, detonating the ERA. After a delay, the main charge then explodes.

---

Israel Working to Thwart Russian Arms Deal with Syria – Barak Ravid (Ha’aretz)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to stop the sale to Syria of advanced anti-ship missiles.
Israel considers the sale of P-800 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles to Syria a significant danger to its navy vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.
Netanyahu told Putin that missiles Russia had delivered to Syria in the past were then transferred to Hizbullah and used against IDF troops during the Second Lebanon War.
The highly accurate P-800 has a maximum range of 300 km., carries a 200-kg. warhead, and can cruise several meters above the surface, making it difficult to identify on radar.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Israeli-Palestinian Direct Talks and the Art of Low Expectations – Shmuel Rosner
The time may be right for the Obama administration, but it is hardly right for the parties involved. Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, think Iran is a more urgent priority. They believe the Palestinian problem can wait a little longer, and they see no Palestinian leaders they can make deals with. The Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, were dragged to these talks kicking and screaming, they don’t seem to intend to give an inch, and they have a hard time dealing with criticism from Hamas, Syria, and other regional belligerents. “There’s clearly a trust deficit that we’re going to have to find a way to overcome,” longtime special envoy Dennis Ross explained. When direct talks were finally announced, not all the Israeli newspapers bothered to carry the news on their front pages. Been there, done that. ( Slate)

{please read that article and see the ending}
.
.

There used to be a reason for setting low expectations. We were once told that low expectations lead to happiness. You lower your expectation in the hope that humility will help you achieve your goals. You lower your expectations hoping that you will be pleasantly surprised by a more positive outcome. But the Israeli-Palestinian peace process seems to be the outlier, the case in which low expectations have no role to play, no goal to serve, no hope to provide. In this case, low expectations seem to be just, well, a sober description of reality. In this case, the strategy of low expectations is just another casualty of this neverending conflict. And that is one good reason to want these talks to begin.

im Rahmen der Reihe Talking for Peace. A Karl Kahane Lecture Series laden wir Sie sehr herzlich zu der

folgenden Veranstaltung ein:

Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 7.00 p.m.

WOMEN CARRY THE BURDEN CONFLICT PREVENTION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Opening event in the framework of the 2010 International Meeting of National Committees for UNIFEM (Part of UN Women) presented by DER STANDARD

Welcome: Gabriele Heinisch-Hosek, Federal Minister for Women and Civil Service

Introduction to UN Resolution 1325: Maj. Gen. Johann Pucher, National Security Policy Director, Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports

Keynote: Inés Alberdi, Executive Director of UNIFEM (Part of UN Women)

Contributions:

Sonja Biserko, Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Serbia

Taghreed El-Khodary, New York Times, Gaza

Liberata Mulamula, Executive Secretary, International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, Burundi

Anat Saragusti, Executive Director of Agenda, Israel

Moderator: Gudrun Harrer, Senior Editor, DER STANDARD

In cooperation with

the Austrian National Committee for UNIFEM (Part of UN Women)

and the support of the Federal Chancellery, the Federal Ministry for Women and Civil Service,
the Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports (Directorate for Security Policy,
and the Vienna Institute for International Dialogue and Cooperation.

Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue | Armbrustergasse 15 | 1190 Wien

Please register: Tel.: 3188260/20 | Fax: 318 82 60/10 | e-mail: einladung.kreiskyforum@kreisky.org

Melitta Campostrini
Bruno Kreisky Forum
for International Dialogue
Armbrustergasse 15
A-1190 Vienna

THE FILM ‘LEBANON’: INSIDE AN ISRAELI TANK AND THE REALITY OF WAR.

21 August 2010

By J. Hoberman
SFWeekly.com

Lebanon, written and directed by Samuel Maoz, is not just the year’s most impressive first feature but also the strongest new movie of any kind I’ve seen in 2010. Actually, Lebanon — which won the Golden Lion at Venice, after being rejected by Berlin and Cannes — hardly seems like a debut, perhaps because it’s based on a scenario Maoz had been replaying in his head for nearly 30 years.

The infighting in the Israeli government prior to the restart of peace talks with the Palestinians, has produced an early interesting appointment for next Israeli Army Chief of Staff. The appointment was made by the Minister of Defence  Aharon Barack – a former, and most decorated, Chief himself,

Barack was the man that met President Obama rather then Foreign Minister Lieberman. Barack is ready for the upcoming negotiations while Lieberman is cold to these moves.

The training and past jobs that the February 2011 incoming new Chief brings with him include naval experience helpful with dealing with the Gaza strip, and ground forces experience that will be needed in dealing with all aspects of decision making. By not being directly versed with the Air Force, it can be concluded that Iran will not be the main objective as foreseen by Minister Barack. This probably pleases Washington but creates dissension in the Netanyahu Cabinet.

Rav Aluf (Lieutenant General) Yoav Gallant ( born November 1958 in Jaffa) was appointed today (August 22, 2010) to be the commander of the Israel Defense Forces Southern Command, and has been chosen to succeed Gabi Ashkenazi as the next Chief of General Staff.^[1]

Gallant received a B.A. in Business and Finance Management from the University of Haifa. He began his military career in 1977 as a naval commando in the unit called Flotilla 13, which he would later command^[2].

In the early 1980′s he worked as a lumberjack in Alaska^[3].

In the late 1990s Galant moved into land forces, commanding the Jenin Brigade of the West Bank Division, the 162nd Armored Division, and eventually attaining the rank of a major general while becoming the Military Secretary of the Prime Minister in 2002 and later commander of the Southern Command in 2005.

Today it was announced that he would become the IDF’s 20th Chief of Staff^[4]

Galant will become Israel’s 20th Chief of Staff, succeeding Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, whose term will end in February. Barak’s relationship with Ashkenazi has been rocky, and the relatively early appointment of Galant will not be comfortable for Ashkenazi.

Galant was chosen over four other candidates: Generals Benny Ganz, Gadi Eisencott, Gadi Shamni and Avi Mizrachi.

Several Israeli politicians have criticized the way in which Galant was chosen. MK Aryeh Eldad raised questions about the selection saying, “we won’t be able to fully trust the next Chief of Staff, if we don’t have confidence with the one who nominated him. If we don’t trust Ehud Barak, then we can’t trust the new Chief of Staff.” Eldad said Israel needs to conduct wider hearings on the candidates for the Chief of Staff.

We did not post anything for a while on the Palestinian/Israeli front and now we find that the public opinion in Israel seems to move to a consensus strangely initiated by the person the Israelis mostly love to hate. Oh well, this is also progress.

———–

On Avigdor Lieberman – the man in Israel’s Foreign Ministry – Neither Yvet nor Rasputin.

Since his rise to power, Lieberman has crafted a double image, on the one hand he is a force strengthening the Likud, on the other he is virtually the only statesman with a sober, long-range view.

By Yoel Marcus of HAARETZ, Israel

July 20, 2010
 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opi…

We extricated these lines from a review article in The New York Times of July 15, 2010 and reworked them as follows:

The basis for direct talks is likely to be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s carefully shaped formula of last November. She said she believed that:

the two sides, through negotiations, could reconcile “the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Mrs. Clinton’s statement came soon after Mr. Netanyahu announced a partial, 10-month moratorium in new Israeli residential building in the West Bank. Mr. Netanyahu has been generally cagey about whether he will ask his government to extend the moratorium beyond its Sept. 26 deadline. Officials said that Mr. Netanyahu discussed other confidence-building measures with Mr. Obama, to be carried out either in the prelude to, or during, direct talks.

Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, made a far-reaching proposal in late 2008 to the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas whose government rules over the West Bank only.  It included an Israeli withdrawal from 93.5 percent of the West Bank, with land swaps and a safe route for Palestinian travel between Gaza and the West Bank making up the other 6.5 percent of the land area that Israel won in 1967.

Those talks ended with Israel’s military campaign against the militant Hamas dominated Gaza strip.

Mr. Olmert says he never heard back from Mr. Abbas. Mr. Erekat, honored spokesman for the West Bank, disputes that version, insisting that Mr. Abbas made a counteroffer. Addressing an Israeli audience at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University in May 2010, Mr. Erekat produced a map that he said Mr. Olmert received, allowing for Israeli annexation of 1.9 percent of the West Bank in return for an equitable land exchange.

Seemingly, the real issue now is that after 16 years of an intermittent peace process, the sides do not yet agree on which settlement blocs Israel would retain. We think that the novel approach by Secretary Clinton is in the words “reflect subsequent development” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which could be a formula for achieving a full agreement now with the Palestinian Authority in the name of Palestine, that freezes the situation of Gaza to the point that it is allowed to subscribe, according to its present outline, to the agreement later – as part of Palestine. That is what our website was calling the Three State Solution that is really a Two States Solution in two stages – the only way to move the cart from its dead point.

This is one more evidence that the temporary practical goal of peace in the Middle East passes via a Three States solution – Israel, a Developing Palestine on the West Bank, and a Failed Gaza Strip or Hamasstan.

