03/02/201
By LARRY DERFNER
In these days of uncertainty, a volunteer army of steady, sure, confident voices in Israel’s defense is more critical than ever.
As you well know, Israel has never been in such peril as it is today. Anti-Semitism has risen to historic levels. Israel’s enemies are arming themselves with weapons that endanger not only its existence, but its very existence. And now, added to these grave existential threats comes the upheaval we’ve seen spreading throughout the Middle East. In these days of uncertainty, a volunteer army of steady, sure, confident voices in Israel’s defense is more critical than ever. Here is a set of talking points for you to use when fighting the information war for Israel’s survival. B’hatzlaha – good luck.
1. “Our hearts are with the protesters in the square, but...” This lets your audience know at the start that you, as a supporter of Israel, are in favor of democracy, even for Arabs. Then you get to the “but,” and after the “but,” you only mention the bad, terrible things that could happen.
For example: “But Islamic fundamentalists could take over, just like they did in Iran.” “But the new leaders could tear up the peace treaty with Israel.” “But they could support terrorists like al-Qaida.” “But they could destabilize the whole region and start World War III.”
You start off paying lip service to the good – democracy – but keep it brief and vague, and then when you get down to specifics, hit them with one doomsday scenario after another. By the time you’re through, your audience will be more scared of Arabs than ever.
2. “Stability.” This was the point to bring up during the Egyptian uprising – not that we were against democracy and in favor of tyranny, God forbid, but that we were for “stability,” i.e. Mubarak. Today, of course, it’s a little late for that argument. But while it’s become dicey to use the stability gambit against Arabs protesting against dictators, it can be adapted to shore up the case for Israel – and, indirectly, still make the case against the Arab protesters.
It goes like this: Instead of saying, “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East,” which may not be the case for long and which sounds like you want to keep it that way, you say: “Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East.”
This reminds your audience of all the terrible things that could happen with these uprisings, and, again, leaves them more scared of Arabs than ever.
NOW THAT your listeners are in a black mood, now that they’re booing the Arabs again, it’s time to lift their spirits and get them cheering for Israel. Time to switch from negative to positive.
3. “Vibrant democracy.” This is the oldest of old chestnuts in the Israel advocate’s basket of goodies – that Israel is a “vibrant democracy.”
The funny thing is that it used to be true – the Right would fight it out with the Left, they went back and forth from the government to the opposition, there would be huge rallies by the settlers and huge rallies by the peaceniks. Today there’s no Left, there’s no fight, there are no huge rallies. Today the only debate is between the hard-liners who want to jail all the Arabs and leftists today and the moderates who counsel patience. The settlers keep building, the army keeps slugging away and barely a peep is heard in protest. But you can still sell people on Israel’s “vibrant democracy” – show them clips from the shouting matches in Knesset. Remember: It’s not the steak, it’s the sizzle.
4. “Israel is not perfect.” This is indispensable. It shows the audience that you’re not a propagandist, not a shill, not trying to sell them a bill of goods – and that criticism of Israel is welcome, so long, of course, as it’s fair. What is fair criticism of Israel? To say that Israel is not perfect – that’s fair. Israel makes mistakes – that’s fair. And if anybody asks you for an example of a mistake Israel has made, you can say, “Well, we thought the Palestinians wanted peace, but...”
Or, “Well, we thought the world would support us when we tried to make peace, but...”
In other words, Israel’s mistake, Israel’s imperfection, is that it’s too good. That’s criticism, and audiences will be impressed with your candor.
5. “Delegitimization.” A really cool word that you can use against anybody who says anything about Israel that you don’t like. Israel’s oppressing somebody? Delegitimization! Israel’s violating somebody’s rights? Delegitimization! It shuts people up. When you say they’re “delegitimizing” Israel, it’s like you’re saying they’re denying Israel’s right to exist, like they’re calling for the destruction of Israel, like they’re calling for the Jews of Israel to be wiped out! It puts people on the defensive beautifully. It’s like calling them anti-Semites without actually using the word, which was getting pretty stale, kind of embarrassing. Delegitimization sounds a lot more sophisticated, and it does the job more effectively.
6. “Denying Israel’s right to self-defense.” This can be used against anyone who questions the divine justice behind anything the IDF does. Anybody who suggested that maybe Israel should not have banned pasta, for example, from entering Gaza was denying Israel’s right to self-defense. Anybody who wonders whether the army should
take more precautions before shooting at Gazan fishermen, farmers and metal scavengers is denying Israel’s right to self-defense. Even Israeli combat soldiers who describe killing, brutalizing and humiliating Palestinian civilians are denying Israel’s right to self-defense.
