21November 2011/STATEMENT B’Tselem בצלם بتسيلم http://www.btselem.org (Israel)
The anti-democratic initiatives only strengthen our resolve
Last week the government proposed two bills to limit foreign government funding to organizations like B’Tselem. The Prime Minister has frozen these proposals for the time-being, however they are part of a broader attack on democratic institutions in Israel, like the High Court and the press, and on critics of current government policy.
We are working together with partner organizations to ensure that these bills do not become law. At the same time, we refuse to allow these initiatives to distract us from our work. In fact, I see this precisely as their goal: to silence criticism, whether by actually passing legislation that obstructs our work, or at a minimum by forcing us to divert precious resources in order to defend ourselves from these initiatives.
In response, we have redoubled our efforts to promote human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This month, our priority is to prevent the forced relocation of some 2,300 people living in communities around the Ma’ale Adumim settlement. We are also expanding our outreach to the Israeli public, through the launch of our Hebrew Facebook page, and regular publication of opinion pieces in the Israeli press, such as this piece last week on Hebron.
Government watchdogs like B’Tselem are an important part of any democratic society. I am proud of B’Tselem’s work to make Israel a more just and equitable society. The media and public attention generated by the Knesset initiatives provide us a valuable opportunity to reinforce this message.
Some members of the government are trying to make it suspect to support B’Tselem. They argue that support from abroad to groups like B’Tselem is akin to interfering in domestic political affairs. In fact, virtually every institution in Israel is dependent on donations from abroad, including donations from foreign governments.
European Union support to human rights organizations, for example, constitutes just one percent of the EU’s total grants to Israel. I see it as a badge of honor that individuals, institutions and governments around the world support our work to ensure that all Israelis and Palestinians can live in dignity and in full realization of their rights.
I call on all those who share our commitment to human rights and want to ensure the health and vibrancy of the Israeli democracy to speak up now and help us stop these efforts to stifle Israeli civil society. I have full confidence that, working together, champions of democracy both inside Israel and around the world will overcome these dangerous initiatives.
------------------
NGO BILL AIMS TO CREATE A DEMOCRACY FOR JEWS ONLY
We must not dismiss the NGO Bill – it truly intends to create a democracy for Jews only; if it were passed, no Arab – whether resident of the territories or Israeli citizen – would have access to the law.
By Yitzhak Laor
21 November 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
The NGO culture is part of globalization: Money flows from financial centers to all kinds of corners, in a mixture of philanthropy and business, idealism and cynicism. The left is being destroyed by this culture, which dictates a rupture between the community in whose name it acts and its coterie of professional activists, whose funding comes from abroad.
The separation between the professional activists and the grass-roots kind and the need to show donors a “return” on their money have given rise to all kinds of fake activity – demonstrations whose participants are activists in or employees of “neighboring” nongovernmental organizations, or, alternatively, free-of-charge “mass” Internet petitions, which no one reads except the signatories (in place of the old-fashioned method – signing people on a petition to the newspaper that involved real communication and raising money from the signatories; in short, genuine political activity ).
The culture of “Europe will pay” has also intensified a kind of nihilism on the left. For instance, from time to time, the Zochrot organization used to put out a journal, Sedek, which was extremely extravagant in its use of color plates. Aside from its political material, it consisted mainly of colorful (and apolitical ) plastic art, thanks to “generous funding,” in the journal’s words, from a Danish organization for… eradicating hunger.
This is also the background to the rise of the executive director, who is chosen via a “human rights” tender. Today, it’s refusing to serve in the army; tomorrow, it’s torture; but it’s all part of the same status quo. That is equally true of the “campaign managers,” aka “media experts” – which means they have a lot of numbers in their cell phone’s memory.
But the epitome is the use of journalists in place of grass-roots activity in the streets. Success is measured by being “mentioned on television” – a reflection of the world of advertising.
Peace Now provides an excellent example of this transformation from a mass political movement into an NGO focused on monitoring: Instead of grass-roots activity, it monitors settlement expansion (though this is important ). This is one of the reasons for the right’s success. The government does as it pleases, while opposition from the left is becoming commercialized, because the left has too many NGOs (to obtain more and more donations ). It has a lot of generals and very few soldiers.
Why nevertheless is the government attending to these NGOs? Because the most important of them represent the Palestinian people in the cellars of the military dictatorship.