——————————-

UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE
28 June, 2010 =========================================================================

GAZA: UN OFFICIALS CONDEMN LATEST ATTACK ON RECREATIONAL FACILITY .

{mind you – these attacks were committed by Palestinians against Palestinians. Is it because happy children are deemed unclean in some crooked version of Islam? (our editorial comment as we are full of disgust the way Gaza was presented at the UN in the past)}

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the head of United Nations relief operations in Gaza have deplored this morning’s attack on a recreational facility used by children in the territory, the second such incident in a month.

A group of about 25 armed and masked men attacked and set fire to the facility on the beach in Nuseirat that was being used to host the Summer Games, run by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

No one was hurt in the incident, which follows a similar attack on 23 May when a group of 30 armed and masked men attacked and set fire to an UNRWA Summer Games facility that was under construction on the beach in Gaza City.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has referred to the Summer Games, which is in its fourth year, as “a rare opportunity for relief from the deprivations and difficulties of everyday life in Gaza,” which has suffered from a three-year-long blockade imposed by Israel for what it called security reasons after Hamas took power there in 2007.

“The Secretary-General calls upon the de-facto authorities to combat any incitement against United Nations operations, and ensure the safety of UNRWA and other UN personnel and programmes, serving the most vulnerable in Gaza,” his spokesperson said in a statement.

“He calls for those responsible for these incidents to be brought to justice,” the statement added.

“Cowardly and despicable” is how John Ging, UNRWA’s Director of Operations in Gaza, described today’s attack. “The overwhelming success of UNRWA’s Summer Games has once again obviously frustrated those that are intolerant of children’s happiness,” he added.

Mr. Ging said the attack will not deter UNRWA from continuing with the annual event, which is the largest recreation programme for Gaza’s children and provides, among others, sports, swimming, arts and crafts, and drama.

“UNRWA will rebuild the camp immediately and will continue with its Summer Games programme which is so important for the physical and psychological well-being of Gaza’s children, so many of whom are stressed and traumatized by their circumstances and experiences,” he stated.

“This is another example of the growing levels of extremism in Gaza and further evidence, if that were needed, of the urgency to change the circumstances on the ground that are generating such extremism,” he added.

The Summer Games began on 12 June and will run through 5 August, providing 1,200 summer camps for more than 250,000 refugee children across Gaza.

UN AND PARTNERS WELCOME ISRAEL’S EASING OF GAZA BLOCKADE.
June 21, 2010 at the UN – there seems to be light in the tunnel for transfer of goods to the Gaza Strip thanks to the Israeli reaction to the Turkish attempt at check mate.

The United Nations and its partners in the search for Middle East peace today welcomed Israel’s decision to allow more civilian goods into the Gaza Strip, saying that implementation of the new policy will help meet the needs of the territory’s inhabitants and address Israel’s security concerns.

“Full and effective implementation will comprise a significant shift in strategy towards meeting the needs of Gaza’s population for humanitarian and commercial goods, civilian reconstruction and infrastructure, and legitimate economic activity as well as the security needs of Israel,” the Quartet – made up of the UN, the European Union, Russia and the United States – said in a statement.

The group said that it will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and other concerned parties to ensure that the new arrangements are implemented as quickly as possible.

The Quartet also pledged to actively explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, encourage involvement of the PA at the crossings and promote greater commerce between the West Bank and Gaza, the statement added.

Acknowledging that Israel has legitimate security concerns that must continue to be safeguarded, the Quarter said it believed that efforts to maintain security while enabling movement and access for Palestinian people and goods are critical.

It pledged to work with Israel and the international community to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza, and urged all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza.

The Quartet deplored the continuing detention of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and called for his release ahead of the fourth anniversary of his capture on 25 June. It condemned what it said was a violation by Hamas of its international obligation to provide the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Mr. Shalit, and demanded the Palestinian group does so immediately.

Members also reiterated their support for proximity talks toward the resumption, without pre-conditions, of direct bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues as previously agreed by the parties.

“The Quartet believes these negotiations should lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties within 24 months, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours,” it added.

MIDEAST
Hamas’ Turn to Demolish Palestinian Homes.
By Mel Frykberg

Fighter from the Brej refugee camp in Gaza. Credit:Mel Frykberg/IPS

RAMALLAH, May 25, 2010 (IPS) – On Sunday approximately 150 Palestinians from 20 families were driven out of their homes in Rafah, in the southern Gaza strip, by heavily armed police and soldiers who menaced them with clubs.

The difference this time was that it was not the Israeli Defence Forces carrying out evictions and demolitions but Hamas security forces, including policewomen with their faces veiled.

Reporters trying to cover the event were barred by Hamas police.

Many of those expelled had already lost their homes and been forced into the streets when Israel carried out its brutal military assault over the coastal territory, which deliberately targeted Gaza’s infrastructure, during Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009.

Some of the homes destroyed on Sunday were temporary shacks built hastily after the Israeli assault. Other homes were concrete structures built prior to Israel’s crippling blockade, imposed on Gaza after Hamas took control in June 2007, which has prevented most reconstruction material from entering the territory.

The Hamas authorities argue that the homes were built on government land and without permission. Residents claimed they had been sold permits by a local landowner.

This is an explanation West Bankers regularly hear from the Israelis before Palestinian homes and buildings in the West Bank are destroyed, albeit the territory is illegally occupied by Israel whereas Hamas is a democratically elected government and the Gaza strip is Palestinian land.

Nevertheless, the harshness of the actions under the current conditions provoked anger from Gazans and condemnation from human rights organisations.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza expressed “its grave concern over these demolitions, which constitute a violation of civilians’ rights to adequate housing. These violations may affect an additional 180 houses in Rafah in the future.”

Meanwhile, attempts by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to provide some summer fun and entertainment for Gaza’s traumatised children suffered a setback when one of its recreational facilities was torched after 30 armed and masked men attacked the facility on Monday.

UNRWA released a statement saying, “The location is one of 35 beach facilities under construction, which will form part of UNRWA’s annual Summer Games programme for over 250,000 refugee children in Gaza, due to commence on Jun. 12.”

Before leaving the gunmen left a letter – containing threats against UNRWA officials and its director of operations in Gaza John Ging – and three bullets in the pocket of the security guard who was handcuffed and beaten with rifle butts.

Ging condemned the incident and said that “UNRWA will not be intimidated by such acts and will quickly rebuild the location in good time to host the Summer Games.”

Extremists in Gaza have expressed disapproval at the Western influence of UNRWA as well as some of its activities, including teaching girls swimming, fitness and dancing.

The Hamas authorities have been battling increasing incidents of Islamic extremism which have targeted beauty salons, coffee shops, Internet cafes, the YMCA and a Red Cross convoy.

Groups with links to al-Qaeda have also launched attacks against Hamas’ security forces. A shootout between Jund Ansar Allah and Hamas police last year in Rafah left more than 20 dead.

The Israeli daily ‘Haaretz’ reported on Monday that it is in possession of documents, sent by a group of Yemeni Shi’ite separatists who oppose al-Qaeda, which “point to regular, direct contact between the al-Qaeda organisation in that country and supporters in the Gaza Strip.”

“The Shi’ite rebels who passed the latest communication, and several previous ones, to Haaretz, are demanding Yemeni government’s recognition of their civil rights. They are keen to distinguish themselves from al-Qaeda,” said the daily.

The Israeli military has for some time warned of growing links between al-Qaeda elements and Gaza extremists. These links have involved the smuggling of weapon caches from Egypt’s Sinai peninsular into Gaza. Some of the caches have been uncovered by Egyptian security forces.

Although the Hamas authorities have cracked down on Islamic extremists, Gazans who tried to hold a protest march against the arson attack on the UNRWA facility were forcibly turned back by Hamas police.

This suppression of civil liberties came as the Hamas authorities simultaneously prevented a human rights workshop to discuss rights and freedom in the Palestinian territories from being held at a Gaza hotel on Monday.

The Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights lashed out at the decision.

Mustafa Ibrahim, a jurist on the commission, said the hotel management had received a phone call forbidding the workshop.

“The decision to bar the event is an unprecedented interference in the work of human rights organisations. NGOs are not required to obtain a permit or seek the government’s permission to hold workshops,” said Ibrahim.

From the Foreign Policy Association of the USA.

First published in Turkey:
 http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topic…

Recent events have seen Turkey consolidate its position as a benign regional power, as it tests the limits of its allies, writes Marco Vicenzino.

June 17th, 2010

The recent violence off the coast of Gaza clearly marked a defining moment in world public opinion. The Israel-Palestinian conundrum, and specifically the plight of Gaza, has now become fully internationalized.

With the death of Turkish citizens, it is no longer business as usual for all parties concerned and the stakes have increased exponentially for the region and beyond.