Again, that’s like denying Israel’s right to life itself, which is a pretty serious charge. And an intimidating one. Use it liberally.
7. “Context” or “contextualization.” This is a fancy way of saying “the background to a story that makes Israel look good and/or the Arabs bad.” If, on the other hand, the background to the story makes Israel look bad and/or the Arabs good, then this is not “context” or “contextualization,” it’s “propaganda.” For instance, if Israel blockades Gaza’s coast and airspace and attacks it with jets, helicopters, tanks and snipers, and you point out that Gazans fire Kassams at Israel, that’s putting the story in context. But if Gazans fire Kassams at Israel and someone else points out that Israel blockades Gaza’s coast and airspace and attacks it with jets, helicopters, tanks and snipers, that’s propaganda.
8. “Lawfare.” Sounds like “warfare,” doesn’t it? That’s the point – to turn lawsuits against the occupation, whether in foreign courts or in Israel’s own courts, into the equivalent of war. In other words, the equivalent of killing people. In other words, the equivalent of terrorism.
Going to court against the occupation is terrorism.
But you don’t want to use the word “terrorism” for a lawsuit, just like you don’t want to use the word “anti-Semitism” for some CNN story. So you call the CNN story “delegitimization” and the lawsuit “lawfare.” You gotta be subtle.
9. “Incitement.” This is the one to bang away at when there’s no, or nearly no, Palestinian terror to speak of, like there hasn’t been for years. When there was terror, you could say, “When the Palestinians stop terror, they will be amazed at how generous we are.” But now we’re in a bit of bind because the Palestinians have basically stopped terror, and, well, what does that leave us to work with? It leaves us incitement! When a Palestinian preacher quotes something gruesome from the Koran, when a Palestinian newspaper accuses Israel of war crimes, when a Palestinian textbook accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, that’s incitement, and they have stop it or there will never be peace.
All right, we’ve got our rabbis, and they’re saying all sorts of crazy things about killing gentiles and how Arabs are animals and God knows what, and we’ve got this foreign minister who says he wants to execute Arab Knesset members who meet with Hamas and bomb Egypt, and the polls say half of Israelis want the Arabs gone, period.
But that’s not incitement, that’s... that’s... Israel’s vibrant democracy! Yeah, say that. If that doesn’t work, then try, “Israel is not perfect.”
And if they still complain, accuse them of “delegitimization.”
Remember, Israel is at war, the information war. All is fair.
Source: The Jerusalem Post
Showing posts with label Israel 'mauoeuvres'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel 'mauoeuvres'. Show all posts
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
An infestation of Israeli spies
Dec 31, 2010
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Last week, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he was set to publicly appeal to President Barack Obama to release Jonathon Pollard, a former US naval intelligence analyst, who is currently serving a life sentence in a US prison for spying for Israel. That call is backed by Lawrence Korb, a former US assistant secretary of defense, who says Pollard’s continued incarceration is “a miscarriage of justice.”
Korb characterizes Pollard’s wrongdoing as “minor” when, according to the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Pollard not only passed classified information to Israel, but also to South Africa and possibly to Pakistan. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, classified documents related to China were found in his home that had allegedly been used by his wife Anne to further her business interests.
If Obama decides to give in to pressure from America’s ally Israel and Pollard’s American friends in high places, what does this say about his administration’s bloodlust for WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, a journalist who merely disseminated stolen material?
As usual, when it comes to Israel, there are gross double standards at play. It amazes me that the American people aren’t up in arms over Israel spies when their tax dollars go to support the Jewish state in terms of aid, loan guarantees and weapons.
For instance, post-Sept. 11, 2001, Carl Cameron of Fox News revealed that a large Israeli spy ring whose members purported to be art students were tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda operatives and knew that attacks were on the cards, but failed to share this information with US authorities. The US Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA all said Cameron was mistaken, and the “art students” were allowed to return to Israel.
Similarly, the five Israeli “removal men” who were videoing, cheering and high-fiving as the first plane hit the World Trade Center were taken into custody for a short time before being packed off back to Israel after their boss had already done a runner.