The flotilla crisis further exposed the pitiful absence of leadership from Arab governments. The Arab League largely remains a tone-deaf singing choir. The Barack Obama administration is struggling to strike a diplomatic balance after realizing the status quo in Gaza is unsustainable. It made outreach to Muslim-majority states a cornerstone of its foreign policy. After investing enormous resources, it is now losing its credibility, its limited diplomatic capital, and U.S influence in the broader Middle East.

All along, Turkey has been skillfully filling the void left by other regional players.

The process has been accelerated by adeptly exploiting their misfortunes and mistakes. The recent crisis is just one example. It has proven a diplomatic bonanza for the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at home and abroad. In nearly 24 hours, it was able to get the U.N. Security Council to officially condemn the acts resulting from Israel’s operation. This provides further evidence of its growing ability to exert influence internationally.

Turkey has clearly demonstrated a willingness to pursue its interests vigorously, assert them publicly and risk confrontation if necessary. It has no qualms about shedding diplomatic-speak. The days of the compliant NATO ally who performed as respectfully requested are over. In less than a month, the Erdogan government has dominated global headlines twice. It first thumbed its nose at the major powers on the Iran nuclear issue and now its current performance has further entrenched its role as a power to be reckoned with.

Contrary to some views, this is not a reversion to imperial Ottoman times. In recent years, Turkey has deftly pursued an independent-minded foreign policy. It has carefully crafted an image as a benign, and not hegemonic, power in its region. Its expansion is not led by soldiers but shrewd businessmen. By investing and creating local opportunities, their presence is generally appreciated. Consequently, Turkey’s role as a respected regional power has grown exponentially.

The recent violence off the coast of Gaza was a reminder that Turkey cannot be taken for granted nor the loss of its citizens taken lightly. It also provided the final nail in the coffin to Turkey’s historic strategic partnership with Israel dating back to the Cold War. The Turkish government applied last rites by its explicitly frank statements during the crisis. It even threatened to sever diplomatic ties with Israel if its citizens were not immediately released from detention.

In recent years, Turkey and Israel have been on a collision course. The final impact was only a matter of time. Turkey’s strategic outlook has altered dramatically since the end of the Cold War. New geo-political realities combined with an emerging conservative power elite, composed of politicians and businessmen rooted in political Islam, have led to considerable changes at home and abroad. Turkey’s new religiously-inspired leadership has a domestic and foreign policy agenda that differs significantly from the traditional secular class. The flotilla crisis was not just a diplomatic spat but an extension of Turkey’s internal power struggle.

For Turkey’s new order, the special relationship with Israel is largely expendable. It will not sever ties with Israel, unless deemed necessary, but does not mind a significant downgrading in relations. Overall, the partnership is largely incompatible with its long-term strategic and ideological interests, which are determined by better relations with its immediate neighbors and the broader Arab-Muslim world and select states beyond. These may eventually begin to overshadow Turkey’s ties with the European Union and lead to a diminished relationship with the U.S. but not rupture with the West. After decades of reliance on the West, Turkish interests dictate a more expansive approach beyond traditional allies and markets. As Turkey grows and seeks new opportunities abroad, differences with old friends will inevitably emerge.

In its increasing diplomatic assertiveness, Erdogan and friends must tread carefully and avoid miscalculation. It runs the risk of overplaying its hand with the U.S. In Obama, Mr. Erdogan has a very sympathetic ally. After all, it was no mistake that the U.S. president chose the Turkish Parliament as a venue for a historic speech in an outreach to Muslims. Improperly exploiting Obama’s openness will undermine U.S.-Turkish relations and the president’s credibility in the U.S. and abroad. In his inaugural address, the president emphasized the importance of extending the hand of friendship to others. The worst case scenario is to have it bitten by an ally.

On the other hand, Erdogan may have calculated that Obama is a one-term president and not worth investing excessive political capital. His inevitable fear is of a Republican president reverting to business as usual. Failure to cultivate relations may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, even a Bush-lite American leader may be too much for Erdogan to handle.

All along, Turkey’s historic growth was inevitable, particularly when considering its physical size and population. The main question was when Turkey would fulfill its natural leadership role in the region. Its time has arrived. Now it must proceed responsibly.

Marco Vicenzino ( msv at globalsp.org) provides geo-political risk analysis for corporations and regular commentary for global media outlets. He directs Global Strategy Project in Washington, D.C.

*This article originally appeared in Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review

The shifting sands of the Middle East

By Ted Belman

Shimon Peres, President of Israel, has, for the last thirty years, called for a New Middle East.  In fact he wrote a book by that title in 1993, the year of the Oslo Accords. He believed that economic cooperation in the ME was the starting point for cementing ties and reconciling peoples.  The Oslo Accords, of which he was the main architect and instigator, was intended to lead in that direction.  It failed miserably.

In those days the main players on the Muslim side, were Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, all Sunni. And, of course, we cannot leave out Arafat, also a Sunni.

All this began to change with the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003. Talk about unintended consequences. The defeat of Iraq, created a power vacuum which Shiite Iran was salivating to fill. Although Iraq under Hussein was in the Sunni camp, its population was 60% Shiite. Luckily, the Iraqi Shiites prefer independence from Iran perhaps due in part to the fact they are Arab and not Farsi; at least for now but that could change.

Iran had aspirations of grandeur and imperialist ambitions.  She began to plot a course which would lead to her dominance of the Muslim world and in the Middle East. No small task, since 80% of Muslims are Sunni and Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam, are located in Saudi Arabia.

This course had two prongs; the development of its own nuclear bomb and the confrontation with Israel, the Little Satan and the US the Big Satan on behalf of all Muslims everywhere.

Iran also had a natural advantage, her location. Egypt, with its population of 55 million is poor and on the periphery. It also made peace with Israel thereby taking her out of the race for now.  Iran borders on Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian Sea.  The US needs Iran to be cooperative in each of these theaters.

Iran’s first success was to win over Syria the most rejectionist Sunni state. This was easier than you might expect as Syria is ruled the Alawites, a Shiite sect. Their alliance is constantly growing and seems to have no bounds.  This is so notwithstanding that the US has attempted to wean Syria away from Iran. Syria is important because it borders on Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, with whom she has a casus belli for the return of the Golan.

Syria also has imperialist ambitions. She has visions of recovering all lands which were part of the Ottoman province of Syria.  Britain and France entered into the Sykes-Picot Agreement during WWI in which they agreed that Britain would control Mesopotamia (Iraq) and southern Syria, (Jordan and Israel) and France would control the rest of Ottoman Syria (Syria, Lebanon and Hatay province of Turkey). The League of Nations formalized this agreement in 1923 when it created the British Mandate and the French Mandate.

In pursuance of these ambitions, in 1970, Syria invaded Jordan only to be repulsed by Israel.  During the recent decades, Syria extended its influence over Lebanon.  This was made easier with the growth of Hezbollah which was predominantly Shiite. It was natural for Syria and Iran to come together on this.  Together they have armed Hezbollah to the teeth in order to have a proxy for the war against Israel. In truth there is no casus belli  between Hezbollah and Israel.

Iran took Hamas under its wing after Hamas took over Gaza from the Sunni backed Palestinian Authority in 2007.  It was natural for this to happen since they both are dedicated to destroying Israel.

This is a development which has put Egypt in the cross hairs. Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood has been a thorn in Egypt’s backside ever since. It believes that Muslim society is no longer Islamic and must be transformed by an Islamic vanguard through violent revolution. Thus, the Brotherhood and Iran are natural allies.

There is great concern that when Mubarak dies, Egypt will be vulnerable to a Brotherhood takeover. Hamas, with the backing of Iran, could greatly assist in this takeover.

Turkey was the last to join the Iranian axis. With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern state of Turkey. He ruled as President until his death in 1938.  During this time he sought to transform Turkey into a modern and secular nation-state. The Turkish army maintained this orientation until the election of islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Prime Minister in 2003.  This victory was made possible by the changing demographics of the country. The higher birth rates of the rural class in Turkey (and in Hezbollah in Lebanon) made possible the shift in power.

The US championed the admission of Turkey to NATO and to the EU. Turkey maintained a friendship with Israel to gain favor with the US and with the EU. She succeeded in being admitted to NATO but not to the EU. The EU was not in the mood to admit a Muslim state and set all kinds of preconditions. Erdogan decided to chart his own course rather than the one dictated by the EU. Turkey gave up on admission and turned increasing islamist and anti-Israel and, I might add, anti-American.

——————–

In Turkey’s MidEast Gambit, Sam Segev notes,

“Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has cautiously but consistently moved to reclaim Turkey’s “grandeur” of the Ottoman Empire era.

“This necessitated a slow but cautious distancing from Israel and the U.S. In 2003, it refused an American request to allow American troops to enter Iraq through Turkish territory. Then a Turkish diplomat was elected secretary general of the 53-member Organization of Islamic Countries and relations with Israel cooled.