Then, in 2004, another espionage scandal broke concerning Lawrence Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon official working in the office of the US Secretary of Defense. Franklin was caught passing a presidential directive and other top secret documents on America’s Iran policy to two employees of the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC. Franklin pleaded guilty to espionage, was sentenced to 13 years in jail, when lo and behold that sentenced was reduced to 10 months house arrest, while the two AIPAC officials were allowed to walk away scot-free.
I never cease to be incredulous at the international community’s passivity vis-à-vis Israeli spies and assassins who seem to have been given carte blanche to infiltrate anywhere they like and do their worst, including murder.
Israel rarely admits wrongdoing unless its hand is caught in the cookie jar. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, Israel’s incoming Mossad chief is set to apologize to Britain for his agency’s use of forged or cloned British passports, used by Israeli assassins to enter Dubai for the purpose of assassinating a Hamas commander Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, and he will promise that British passports will never be compromised in this fashion again.
In the event such an apology manifests, it is tantamount to an admission that the Israeli prime minister, who must sign-off on such deadly operations, has rubber-stamped an extra-judicial killing in another country. In most civil courts of law around the world if a person in authority is charged with authorizing an underling to commit murder and found guilty, he would probably be convicted or first degree murder or conspiracy to murder.
Yet, Cameron who is the prime minister of a democratic country that purports to be a world leader in justice, the rule of law and human rights, is not only happy to fraternize with someone like Netanyahu, he is trying to pass a bill into law that would allow alleged Israeli war criminals entering Britain immunity from prosecution on the grounds of “Universal Jurisdiction,” which the UK has previously championed.
If America is plagued with Israeli spy rings, just imagine how many Mossad operatives and spies are running around the Middle East. This week, AFP revealed that Tareq Abdul Razzak, a 37-year-old former Kung-Fu coach and owner of an import-export business in his homeland Egypt, has been spying for Israel since 2007 when he sent e-mails seeking opportunities in China. But instead of being contacted by Chinese businessmen, Abdul Razzak was approached by Israeli agents in Thailand who recruited him and financed his import-export company as a cover.
The Egyptian has now been arrested and is accused of supplying the Mossad with names of potential recruits employed in the telecommunications sectors within Egypt, Syria and Lebanon and of setting-up a website offering jobs in telecommunications so that he could make contact with potential new recruits. Since his arrest the traitor has been singing like a bird.
He says he is responsible for recruiting hundreds of Mossad agents and claims that Israeli intelligence sabotaged Egypt’s Internet network eighteen months ago causing a lengthy and almost total disruption of service. There is also a suggestion that he and his fellow Israeli spooks collected information about Japanese and Chinese tourists visiting Red Sea resorts so that their abductions could be orchestrated by Israeli agents presumably for the purposes of destroying Egypt’s tourism industry, which certainly makes one wonder about the sudden appearance of killer sharks off the Sinai Peninsula. His confessions, while in custody, have reportedly resulted in three Israeli spy rings being dismantled in Lebanon and Syria.
It seems to me that the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon set-up to investigate the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri should be shut down. US diplomatic cables to be released by WikiLeaks will implicate the Mossad in the killing of a Lebanese military commander in Damascus as well as the murder of Al-Mabhouh in Dubai. Yet, by all accounts the tribunal is poised to point the finger at Hezbollah for cutting short Hariri’s life, although Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has provided evidence that Israel was tracking Hariri’s every movement at the time of his death. Oh, please!
Such willful myopia on the part of Western leaders, politicians, judges, not to mention public inertia toward their governments acting decisively against Israel’s criminal activities around the globe, is nothing short of disgusting and cowardly. When, oh when, will it end?
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Last week, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he was set to publicly appeal to President Barack Obama to release Jonathon Pollard, a former US naval intelligence analyst, who is currently serving a life sentence in a US prison for spying for Israel. That call is backed by Lawrence Korb, a former US assistant secretary of defense, who says Pollard’s continued incarceration is “a miscarriage of justice.”
Korb characterizes Pollard’s wrongdoing as “minor” when, according to the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Pollard not only passed classified information to Israel, but also to South Africa and possibly to Pakistan. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, classified documents related to China were found in his home that had allegedly been used by his wife Anne to further her business interests.
If Obama decides to give in to pressure from America’s ally Israel and Pollard’s American friends in high places, what does this say about his administration’s bloodlust for WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, a journalist who merely disseminated stolen material?
As usual, when it comes to Israel, there are gross double standards at play. It amazes me that the American people aren’t up in arms over Israel spies when their tax dollars go to support the Jewish state in terms of aid, loan guarantees and weapons.
For instance, post-Sept. 11, 2001, Carl Cameron of Fox News revealed that a large Israeli spy ring whose members purported to be art students were tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda operatives and knew that attacks were on the cards, but failed to share this information with US authorities. The US Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA all said Cameron was mistaken, and the “art students” were allowed to return to Israel.
Similarly, the five Israeli “removal men” who were videoing, cheering and high-fiving as the first plane hit the World Trade Center were taken into custody for a short time before being packed off back to Israel after their boss had already done a runner.
Then, in 2004, another espionage scandal broke concerning Lawrence Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon official working in the office of the US Secretary of Defense. Franklin was caught passing a presidential directive and other top secret documents on America’s Iran policy to two employees of the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC. Franklin pleaded guilty to espionage, was sentenced to 13 years in jail, when lo and behold that sentenced was reduced to 10 months house arrest, while the two AIPAC officials were allowed to walk away scot-free.
I never cease to be incredulous at the international community’s passivity vis-à-vis Israeli spies and assassins who seem to have been given carte blanche to infiltrate anywhere they like and do their worst, including murder.
Israel rarely admits wrongdoing unless its hand is caught in the cookie jar. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, Israel’s incoming Mossad chief is set to apologize to Britain for his agency’s use of forged or cloned British passports, used by Israeli assassins to enter Dubai for the purpose of assassinating a Hamas commander Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, and he will promise that British passports will never be compromised in this fashion again.
In the event such an apology manifests, it is tantamount to an admission that the Israeli prime minister, who must sign-off on such deadly operations, has rubber-stamped an extra-judicial killing in another country. In most civil courts of law around the world if a person in authority is charged with authorizing an underling to commit murder and found guilty, he would probably be convicted or first degree murder or conspiracy to murder.
Yet, Cameron who is the prime minister of a democratic country that purports to be a world leader in justice, the rule of law and human rights, is not only happy to fraternize with someone like Netanyahu, he is trying to pass a bill into law that would allow alleged Israeli war criminals entering Britain immunity from prosecution on the grounds of “Universal Jurisdiction,” which the UK has previously championed.
If America is plagued with Israeli spy rings, just imagine how many Mossad operatives and spies are running around the Middle East. This week, AFP revealed that Tareq Abdul Razzak, a 37-year-old former Kung-Fu coach and owner of an import-export business in his homeland Egypt, has been spying for Israel since 2007 when he sent e-mails seeking opportunities in China. But instead of being contacted by Chinese businessmen, Abdul Razzak was approached by Israeli agents in Thailand who recruited him and financed his import-export company as a cover.
The Egyptian has now been arrested and is accused of supplying the Mossad with names of potential recruits employed in the telecommunications sectors within Egypt, Syria and Lebanon and of setting-up a website offering jobs in telecommunications so that he could make contact with potential new recruits. Since his arrest the traitor has been singing like a bird.
He says he is responsible for recruiting hundreds of Mossad agents and claims that Israeli intelligence sabotaged Egypt’s Internet network eighteen months ago causing a lengthy and almost total disruption of service. There is also a suggestion that he and his fellow Israeli spooks collected information about Japanese and Chinese tourists visiting Red Sea resorts so that their abductions could be orchestrated by Israeli agents presumably for the purposes of destroying Egypt’s tourism industry, which certainly makes one wonder about the sudden appearance of killer sharks off the Sinai Peninsula. His confessions, while in custody, have reportedly resulted in three Israeli spy rings being dismantled in Lebanon and Syria.
It seems to me that the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon set-up to investigate the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri should be shut down. US diplomatic cables to be released by WikiLeaks will implicate the Mossad in the killing of a Lebanese military commander in Damascus as well as the murder of Al-Mabhouh in Dubai. Yet, by all accounts the tribunal is poised to point the finger at Hezbollah for cutting short Hariri’s life, although Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has provided evidence that Israel was tracking Hariri’s every movement at the time of his death. Oh, please!
Such willful myopia on the part of Western leaders, politicians, judges, not to mention public inertia toward their governments acting decisively against Israel’s criminal activities around the globe, is nothing short of disgusting and cowardly. When, oh when, will it end?
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Funding illegal Israeli settlements? Priceless
Bernard Keane
Crikey.com.au - 13 December 2010
Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.