“Erdogan ramped up his Islamic-oriented policy after his re-election in 2007. He reconciled with Syria, welcomed Hamas leaders in Ankara, hosted Sudanese President Omar Hassan el-Bashir, who is accused of war crimes, and began to undermine Egyptian and Saudi roles in the Sunni moderate Arab world. “

“ Turkey is the only NATO member to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and its alignment with Brazil to extricate Iran from stronger sanctions agreed upon by the five permanent members of the Security Council is a direct challenge to American influence in the region.

“Turkey’s attempt to break the blockade on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip was a direct affront not only to Israel, but also to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.”

——————

And yet President Obama still believes “Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process.”

To make matters worse, the opinion makers in the US and the EU have come out in favor of lifting the blockade which in effect is in support of Hamas, a terrorist organization. And Obama is on their side.

The strengthening of Hamas effectively strengthens Iran, strangles the peace process and scares the bejeesus out of Egypt and Jordan.

As Obama stands astride the shifting sands what possible vision can he have?

You would think that as the U.S. is losing control of the Middle East and plans to bring most of the boys home before the end of next year, she would need a strong Israel all the more.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel

The San Francisco Sentinel, June 11, 2010.
 http://www.standwithus.com/app/iNews/vie…

Erdogan and the Israel Card.

The deaths of nine Turkish citizens in the Gaza flotilla incident would have brought a severe reaction under any circumstances. What is nonetheless striking in this incident is the unbridled anger and fiercely hostile reaction of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish public. Mr. Erdogan said Israel was guilty of “state terrorism” and a “bloody massacre.” His foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said “This attack is like 9/11 for Turkey,” comparing it to a premeditated act of aggression that took 2,900 lives.

Mr. Erdogan does not always display such reactions to allegations of human rights violations. Last year, he defended Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for killing half a million Sudanese Christians and non-Arab Muslims. In March 2010, he denied that Turks ever killed Armenian civilians. He labeled a U.S. congressional resolution on the Armenian deaths “a comedy, a parody.” He said that the Turkish military garrison stationed in Cyprus since 1974 is “not an occupier” but “[ensures] the peace.” On tens of thousands of Kurds killed by Turkish security forces from 1984 to 1999, he says nothing.

Could it be that there is something more to Mr. Erdogan’s rage against Israel than just a spontaneous reaction to the loss of life here?

Turkish elections, 13 months away, hold the answer. Backing for Mr. Erdogan’s party has fallen to 29%, the lowest level since it won power in 2002 and far below the 47% it scored in July 2007. So Mr. Erdogan decided to play the Israel Card.

He tested this tactic in January 2009, in a confrontation with Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos. Mr. Peres asked him in front of the cameras: “What would you do if you were to have in Istanbul every night a hundred rockets?” Mr. Erdogan shot back, “When it comes to killing you know very well how to kill.” Thousands of Turks applauded Mr. Erdogan’s performance, greeting him with a hero’s welcome and a sea of Turkish and Palestinian flags upon his return home to Ataturk Airport.

Mr. Erdogan’s anger at the Israeli blockade is even more popular among his countrymen. In fact, 61% of Turks surveyed in one poll did not find his rage sufficient. “The public is in such a state that they almost want war against Israel,” the pollster commented. “I think this is widespread in almost all levels of society.” Mr. Erdogan has become a hero in the Muslim world, where he is seen as the “new Nasser,” in the words of one Saudi writer.

The truth is that friendship toward Israel was always limited to the Turkish secular elites, including the military chiefs. Turkey is fertile ground for Mr. Erdogan’s demagoguery because many ordinary people are raised to dislike Israel and—dare it be said—Jews. In April 2010, the BBC World Service Poll found negative views of Israel among 77% of Turks.

Jews as a people fare no better than the Jewish state. In the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 73% of Turks rated their opinions of Jews as “negative.” Meanwhile, 68% of Turks rated their opinions of Christians as “negative.”

Turks don’t like the United States much more than they do Israel. The same BBC poll found negative views of the U.S. among 70% of Turks, one of only two countries where perceptions of the United States actually worsened after the election of Barack Obama (positives fell to 13% from 21%, and negatives increased to 70% from 63%).

Nor is it the case that anti-Americanism in Turkey is primarily a response to U.S. support for Israel. Many Turkish citizens view the U.S. as anti-Muslim and see the war on terror as an anti-Muslim crusade across the Middle East. Turks resent the rich “imperialist” superpower and believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil.

Islamists and the Turkish left suspect that the U.S. and NATO propped up a succession of Turkish governments backed by the military. Others believe that the U.S. supports the Iraqi Kurds and may plan to create a Kurdish state in Iraq. And most remain convinced that members of the U.S. Congress who vote for Turkish genocide resolutions do so under the influence of Armenian-Americans, who are more numerous than Americans of Turkish origin.

Anti-American feelings in Turkey exist independently of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but these three phenomena are mutually reinforcing and convergent. More disturbingly, parallels to these trends pervade much of the Muslim world. What the flotilla incident demonstrates is that igniting this tinderbox of hostility toward Israel, Jews and America does not take much of a spark.

Turkey’s Fury

Published: June 4, 2010
Published first as a New York Times Editorial.

But Turkish officials have let their anger and rhetoric go way too far. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has called for Israel to be punished for state terrorism. President Abdullah Gul said, “Turkey will never forgive this attack.” Turkey, Israel and their shared ally, the United States, need to work to cool things down. Turkey was the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel, and both countries have benefited from the relationship. Bilateral trade reached $2.5 billion in 2009. As a moderate, secular democracy and NATO member, Turkey has a strong interest in a stable Middle East.

Things have deteriorated sharply since early 2009 when Mr. Erdogan publicly confronted the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, on the subject of Gaza. His new even fiercer denunciations are playing well at home and in the wider Muslim world. But Mr. Erdogan may find it hard to walk things back when he needs to — and he will.

The Palestinians can certainly use articulate defenders. And Israel deserves to be criticized for the flotilla disaster. But gratuitously stoking anti-Israeli sentiment is irresponsible and dangerous.

Mr. Erdogan is to be applauded for his attempts to broker secret negotiations between Israel’s previous government and Syria. His more recent effort, with Brazil, to cut a nuclear deal with Iran was disturbingly naïve. Turkey needs to keep working diplomatically to end the blockade. Israel has now indicated a willingness to modify the siege; it needs to end it altogether. If Turkey is truly committed to the rights of the Palestinians, it should be pressing other Muslim countries to seriously encourage an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal — the best way to up the pressure on Israel.

Israel also has a strong interest in repairing relations with Turkey. That is yet another reason why it should support a credible, independent international investigation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still doesn’t get this. Washington needs to help him understand all that is at stake.

——————————————————————————————–

The Turkey of an Islamic government under former Mayor Recep Tayyip Erdogan is different from the European State envisioned by Ataturk. As such it is closer to the Arab world but not Arab. It could help together with Israel and the US look for a solution to Gaza and to the fate of the Palestinians in general – this as the Arab States have shown in over sixty years the lack of keen interest to help in the realization of the UN resolution of 1948 that intended the two-State solution.

If the flotilla was needed by Erdogan in order to gain credibility with the Arabs, he has done it and must ask himself now – What Next?

In the region – just forget the UN – those are completely incompetent – will Turkey now strut out and lay the ground for above suggested tri-partite leadership to mediate between Arab and Arab?

These are www.SustainabiliTank.info comments.  Please read on!

—————————————————————————————–

Breaking out of the siege

If Israel is to break out of the international siege and strategic catastrophe it now faces, it urgently needs a different policy.

Published first as an HAARETZ Editorial June 6th 2010.

Haaretz Editorial

The intelligence failure and faulty planning in last week’s operation to board the Mavi Marmara led to a crisis in Israel’s foreign relations in the blink of an eye and a low in its standing in world public opinion. The international community is demanding an investigation into the incident and is roundly criticizing the siege Israel continues to impose on the Gaza Strip’s 1.5 million residents. Friendly countries such as the United States and France are demanding that the Israeli government lift restrictions on the passage into Gaza of goods and raw materials for civilian use.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his usual manner, rushed to raise the specter of the Iranian threat along with the adage that “the whole world is against us.” Instead of locating the source of the fire scorching the diplomatic relations we built up with such effort, Netanyahu is following in the footsteps of his ostracized foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, accusing the world of hypocritical treatment of Israel.

In an effort to evade responsibility for the crisis and escape his obligation to fundamentally change his policy, the prime minister is distorting the nature of the criticism against his government and has plied it as hatred of the Jews.

Netanyahu and Lieberman are imposing a siege on a Jewish and democratic state that has professed to be a light unto the nations, but is becoming anathema among nations. The disagreement over halting construction in West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem sorely eroded the goodwill Israel had garnered in the wake of Netanyahu’s declared support for a two-state solution. Last month’s nuclear nonproliferation conference diverted attention from the Iranian nuclear program to Israel’s nuclear capabilities. The summit of countries bordering the Mediterranean, which had been due to open today in Barcelona, was scrapped following Arab leaders’ refusal to be in the company of the Israeli foreign minister. And finally, the proximity talks with the Palestinians are being portrayed as a recipe for perpetuating the deadlock in the peace process.

Reasonable governments of democratic countries act in accordance with the interests of their citizens. Even if the world is “hypocritical,” as Netanyahu claims, he must fundamentally change his government’s aggressive and inward-looking approach; it is not within his power to change the nature of the rest of the world.

A thorough investigation of the Mavi Marmara incident and the lifting of the siege against civilians in Gaza are essential steps, but they are certainly not sufficient. If Israel is to break out of the international siege and strategic catastrophe it now faces, it urgently needs a different policy.

—————————————————————

Jews should leave Palestine and return to Europe, top U.S. journalist says.

White House reporter Helen Thomas also slams Obama administration for not condemning ‘deliberate Gaza flotilla massacre.’

By Natasha Mozgovaya

HAARETZ, June 5, 2010

Israeli Jews should get out of Palestine and  go back “home,” to Germany and Poland, senior White House Press Corps member Helen Thomas was taped as saying earlier this week, bringing calls for her resignation by Jewish organization B’nai B’rith.

In a recently uploaded Youtube video, Thomas can be heard saying that Israel “should get the hell out of Palestine,” adding that the land was Palestinian, “not German, it’s not Polish.”

Thomas, in response, posted the following statement on her website, saying she deeply regretted the “comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”
When asked where then the Jews should go, the senior White House correspondent said they should “Go home…. To Poland, Germany…and America and everywhere else.”

“Thomas’ comments are contemptible, “B’nai B’rith International President Dennis W. Glick said in a statement, adding that Thomas’s “distortion of historical reality is astonishing. Her call for Jews to return to Poland and Germany—site of the Nazi genocide, the worst genocide in modern history—is beyond offensive.”

Glick added that he felt “Thomas seems to have been schooled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a belief that Jews appeared in Israel after the Holocaust,” while ignoring “historical facts that Jews have called the Land of Israel home for more than 3,000 years, long before any other group made a home in the land.”

“These vile comments, unfortunately, are the culmination of Thomas’ ongoing anti-Israel sentiments that she kept thinly veiled over the years,” B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin said.

“There should be no place for her in a news organization. Her comments go beyond commentary and land well in the camp that will stop at nothing to delegitimize Israel.”

Last week, during a briefing with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Thomas’ criticized the American reaction to the deadly Israeli raid of a humanitarian aid convoy, saying that “our initial reaction to this flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful.”

“What do you mean you regret when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms. What is this sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship, where a country that deliberately kills people,” Thomas had said.

	Helen Thomas.
	Photo by: Reuters

And from HAARETZ of June 8, 2010 Welcome, Mr. Erdogan Israel must let Erdogan into Gaza to reconstitute its government and create a majority desirous of finally beginning serious talks with the Palestinians. By Yoel Marcus If Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to visit Gaza – even bearing a sprig of coriander, which for some reason Israel forbids bringing in – I would bid him welcome in the name of Hamas and all the residents of Gaza. I don’t know whether Egypt, which also blockades Gaza – and especially the Palestinian Authority, whose employees were thrown off rooftops by Hamas – would welcome such a visit with open arms. But as far as we Israelis are concerned, this is no longer our top priority. After all, we’re no longer in Gaza. It cost us some NIS 10 billion to destroy all the houses and synagogues in Gush Katif, move the graves and compensate the settlers. We left Gaza five years ago, under Ariel Sharon’s government, with no preconditions (which is a lot more than one can say of Turkey’s conduct with regard to the Alexandretta district). But instead of turning the evacuated territory into a wonderful tourist destination, Hamas turned it into a base for launching Qassam rockets. For years, it fired on Israeli towns and terrorized Israel’s civilian population. If Erdogan had at least helped to rehabilitate Gaza and persuaded its leaders not to launch Qassams at Israel, he would have helped to calm the situation and also promote peace. But in the eyes of Islamic radicals, and sometimes even in our own eyes, we are still controlling Gaza. Israel’s problem is its deteriorating position in international opinion, due to its weakness and its inability to make serious concessions. The government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, Avigdor Lieberman and Eli Yishai is not perceived as one capable of reaching an agreement based on territorial concessions, and very far from being able to forge a permanent border between two states. The flotilla incident, and the worldwide grudge against Israel that it sparked, would never have happened if we had been engaged in serious negotiations with Palestinian leaders. But instead, we have imposed a blockade, deported famous visitors and caused well-known rock bands to cancel their performances here as if we were lepers. It’s somewhat reminiscent of South Africa under the apartheid regime. When leaders are seen as weak, then, like a flock of sheep, they invite the wolves to attack. Thus we have fallen victim to all kinds of bizarre organizations, and are falling into traps that should we never have fallen into. Thank God for the United States, which, despite all its disappointment at us, is not letting us fall into the abyss – or at least, not before the next election there. Our problem is almost always the same: First we oppose a commission of inquiry, and in the end we are forced to accede to the worst possible terms. We shouldn’t waste so much as another day debating and digesting the decision to set up an international inquiry commission, in which Turkey, Israel and the U.S. would all participate, to investigate the flotilla and the circumstances that led to its bloody outcome. It’s all more or less known. The pictures of our battered, bloody soldiers on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, which were published in the Turkish paper Hurriyet, are decisive proof of who ambushed whom. From a military perspective, Israel was indeed guilty of an intelligence failure: The naval commandos did not know in advance that thugs with knives, saws, batons and every other kind of lethal non-firearm weapon imaginable were lying in wait for them. Whether or not the blockade of Gaza is legal is a separate question. But it is hard to believe that not a single one of Turkey’s intelligence agencies knew that a group of terrorists like that was waiting for our soldiers on the deck of the Mavi Marmara. The Turkish government must also explain how it happened that only this ship, and not any of the others, boasted such a violent group. Do they also lie in wait for coast guard inspectors in Istanbul with knives? The question we must ask ourselves now is, how did we reach a situation in which it is legitimate to pounce on us and condemn us at every opportunity? Israel must reconstitute its government to create a majority desirous of finally beginning serious talks with the Palestinians. For without an agreement on permanent borders, an agreement with Syria and the restoration of our strategic ties with both Turkey and Europe, we will be added to the list of leper states.

Weekend June 4th amNew York reported about the thousands of mourners that carried the nine coffins in Istanbul. The youngest killed was 19-year old Troy, New York State, Turkish-American high-school student Farkan Dogan. His father praised him for “dying in a just cause – God is great.”

On Sunday June 6th Fareed Zakaria on CNN/GPS preached WORDS – NOT GUNS and was not shy to state that Turkey is also playing a new and dangerous game before interviewing An important Turkish Ambassador – perhaps the real mastermind of The Newest Turkey. He is the personal advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey.

Fareed said: Once an ally of Europe it is (Turkey) now playing games that are enemy more then friend, but Fareed was trying to understand the Turkish position and expressed also that during the Bush Administration, Turkey was treated heavy-handedly and expected to be an ally in Iraq. The Turks bulked. That is how friend became enemy.

Fareed looked at the “Quartet – US, UN, EU, Russia – and with Tony Blair in charge said that the best effort is to work with the Palestinians in order to prepare them for Statehood. Israel ifs fully responsible for the security of its citizens and has full right to protect them but is also to see that life is not made impossible in Gaza. In the end, it is up to Senator Mitchell to navigate for the evolution of a two-State hope.

The question about the blockade is semantics Fareed and Blair concluded – Israel has the duty to protect itself against weapons and arms that come into Gaza but rural life must return to Gaza. There are objects and materials needed to rebuild agriculture that should be allowed in.

The Palestinians can see that there are good things that happen in the West Bank, but Gaza is left out. People in Gaza have to understand that there is a better way then what Hamas is offering them now.

Tony Blair – on TV – refused to answer a value question saying that he knows Israel values the relations with Turkey.

There is a chance we get to a better way for a bottom up approach in Gaza, as in Palestine Blair said, once you get an alignment between the achievements on the ground and the hopes – there may then be a way for Peace. The Turkish Foreign Minister went to Jeddah for the Islamic Conference to discuss Gaza. As we wrote already, we know that Jordan with Saudi money may try to figure the incentive, the first time, that is after 60 years, for the people in Gaza to cooperate in a more peaceful way.

Ambassador Ahmet Davutgglu, came on the program and started by claiming a comparison to the piracy of the coast of Somalia, and asking what are we to do? Fareed did not take this bait and if I were that Turkish Minister I would have walked off – but he did not. He reacted saying that this is not between Turkey and Israel but between Israel and the World and Israel does not want an international inquiry. The man looked like a snake-oil salesman and we envision that as main strategist of the new Erdogan geopolitics, he actually knows very well what he is after – no simple bumbler here.

{Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, visited Washington, March 17-21, 2009, to discuss critical developments in the Middle East before President Obama’s visit to Turkey on April 6-7, 2009. During his visit Davutoglu stated that “The U.S. and Turkey is at the historical moment that both countries have similar views at almost all issues.” Davutoglu underlined that Turkey is becoming a strategic location for regional energy infrastructure and further suggested “from now on, everyone sees the strategic importance of Turkey that increases as the days pass” (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19)  http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cach… tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34754 }

“Israel is standing up for one soldier that was captured by Hamas, what did they expect from us after killing nine of our people?”

Fareed reminded him that one student had also American citizenship and that the US could make a request regarding its citizen. To which the Ambassador said that Turkey has contacts with the US on this matter. Also, there is a Human Rights Council in Geneva that should take this up but Israel just said they will not cooperate. Did our citizens violate Israeli territory? No! There was even a Nobel Prize Winner on the boat he further said – the list of the passengers can prove they were not terrorists.

For decades Israel and Turkey were allies – i myself mediated between Olmert and Syria. What happened he said was the change in Israel politics.  Are you having problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu asked Fareed? His answer came that last Thursday he was supposed to meet with P.M. Netanyahu on negotiations with Syria, but on Monday this happened and they attacked the convoy. This can go on in circles – why then did Turkey organize the flotilla’s leading ship?

Fareed asked to the point: There are many people that believe you, as the architect for moving Turkey away from Western Policy? To that he gave a long list of Turkey’s work with the West – Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Balkans, etc. only two weeks ago we had a Peace Conference in Istanbul he said. We are not trouble makers at all – he sad.

Following the interview – Fareed Zakaria had also two Jewish opponents – it was Republican Elliot Abrams versus Democrat Peter Beinart – but whatever policy differences they may have with each other, nobody was saying anything positive about Turkey’s recent activity though the door to future more positive intervention is left open.

Abrams, with a long track record on Middle East negotiations, under several US Presidents, made it clear that there is no International community that Israel can trust in the post-”Zionism is Racism” UN vote. In the light of this there is no way Israel can rely on the UN. Beinart said that he is not going to defend the Turkish action, but 90% of the water in Gaza is not drinkable – and to this both sides can agree that something must be done -HURRAY!

————

Having reported on the above, let me add that we get mail regarding our effort at honesty in this debate. The most interesting came from Russia and had Russian text, though I would guess it originated with Russian speakers living now in Israel.

Please have a look at the video, and without prejudging what the Turks could actually achieve, we can nevertheless wipe out the last few weeks when thinking of their credibility. We will get back to this point in next posting.

=========================================================

THIS IS A VIDEO WE RECOMMEND YOU WATCH!

We Con the World (LatmaTV production) -

We Con the World (LatmaTV production)

==================================

The Middle East – North Africa Financial Network www.MENAfn.com takes a cool look at the flotilla incident. It is now  a Jordanian Charity that with  help from Saudi Arabia, will  send a convoy of 25 trucks of aid material to Gaza. Considering geography we assume that this will be done in cooperation with Israel.

Also, very interesting, MENAfn had no problem in accepting an AIPAC pro-Israeli article explaining the Israeli Government side of the issue, and the fact that the Turkish organization was out for a fight. Do we see now cooler heads in the Middle East coming to the forefront? Is this a rebuff of Turkey’s attempt to lead the Arab world? 

Support Our Ally Israel,  Gaza flotilla radicals choose violence, not aid. Share the facts – IT SAYS.
 http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.as…

on the other hand, the Arab League has engaged Qatar as a participant in paying for the legal expenses of taking Israel to the International Court of Justice for the killing of the 9 people on the blocked Turkish ship.
 http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.as…

FLOTILLA ACTIVIST HOPED FOR MARTYRDOM – VIDEO
from:  June 3, 2010, Haaretz
In footage apparently captured on board the Gaza-bound boat Mavi Marmara and released by the IDF, passenger wishes for death in confrontation with Israel troops.

——-

In its latest effort to win back world opinion after killing nine pro-Palestinians in a mid-ocean raid on Monday, the IDF has released a video of a Gaza-bound activist declaring his wish to become a shahid, or Muslim martyr.

Israel intercepted a convoy of six boats in international waters, some 60 miles offshore in the early hours of Monday morning. Commandos had been equipped with riot gear for what was supposed to be a routine operation against protesters challenging Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Instead troops met stiff resistance and eventually opened fire. Activists have claimed their intentions were entirely peaceful – but the IDF, as well as some analysts, has drawn links between a Turkish charity group that funded the flotilla and al-Qaida terrorists.

The army on Wednesday posted this video on the YouTube website to support its claims – see: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=7…

At the UN, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, John Holmes, a British Diplomat, former Ambassador to France, appointed to his UN position by  United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon January 2007, declared that “we want to turn this disaster into an opportunity, but h warned – the situation is very complicated and do not think it is a simple question to resolve.

he made it clear that the UN does not accept any interference at borders and that there should be no restrictions on what the various Palestinian factions want to bring in and the way they use what the donors send them as long as the donors agree.

But John Holmes is neither blind nor deaf – so he knows – and said so: “The de facto position is that Israel must agree to the crossing of goods.” {our update is about the inclusion of the article we received from Uri Avnery and we suggest that Mr. Holmes take a historic look at how other Britons dealt blows to themselves over 60 years ago.}

He noted, and we say this is the great luck of the UN, the UN has no ships to protect the shipping to Gaza – so it is for the interested parties to get to an agreement with Israel and take into consideration the security worries about shipping of arms to Gaza.

Here we get to the main issues. Israel is ready to allow transfer of goods to Gaza provided that some goods are not included but it has not made available such a list. Then the issue of cement – will it be used for housing or military purpose? With lack of agreement between the two main Palestinian factions – Hamas of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority that rules on the outside, who will speak for the people of Gaza?

So far – so good – but here Ambassador Holmes gave a clear picture of how difficult it is to satisfy Israel’s worries. He literally started to mumble when the question was what list is Israel expected to produce – the list of acceptable goods or the list of forbidden goods, Mr. Holmes settled on the liste of “forbidden goods – AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALLOWED.” But then how do you treat improvisations that lead to dangerous outcomes – like the issue of cement? Not easy indeed. We think that agreed upon foods and medications should be on that list – and everything else excluded until a resumption of Peace talks with the Gazan’s becomes reality – but then Peace talks with the Palestinian Authority about the other, and major, part of the land – the West Bank, should go on speedily. If Turkey wants to be of any help – that is what it can do – host the negotiations without posturing as leader of the hate-Israel tribes.

This website has its difficulty in accepting deeds of Israeli governments that did not try to solve the ongoing conflict and one of the people w admire most is Uri Avnery who is a maverick in Israel – that allows us now to take the position that Turkey, a country that we saw as potential trouble shooter, we feel now is becoming rather a trouble causer to Israel and the Obama Administration. Having entered the fray Turkey could now figure out ways how to monitor those lists and how to open the door to needed supplies in Gaza – but within the limits of required Israel security needs.

————-
From the UN, June 4, 2010 – GAZA: UN OFFICIAL VOICES DEEP CONCERN AS HAMAS RAIDS OFFICES OF AID GROUPS.

{just call it – biting the hand that feeds you!}

A senior United Nations official in the Middle East today expressed deep concern at reports that Hamas has broken into the offices of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Gaza Strip this week, confiscated materials and equipment, and forced the offices to shut down.

Robert Serry, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said in a statement issued in Jerusalem that reports indicated Hamas had broken into NGO offices in both Gaza City and Rafah.

“This targeting of NGOs, including UN partner organizations, is unacceptable, violating accepted norms of a free society and harming the Palestinian people,” he said.

“The de facto authorities must cease such repressive steps and allow the re-opening of these civil society institutions without delay.”

Hamas, which does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, took control of Gaza in 2007 after it ousted the Fatah movement. About 1.5 million Palestinians live in the area, which has been blockaded by Israel for the past three years.

——————-

see also: http://israel.foreignpolicyblogs.com/

——————

But that is not all: What should be considered also is - http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers…

The Israeli special-forces assault in the early hours of 31 May 2010 on the leading ship of a humanitarian-aid convoy sailing towards the Gaza strip was intended to be a robust statement of national policy. Instead, the deadly commando-raid – in which nine of the on-board activists were killed and thirty wounded – has sparked an international diplomatic crisis with profound implications.

This international dimension of the incident was apparent within hours when Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu cancelled what was to have been a crucial bridge-building meeting in Washington with Barack Obama and returned to Israel. The events on the Mavi Marmara ferry, both a human tragedy and a public-relations disaster for Israel, were soon to accomplish what the activists had set out to do and Israel been determined to stop: focus global attention on the blockade of the Gaza strip (see Patrick Cockburn, “PR dangerously distorts the Israeli sense of reality”, 2 June 2010).

A clear danger

Israel had assembled a powerful naval force to intercept a flotilla that represented much the largest and best-resourced effort to break the Gaza blockade.