It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.
Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are "illegal outposts" even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada.
Credit card transactional systems play a key role in facilitating this support for illegal settlements. Here are some examples.
* The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.
* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being "the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha". You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.
* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.
* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as "an ongoing war crime", while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.
* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your "generous donation" to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.
At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.
Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline.
:: Article nr. 72837 sent on 13-dec-2010 23:36 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=72837
Crikey.com.au - 13 December 2010
Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.
It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.
All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.
Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are "illegal outposts" even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada.
Credit card transactional systems play a key role in facilitating this support for illegal settlements. Here are some examples.
* The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.
* The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being "the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha". You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.
* The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.
* One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as "an ongoing war crime", while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.
* Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your "generous donation" to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.
At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations.
Crikey invited Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to comment but none had responded by deadline.
:: Article nr. 72837 sent on 13-dec-2010 23:36 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=72837
Monday, December 6, 2010
ALL EYES ON LEBANON
06. Dec, 2010
By: Rannie Amiri
While the world’s eyes are busy reading WikiLeaks cables, Middle Eastern eyes are focused squarely on Lebanon.
If the past week of frenzied diplomacy is any reflection of the region’s anxiety over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s (STL) upcoming indictment in the February 2005 assassination of the late premier Rafiq al-Hariri, imagine the mood in Beirut.
The Lebanese daily Ad-Diyar reported the country’s foreign ministry had received word via its ambassador to the Netherlands, Zaidan as-Saghir, that the STL’s verdict would be issued Dec. 2. Al-Manar TV said Dec. 4 or 5. Others say not until March. The date may be uncertain, but an imminent ruling is not.
Lebanon has been on-edge since it became known that the STL will likely implicate high-ranking Hezbollah officials in Hariri’s murder, despite credible evidence linking Tel Aviv to the crime.
The Hezbollah-led, opposition March 8 Coalition has sought to cut the STL’s funding as Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah called on the government to boycott the tribunal entirely, which he dismissed as an “Israeli project.” Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his Sunni and Christian allies in the ruling March 14 Coalition, on the other hand, have vowed to stand by the court and its judgment. It should be noted that a sizable segment of the Maronite Christian community throws its weight behind former general and current MP Michel Aoun, whose Free Patriotic Movement is a significant March 8 Coalition member and has likewise called for the STL to be sidelined.
The impetus behind the week’s diplomatic flurry was not only that the diametrically opposed positions could lead to government paralysis (which some contend is already the case) but spillover into sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni supporters of the rival coalitions.
Fear over the potential negative fallout from the STL’s report caused Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani to fly into Beirut on a surprise (emergency?) visit to assuage frayed nerves, just hours before Lebanese President Michel Suleiman boarded a plane for Qatar to meet with the emir and inaugurate the new headquarters of the Lebanese embassy in Doha.
Qatar’s role in resolving disputes between Lebanese parties is legendary; the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, famously brokered the May 2008 Doha Accord that led to the formation of a national unity government and ended an 18-month political stalemate before the near outbreak of civil war. He also helped finance reconstruction of southern Lebanon, devastated in the wake of Israel’s brutal July 2006 offensive, and was the first visiting Arab head-of-state to tour area he helped rebuild during a July stopover.
Days later came Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogen who hoped to raise his country’s profile as regional peacemaker. Whereas Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accorded a hero’s welcome by Lebanese Shia when he visited in October, Erdogen was unable to engender the same enthusiasm from Sunnis (and certainly not among Lebanese-Armenians). He nonetheless stressed the need for peace and unity between Lebanon’s many confessional groups.
Still angered by Israel’s May 31 commando assault on the Gaza-bound relief vessel Mavi Marmara that killed nine Turkish activists—and even more miffed at the lack of a forthcoming apology—Erdogen pledged Turkey would not let Israel attack Lebanon without serious repercussions:
“Does [Israel] think it can enter Lebanon with the most modern aircraft and tanks to kill women and children, and destroy schools and hospitals, and then expect us to remain silent?”
Soon after Erdogen left Beirut, Hariri embarked on his first state visit to Iran. Appearing decidedly uncomfortable, he sought to secure the regime’s assistance in tempering Hezbollah’s response to the expected indictment.