The Mavi Marmara initiative centred on the Turkish group the Foundation of Humanitarian Relief (IHH), a well-endowed organisation that may be supported financially by many Turks but also has (at the very least) informal links with the Ankara government. The IHH had bought the Mavi Marmara from a state-owned company for $1.25 million; there was every sign that the flotilla it led represented the early stage of a long-term  operation with high-level Turkish political endorsement (see Simon Thurlow, “Israel Founders in International Waters”, Asia Times, 1 June 2010) .

Israel’s absolute determination to maintain control of Gaza meant that the development of such a strategy (essentially under official Turkish tutelage) presented it with a clear danger. Israel therefore decided to use sufficient force to deter any practical attempts to pursue the strategy, even if that would damage further its already strained relations with Turkey.

A deep concern

The working relationship between Turkey and Israel, complex and in many ways unexpected as it has been, has survived major tests (see Kerem Oktem, “Turkey and Israel: ends and beginnings”, 10 December 2009). Yet it  had already been deteriorating for some time before the Israeli military assault on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009 – Operation Cast Lead – made it even more fraught. The public dispute between the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Israeli president Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos was only the most visible sign of an accentuating trend (see Mustafa Kibaroglu, “Turkey-Israel relations after Gaza“, 26 January 2010). Now, the crisis over the flotilla attack has brought it to an even deeper low.

This is worrying enough for Israel, but the profound breach between two of the United States’s closest allies is also a deep concern for Washington.

The US is acutely aware that the assault on the Mavi Marmara has potentially damaging reverberations in other areas – Pakistan and Iran, for example – where what it perceives as its core security interests are at stake (see “America and the world’s jungle“, 27 May 2010).

Among these effects is a further rise in anti-Americanism in Pakistan, evident in demonstrations in Karachi (see Syed Saleem Shahzad, “Israeli strike echoes in Pakistan”, Asia Times 2 June 2010). This will dismay Washington as it attempts to secure Pakistani cooperation in its tough campaign to subdue the Taliban.

But the Barack Obama administration will be even more alarmed by the renewed difficulties in persuading fellow United Nations Security Council states to vote for another round of sanctions against Iran over Tehran’s nuclear programme. The current non-permanent members of the council include Turkey and Brazil, and both were already aggrieved at the United States dismissal of the enriched-uranium exchange-deal they agreed with Tehran on 17 May 2010 (see Mariano Aguirre, “Brazil-Turkey and Iran: a new global balance”, 2 June 2010). Now, after the Israeli raid, Turkey will be even less inclined to support Washington.

An Istanbul gathering

These matters are serious enough for the United States. But an equally momentous development, one that as yet has not been fully registered, is a five-day meeting that took place in Istanbul’s Cevahir Hotel on 10 April 2010. The “Iraqi resistance support conference” involved dozens of Iraqis who had been active in the Sunni insurgency that developed after the US-led overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and occupation of Iraq in 2003 (under the banner of groups such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the al-Rashideen Army) (see Ernesto Londono, “Iraq’s Sunni insurgent groups gather to plot comeback amid political crisis.” (Washington Post, 1 June 2010).

The Istanbul meeting included people who had been involved in the governing Ba’ath Party during the Saddam Hussein era, though not (it seems) any linked to al-Qaida in Iraq. It did, however, reflect a strong sense that many of those involved in the “awakening” movement that had opposed and weakened al-Qaida in 2007-08 were now being excluded from Iraqi politics at the highest level.

Almost three weeks after the Istanbul gathering, on 29 April, a public meeting was held in Damascus to relaunch the Ba’ath Party in Iraq, an organisation outlawed since spring 2003. The Syrian capital may be seen as the “natural” location for this event for reasons both of geographical proximity and political-ideological affinity (Syria, after all, is ruled by a branch of the once-unified Ba’ath and is ostensibly committed to the same Arab nationalist goals).

The party’s rebirth was condemned by Iraq’s current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who belongs to the (Shi’a-supported) Dawa that long opposed Ba’ath rule. But the International Crisis Group’s specialist on Iraq (and openDemocracy author) Joost Hiltermann puts this political move in the context of current Iraqi realities:

“There is no doubt that Sunnis will feel excluded, disenfranchised and marginalised if they are not given a significant share in government. After all, it is with this expectation that they agreed to abandon the insurgency during the surge in 2007”.

The attempted reforming of the Ba’ath Party may well come to nothing. Indeed it may simply be a political ploy – a veiled threat to the Shi’a majority in Iraq that it should avoid entrenching any exclusion of the Sunnis from Iraq’s post-election settlement.

This aspect of internal Iraqi politics aside, the Turkish government’s willingness to allow a key meeting of Iraqi ex-insurgents to take place in Istanbul is remarkable.

A new wind

There is much talk and some fear in western capitals that Turkey is ceasing to look westwards towards the European Union and Nato, and rather seeks to build its influence to the east and south.

The view of some analysts in the United States is even more alarmist: that Turkey – its membership of Nato notwithstanding – is increasingly unreliable as a partner of the west (see Steven A Cook, “How do you say ‘frenemy’ in Turkish?”, Foreign Policy, 1 June 2010). The prospect of a revival of a form of Islamist-imperial dominance in the region, under the leadership of Erdogan’s AKP government, offers history-fuelled succour to the notion. A comment in the influential neo-conservative Weekly Standard is indicative:

“Since 2005, Americans have been worrying about Iran’s ambitions for regional hegemony. Maybe its time we started worrying about Turkey’s regional ambitions as well. The Turks ruled the region from 1453 to 1922, after all. A renascence of Turkish power, in an Islamist guise, would cause all sorts of troubles no one can anticipate” (see Matthew Continetti, “The Turkish power”, Weekly Standard, 1 June 2010).

There are variable degrees of simplification in such views, which need to be considered in the context of Turkey’s substantial military involvement in Nato and its continuing ambitions to join the European Union (see Katinka Barysch, “Turkey and Europe: a shifting axis”, 14 April 2010).

What is much more likely is that Turkey is pursuing and will further develop a triple strategic and diplomatic policy:

a.  retaining its European orientation

b.  enhancing its regional influence, not least in Iraq and Iran (see Carsten Wieland, “Turkey’s political-emotional transition”,        6 October 2009)

c.  creating space to work more closely with other major emerging states – notably Brazil, as over the tripartite fuel-swap agreement with Iran

In this broader context, the Istanbul hotel meeting may over time prove to be as significant as Turkey’s angry response to Israel’s commando-raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla. What is certain is that both events are ingredients of a change in the world’s political order.

———————————————————-

from: Uri Avnery

Hope this may interest you.
Shalom, Salamaat,
uri

– –

June 5, 2010

Kill a Turk and Rest

ON THE high seas, outside territorial waters, the ship was stopped by the navy. The commandos stormed it. Hundreds of people on the deck resisted, the soldiers used force. Some of the passengers were killed, scores injured. The ship was brought into harbor, the passengers were taken off by force. The world saw them walking on the quay, men and women, young and old, all of them worn out, one after another, each being marched between two soldiers…

The ship was called “Exodus 1947”. It left France in the hope of breaking the British blockade, which was imposed to prevent ships loaded with Holocaust survivors from reaching the shores of Palestine. If it had been allowed to reach the country, the illegal immigrants would have come ashore and the British would have sent them to detention camps in Cyprus, as they had done before. Nobody would have taken any notice of the episode for more than two days.

But the person in charge was Ernest Bevin, a Labour Party leader, an arrogant, rude and power-loving British minister. He was not about to let a bunch of Jews dictate to him. He decided to teach them a lesson the entire world would witness. “This is a provocation!” he exclaimed, and of course he was right. The main aim was indeed to create a provocation, in order to draw the eyes of the world to the British blockade.

What followed is well known: the episode dragged on and on, one stupidity led to another, the whole world sympathized with the passengers. But the British did not give in and paid the price. A heavy price.

Many believe that the “Exodus” incident was the turning point in the struggle for the creation of the State of Israel. Britain collapsed under the weight of international condemnation and decided to give up its mandate over Palestine. There were, of course, many more weighty reasons for this decision, but the “Exodus” proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I AM not the only one who was reminded of this episode this week. Actually, it was almost impossible not to be reminded of it, especially for those of us who lived in Palestine at the time and witnessed it.

There are, of course, important differences. Then the passengers were Holocaust survivors, this time they were peace activists from all over the world. But then and now the world saw heavily armed soldiers brutally attack unarmed passengers, who resist with everything that comes to hand, sticks and bare hands. Then and now it happened on the high seas – 40 km from the shore then, 65 km now.

In retrospect, the British behavior throughout the affair seems incredibly stupid. But Bevin was no fool, and the British officers who commanded the action were not nincompoops. After all, they had just finished a World War on the winning side.

If they behaved with complete folly from beginning to end, it was the result of arrogance, insensitivity and boundless contempt for world public opinion.

Ehud Barak is the Israeli Bevin. He is not a fool, either, nor are our top brass. But they are responsible for a chain of acts of folly, the disastrous implications of which are hard to assess. Former minister and present commentator Yossi Sarid called the ministerial “committee of seven”, which decides on security matters, “seven idiots” – and I must protest. It is an insult to idiots.