All this shuttle diplomacy comes against the backdrop of an alleged Saudi-Syrian “umbrella” over Lebanon, courtesy of King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and President Bashar al-Assad’s mediation efforts. The two leaders’ unprecedented joint visit to Beirut in July aimed to placate the coalitions they backed—March 14 and March 8 respectively—and symbolically reinforce the country’s stability. Whether they ultimately agreed on a practical mechanism to avert a crisis after the STL’s findings are announced remains unknown.
The precarious nature of Hariri’s government and predictions of its eventual collapse parallel the misplaced trust and confidence March 14 Coalition members have in the Netherlands-based tribunal.
Indeed, the STL has neglected to consider several key developments: the exposure of Israeli espionage rings operating in Lebanon resulting in the arrest of more than 100 people on charges of collaborating with the Mossad; the captured agents’ confessions detailing the collusion, including one who said his Israeli handlers instructed him to delude the late prime minister into thinking Hezbollah was out to kill him (Hariri) and so allow the agent to alter the route Hariri’s motorcade would take that fateful February day; Hezbollah’s assertion that its telecommunications network had been infiltrated by Israel, compromising all its communications and causing bogus text messages to be sent.
Earlier this year, four spies were apprehended at Alfa, one of Lebanon’s mobile service providers. One admitted to installing computer programs and planting electronic chips in Alfa transmitters on Israel’s behalf.
This is important because the STL is expected to rely heavily on phone records and other telecommunication data in drawing its conclusions. Evidently neither Hezbollah’s latest disclosure nor Israeli agents known to have operated in the critical telecom sector merits further investigation.
In addition, during an August press conference, Nasrallah displayed video footage intercepted from Israeli reconnaissance planes detailing the route of Hariri’s motorcade and the assassination site the same day a bomb detonated underneath it, killing him and 21 others.
Also unaddressed by the STL is the issue of “false witnesses”; those persons who provided information incriminating Syria in Hariri’s murder but whose testimony was later found to have been fabricated (but not before four Lebanese generals spent four years in jail as a result). Without a follow-up judicial inquiry, how can testimony of those now accusing Hezbollah be trusted?
Regional arbitration and reconciliation efforts between March 8 and March 14 are welcome endeavors. It will be for naught, however, unless all Lebanese parties and well-intentioned Arab and non-Arab states recognize the flawed, politicized nature of the STL, the deliberate oversight of Israel’s motive to kill Hariri, the political and military benefits it reaped from his death and the myriad of ways it could have manipulated evidence to frame Hezbollah.
Until those determined to know the truth behind Hariri’s assassination renounce the STL and its wayward path, justice, peace and stability will have no place in Lebanon.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.
By: Rannie Amiri
While the world’s eyes are busy reading WikiLeaks cables, Middle Eastern eyes are focused squarely on Lebanon.
If the past week of frenzied diplomacy is any reflection of the region’s anxiety over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s (STL) upcoming indictment in the February 2005 assassination of the late premier Rafiq al-Hariri, imagine the mood in Beirut.
The Lebanese daily Ad-Diyar reported the country’s foreign ministry had received word via its ambassador to the Netherlands, Zaidan as-Saghir, that the STL’s verdict would be issued Dec. 2. Al-Manar TV said Dec. 4 or 5. Others say not until March. The date may be uncertain, but an imminent ruling is not.
Lebanon has been on-edge since it became known that the STL will likely implicate high-ranking Hezbollah officials in Hariri’s murder, despite credible evidence linking Tel Aviv to the crime.
The Hezbollah-led, opposition March 8 Coalition has sought to cut the STL’s funding as Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah called on the government to boycott the tribunal entirely, which he dismissed as an “Israeli project.” Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his Sunni and Christian allies in the ruling March 14 Coalition, on the other hand, have vowed to stand by the court and its judgment. It should be noted that a sizable segment of the Maronite Christian community throws its weight behind former general and current MP Michel Aoun, whose Free Patriotic Movement is a significant March 8 Coalition member and has likewise called for the STL to be sidelined.
The impetus behind the week’s diplomatic flurry was not only that the diametrically opposed positions could lead to government paralysis (which some contend is already the case) but spillover into sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni supporters of the rival coalitions.
Fear over the potential negative fallout from the STL’s report caused Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani to fly into Beirut on a surprise (emergency?) visit to assuage frayed nerves, just hours before Lebanese President Michel Suleiman boarded a plane for Qatar to meet with the emir and inaugurate the new headquarters of the Lebanese embassy in Doha.