THE PREPARATIONS for the flotilla went on for more than a year. Hundreds of e-mail messages went back and forth. I myself received many dozens. There was no secret. Everything was out in the open.

There was a lot of time for all our political and military institutions to prepare for the approach of the ships. The politician consulted. The soldiers trained. The diplomats reported. The intelligence people did their job.

Nothing helped. All the decisions were wrong from the first moment to this moment. And it’s not yet the end.

The idea of a flotilla as a means to break the blockade borders on genius. It placed the Israeli government on the horns of a dilemma – the choice between several alternatives, all of them bad. Every general hopes to get his opponent into such a situation.

The alternatives were:

1. To let the flotilla reach Gaza without hindrance. The cabinet secretary supported this option. That would have led to the end of the blockade, because after this flotilla more and larger ones would have come.

1. To stop the ships in territorial waters, inspect their cargo and make sure they were not carrying weapons or “terrorists”, then let them continue on their way. That would have aroused some vague protests in the world but upheld the principle of a blockade.

1. To capture them on the high seas and bring them to Ashdod, risking a face-to-face battle with activists on board.

As our governments have always done, when faced with the choice between several bad alternatives, the Netanyahu government chose the worst.

Anyone who followed the preparations as reported in the media could have foreseen that they would lead to people being killed and injured. One does not storm a Turkish ship and expect cute little girls to present one with flowers. The Turks are not known as people who give in easily.

The orders given to the forces and made public included the three fateful words: “at any cost”. Every soldier knows what these three terrible words mean. Moreover, on the list of objectives, the consideration for the passengers appeared only in third place, after safeguarding the safety of the soldiers and fulfilling the task.

If Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, the Chief of Staff and the commander of the navy did not understand that this would lead to killing and wounding people, then it must be concluded – even by those who were reluctant  to consider this until now – that they are grossly incompetent. They must be told, in the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

THIS EVENT points again to one of the most serious aspects of the situation: we live in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which cuts us off and prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world. A psychiatrist might judge this to be the symptom of a severe mental problem.

The propaganda of the government and the army tells a simple story: our heroic soldiers, determined and sensitive, the elite of the elite, descended on the ship in order “to talk” and were attacked by a wild and violent crowd. Official spokesmen repeated again and again the word “lynching”.

On the first day, almost all the Israeli media accepted this. After all, it is clear that we, the Jews, are the victims. Always. That applies to Jewish soldiers, too. True, we storm a foreign ship at sea, but turn at once into victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites.

It is impossible not to be reminded of the classic Jewish joke about the Jewish mother in Russia taking leave of her son, who has been called up to serve the Czar in the war against Turkey. “Don’t overexert yourself’” she implores him, “Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…”

“But mother,” the son interrupts, “What if the Turk kills me?”

“You?” exclaims the mother, “But why? What have you done to him?”

To any normal person, this may sound crazy. Heavily armed soldiers of an elite commando unit board a ship on the high seas in the middle of the night, from the sea and from the air – and they are the victims?

But there is a grain of truth there: they are the victims of arrogant and incompetent commanders, irresponsible politicians and the media fed by them. And, actually, of the Israeli public, since most of the people voted for this government or for the opposition, which is no different.

The “Exodus” affair was repeated, but with a change of roles. Now we are the British.

Somewhere, a new Leon Uris is planning to write his next book, “Exodus 2010”. A new Otto Preminger is planning a film that will become a blockbuster. A new Paul Newman will star in it – after all, there is no shortage of talented Turkish actors.

MORE THAN 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson declared that every nation must act with a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Israeli leaders have never accepted the wisdom of this maxim. They adhere to the dictum of David Ben-Gurion: “It is not important what the Gentiles say, it is important what the Jews do.” Perhaps he assumed that the Jews would not act foolishly.

Making enemies of the Turks is more than foolish. For decades, Turkey has been our closest ally in the region, much more close than is generally known. Turkey could play, in the future, an important role as a mediator between Israel and the Arab-Muslim world, between Israel and Syria, and, yes, even between Israel and Iran. Perhaps we have succeeded now in uniting the Turkish people against us – and some say that this is the only matter on which the Turks are now united.

This is Chapter 2 of “Cast Lead”. Then we aroused most countries in the world against us, shocked our few friends and gladdened our enemies. Now we have done it again, and perhaps with even greater success. World public opinion is turning against us.

This is a slow process. It resembles the accumulation of water behind a dam. The water rises slowly, quietly, and the change is hardly noticeable. But when it reaches a critical level, the dam bursts and the disaster is upon us. We are steadily approaching this point.

“Kill a Turk and rest,” the mother says in the joke. Our government does not even rest. It seems that they will not stop until they have made enemies of the last of our friends.

(Parts of this article were published in Ma’ariv, Israel’s second largest newspaper.)

-==========================================================================

CHAPTER II:

Saturday, June 5th there was again an attempt to breach the Israeli blockade, but it had a different result. So, as expected, these events will continue and one might be able to predict the results based on the country that sends out the ship.

Please see:  http://www.truthout.org/israeli-naval-fo…

This time it was an Irish vessel, “the Rachel Corrie, named after the US citizen who was intentionally crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, refused demands by Israeli defense forces to dock in Ashdod. It was intercepted in international waters.” From the tone of this report it is made clear that the report was not favorable to Israel – but nevertheless it does produce the truth in this case. Just see further  as it says:

According to the New York Times, “there were no resistance or injuries, and the military said the ship’s crew and passengers fully complied with the boarding.”

And from the Israelis – “Our forces boarded the boat and took control without meeting any resistance from the crew or the passengers. Everything took place without violence,” a military spokeswoman told Agence France-Press, saying no shots had been fired.

So, let us conclude – the issue is obviously complicated, so are the reasons for the previous deaths – when a flotilla comes in fighting mode and ready to become “jihadis” there will be dead – if the issue is plain civil protest and delivery of goods – Israel should deal with it accordingly – and the second case proves it.

Further: The ship and the 15 people on board, most of them Irish or Malaysian activists, was being escorted into the southern Israeli port of Ashdod from where the aid would be transferred to Gaza through land crossings, the military said.

Canada’s CTV reported that the Rachel Corrie was “carrying about 1,000 tons of aid, including wheelchairs, medical supplies and cement.”

Passengers, CTV news said, included Nobel Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire and are largely affiliated with the group “Free Gaza.”

The organization said in statement that the Rachel Corrie was tracked by Israeli ships for two hours prior to the raid and the Israeli navy jammed the vessels equipment.

All right – we expect the Israelis to deliver the wheelchairs and medical supplies to Gaza by road, and make a final decision on the cement. Maybe allow in part of it with the FREE GAZA  people vouching that it is used for housing. If the Palestinians refuse acceptance – the cement goes back to Ireland or is bought by the Israelis at fair price. Whatever the outcome – we see already that the Irish were not on the way to Gaza in order to stake claim for their flag – and that was the true difference between the first that was a Turkish political pro-Turkish attempt, and the follow-up Irish humanitarian pro-Palestinian attempt.

MIDEAST – Hamas’ Turn to Demolish Palestinian Homes.
By Mel Frykberg for IPS.

RAMALLAH, May 25, 2010 (IPS) - On Sunday approximately 150 Palestinians from 20 families were driven out of their homes in Rafah, in the southern Gaza strip, by heavily armed police and soldiers who menaced them with clubs.

Many of those expelled had already lost their homes and been forced into the streets when Israel carried out its military assault over the coastal territory, which deliberately targeted Gaza’s infrastructure, during Operation Cast Lead at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009.

Some of the homes destroyed on Sunday were temporary shacks built hastily after the Israeli assault. Other homes were concrete structures built prior to Israel’s crippling blockade, imposed on Gaza after Hamas took control in June 2007, which has prevented most reconstruction material from entering the territory.

Nevertheless, the harshness of the actions under the current conditions provoked anger from Gazans and condemnation from human rights organisations.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza expressed “its grave concern over these demolitions, which constitute a violation of civilians’ rights to adequate housing. These violations may affect an additional 180 houses in Rafah in the future.”

The Hamas authorities have been battling increasing incidents of Islamic extremism which have targeted beauty salons, coffee shops, Internet cafes, the YMCA and a Red Cross convoy.

Groups with links to al-Qaeda have also launched attacks against Hamas’ security forces. A shootout between Jund Ansar Allah and Hamas police last year in Rafah left more than 20 dead.

Although the Hamas authorities have cracked down on Islamic extremists, Gazans who tried to hold a protest march against the arson attack on the UNRWA facility were forcibly turned back by Hamas police.

This suppression of civil liberties came as the Hamas authorities simultaneously prevented a human rights workshop to discuss rights and freedom in the Palestinian territories from being held at a Gaza hotel on Monday.

“The decision to bar the event is an unprecedented interference in the work of human rights organisations. NGOs are not required to obtain a permit or seek the government’s permission to hold workshops,” said Ibrahim.