Qatar’s role in resolving disputes between Lebanese parties is legendary; the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, famously brokered the May 2008 Doha Accord that led to the formation of a national unity government and ended an 18-month political stalemate before the near outbreak of civil war. He also helped finance reconstruction of southern Lebanon, devastated in the wake of Israel’s brutal July 2006 offensive, and was the first visiting Arab head-of-state to tour area he helped rebuild during a July stopover.
Days later came Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogen who hoped to raise his country’s profile as regional peacemaker. Whereas Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accorded a hero’s welcome by Lebanese Shia when he visited in October, Erdogen was unable to engender the same enthusiasm from Sunnis (and certainly not among Lebanese-Armenians). He nonetheless stressed the need for peace and unity between Lebanon’s many confessional groups.
Still angered by Israel’s May 31 commando assault on the Gaza-bound relief vessel Mavi Marmara that killed nine Turkish activists—and even more miffed at the lack of a forthcoming apology—Erdogen pledged Turkey would not let Israel attack Lebanon without serious repercussions:
“Does [Israel] think it can enter Lebanon with the most modern aircraft and tanks to kill women and children, and destroy schools and hospitals, and then expect us to remain silent?”
Soon after Erdogen left Beirut, Hariri embarked on his first state visit to Iran. Appearing decidedly uncomfortable, he sought to secure the regime’s assistance in tempering Hezbollah’s response to the expected indictment.
All this shuttle diplomacy comes against the backdrop of an alleged Saudi-Syrian “umbrella” over Lebanon, courtesy of King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and President Bashar al-Assad’s mediation efforts. The two leaders’ unprecedented joint visit to Beirut in July aimed to placate the coalitions they backed—March 14 and March 8 respectively—and symbolically reinforce the country’s stability. Whether they ultimately agreed on a practical mechanism to avert a crisis after the STL’s findings are announced remains unknown.
The precarious nature of Hariri’s government and predictions of its eventual collapse parallel the misplaced trust and confidence March 14 Coalition members have in the Netherlands-based tribunal.
Indeed, the STL has neglected to consider several key developments: the exposure of Israeli espionage rings operating in Lebanon resulting in the arrest of more than 100 people on charges of collaborating with the Mossad; the captured agents’ confessions detailing the collusion, including one who said his Israeli handlers instructed him to delude the late prime minister into thinking Hezbollah was out to kill him (Hariri) and so allow the agent to alter the route Hariri’s motorcade would take that fateful February day; Hezbollah’s assertion that its telecommunications network had been infiltrated by Israel, compromising all its communications and causing bogus text messages to be sent.
Earlier this year, four spies were apprehended at Alfa, one of Lebanon’s mobile service providers. One admitted to installing computer programs and planting electronic chips in Alfa transmitters on Israel’s behalf.
This is important because the STL is expected to rely heavily on phone records and other telecommunication data in drawing its conclusions. Evidently neither Hezbollah’s latest disclosure nor Israeli agents known to have operated in the critical telecom sector merits further investigation.
In addition, during an August press conference, Nasrallah displayed video footage intercepted from Israeli reconnaissance planes detailing the route of Hariri’s motorcade and the assassination site the same day a bomb detonated underneath it, killing him and 21 others.
Also unaddressed by the STL is the issue of “false witnesses”; those persons who provided information incriminating Syria in Hariri’s murder but whose testimony was later found to have been fabricated (but not before four Lebanese generals spent four years in jail as a result). Without a follow-up judicial inquiry, how can testimony of those now accusing Hezbollah be trusted?
Regional arbitration and reconciliation efforts between March 8 and March 14 are welcome endeavors. It will be for naught, however, unless all Lebanese parties and well-intentioned Arab and non-Arab states recognize the flawed, politicized nature of the STL, the deliberate oversight of Israel’s motive to kill Hariri, the political and military benefits it reaped from his death and the myriad of ways it could have manipulated evidence to frame Hezbollah.
Until those determined to know the truth behind Hariri’s assassination renounce the STL and its wayward path, justice, peace and stability will have no place in Lebanon.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Press wary of Israel 'manoeuvres'
14:59 GMT, Thursday, 27 August 2009 15:59 UK
Press commentators across much of the Middle East say little good will come of talks held this week between Western officials and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Two Egyptian papers say Mr Netanyahu was trying to "swindle" the West with his current stance on Israeli settlements, while a Jordanian commentator accused him of "manoeuvring" and trying to delay meaningful peace negotiations.
Meanwhile, Israeli commentators have focused on the potential details of a US-Israeli agreement to halt settlement building, and what they see as a softening in Netanyahu's approach to the issue since he came to power.
HAFITH AL-BARGHUTHI IN PALESTINIAN AL-HAYAT AL-JADIDAH
The outcome of the London meeting between Netanyahu and Mitchell is not important because the Israeli government wants to continue the construction of the settlements under the guise of completing current projects.
EGYPT'S AL-AHRAM
Netanyahu insists on eluding international resolutions and swindling the USA and Western countries which are requesting a freeze on all forms settlement activities. He promised not to build new settlements if the peace process was resumed, yet he insists on expanding existing ones.
MUHAMMAD ABU-AL-HADID IN EGYPT'S AL-JUMHURIYAH
Netanyahu is still the biggest swindler when it comes to peace talks. Like he did before, he is wasting time in manoeuvres and side issues… the game we have come to know by heart will be repeated.
EGYPT'S AL-JUMHURIYAH
Netanyahu's positions against peace are well known. These positions require a strong stance from his European hosts… the international community is fed up with its hostile policies and continuous refusal of peace initiatives.
JORDAN'S AL-DUSTUR
Netanyahu's statements in London yesterday confirm that Israel is continuing with its hostile policies.
MUHAMMAD KA'USH IN JORDAN'S AL-ARAB AL-YAWM:
Netanyahu is manoeuvring, eluding and wants to draw attention to side issues to buy more time and create new facts on the ground on Palestinian land. This will extinguish any hope that a state or even autonomy could be created.
MAYA BENGAL IN ISRAEL'S MA'ARIV
If the Americans accept the Israeli proposal, this will be an achievement for Netanyahu… On the other hand, Netanyahu will become the first prime minister who officially agreed to freeze construction of other buildings in the settlements.
DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD IN ISRAEL'S JERUSALEM POST
Despite his initially defiant tone on settlements, Netanyahu is now boasting that he hasn't issued a single new building permit since taking office, and tenders for new construction are suspended until 2010.
Press commentators across much of the Middle East say little good will come of talks held this week between Western officials and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Two Egyptian papers say Mr Netanyahu was trying to "swindle" the West with his current stance on Israeli settlements, while a Jordanian commentator accused him of "manoeuvring" and trying to delay meaningful peace negotiations.
Meanwhile, Israeli commentators have focused on the potential details of a US-Israeli agreement to halt settlement building, and what they see as a softening in Netanyahu's approach to the issue since he came to power.
HAFITH AL-BARGHUTHI IN PALESTINIAN AL-HAYAT AL-JADIDAH
The outcome of the London meeting between Netanyahu and Mitchell is not important because the Israeli government wants to continue the construction of the settlements under the guise of completing current projects.
EGYPT'S AL-AHRAM
Netanyahu insists on eluding international resolutions and swindling the USA and Western countries which are requesting a freeze on all forms settlement activities. He promised not to build new settlements if the peace process was resumed, yet he insists on expanding existing ones.
MUHAMMAD ABU-AL-HADID IN EGYPT'S AL-JUMHURIYAH
Netanyahu is still the biggest swindler when it comes to peace talks. Like he did before, he is wasting time in manoeuvres and side issues… the game we have come to know by heart will be repeated.
EGYPT'S AL-JUMHURIYAH
Netanyahu's positions against peace are well known. These positions require a strong stance from his European hosts… the international community is fed up with its hostile policies and continuous refusal of peace initiatives.
JORDAN'S AL-DUSTUR
Netanyahu's statements in London yesterday confirm that Israel is continuing with its hostile policies.
MUHAMMAD KA'USH IN JORDAN'S AL-ARAB AL-YAWM:
Netanyahu is manoeuvring, eluding and wants to draw attention to side issues to buy more time and create new facts on the ground on Palestinian land. This will extinguish any hope that a state or even autonomy could be created.
MAYA BENGAL IN ISRAEL'S MA'ARIV
If the Americans accept the Israeli proposal, this will be an achievement for Netanyahu… On the other hand, Netanyahu will become the first prime minister who officially agreed to freeze construction of other buildings in the settlements.
DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD IN ISRAEL'S JERUSALEM POST
Despite his initially defiant tone on settlements, Netanyahu is now boasting that he hasn't issued a single new building permit since taking office, and tenders for new construction are suspended until 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)