B’Tselem is the most noteworthy of these NGOs. It tries to represent the occupied population, which has been without representation during almost 45 years of occupation, against the jackboots. Other NGOs try to find breaches in the law, and, in addition to mobilizing public opinion, take them to the High Court of Justice (which has proven to be a broken reed as far as the territories are concerned ). This is the only representation the Palestinians have in Israeli politics, in which, ostensibly, all are represented, since it is democratic.
This is also the context in which one must view the so-called NGO Bill: It isn’t necessarily an attempt to suppress the left, but rather an attempt to eliminate representation for residents of the territories. And that is why bills to change the composition of the High Court have flowed in the wake of this legislation: Because the destroyers of the constitutional court aren’t concerned over its ethnic make-up, but over the manner in which, on rare occasions, it defends the Palestinians, thanks to B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Yesh Din or the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. It’s a kind of broken telephone amid the lawlessness that the Palestinians inhabit, in the absence of the rule of law.
Nor does the work of destruction stop there. In the current fight over various bills relating to the High Court, both sides have tended to forget the most important fact of all: Israel has no constitution that would impede the tyranny of the majority.
It has no constitution because the state continues to deny its Arab citizens equality before the law. They, unlike residents of the territories, can expect help from the High Court from time to time. Yet, ever since the 1995 Katzir ruling, which for the first time told this state without a constitution that communities for Jews only are unconstitutional – or in other words, that apartheid is illegal – the war on this ruling has gathered speed, first in academia, then in the cabinet and Knesset.
Therefore, we must not dismiss the NGO Bill, even if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly come to his senses and opposed it. This bill truly intends to create a democracy for Jews only. If it were passed, no Arab – whether resident of the territories or Israeli citizen – would have access to the law.
And, therefore, we also shouldn’t make light of the drowning of Begin-style liberalism in the Likud. The goalposts of the right-wing torrent will continue to move. Its horizon also includes annexing the territories; it even has a vision of denying Arab citizens the right to vote in Israel. And at the entrance to this hell – if not beneath it – Meir Kahane and Avigdor Lieberman are waiting.
B'Tselem has championed human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for over two decades, promoting a future where all Israelis and Palestinians will live in freedom and dignity.
Mostrando postagens com marcador B’Tselem בצלם. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador B’Tselem בצלם. Mostrar todas as postagens
segunda-feira, 28 de novembro de 2011
quarta-feira, 16 de novembro de 2011
Israeli government back bill to limit funding for human rights groups
13 november 2011, Communist Party of Israel המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית http://maki.org.il
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation today (Sunday) approved two bills that would limit foreign funding for Israeli human rights and peace organizations.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already announced support for one of the bills, sponsored by two members of his Likud party - MKs Tzipi Hotovely and Ofir Akunis - which would cap foreign governments' contributions to "political" non-governmental organizations at NIS 20,000.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu, meanwhile, is throwing its weight behind the second initiative brought for by party MK Fania Kirshenbaum, which would slap a 45 percent tax on foreign governments' donations to NGOs ineligible for state funding. Taken together, these laws would essentially shut down all human rights organization in Israel. The legislative proposals will now be sent to the Knesset for further discussion and three readings before they become law.
Of the 18 members of Israel Ministerial Committee for Legislation, 11 voted for the proposals, five objected while 2 abstained. In explanatory comments, the Israeli bill says it expressly intended to "bar Israeli organizations from receiving money from foreign governments and international groups such as the United Nations and European Union".
While the measure does not specify which Israeli organizations are being targeted, one of its sponsors, Likud lawmaker Akunis, cited the settlement watch group and peace movement "Peace Now," human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories group "B'Tselem" and a military watchdog called "Breaking the Silence" as foreign aid recipients.
The measure is one of several condemned as bids to muzzle critics of Israeli policies toward Palestinians who seek a Palestinian state on land Israel occupied in a 1967 war.
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation today (Sunday) approved two bills that would limit foreign funding for Israeli human rights and peace organizations.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already announced support for one of the bills, sponsored by two members of his Likud party - MKs Tzipi Hotovely and Ofir Akunis - which would cap foreign governments' contributions to "political" non-governmental organizations at NIS 20,000.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu, meanwhile, is throwing its weight behind the second initiative brought for by party MK Fania Kirshenbaum, which would slap a 45 percent tax on foreign governments' donations to NGOs ineligible for state funding. Taken together, these laws would essentially shut down all human rights organization in Israel. The legislative proposals will now be sent to the Knesset for further discussion and three readings before they become law.
Of the 18 members of Israel Ministerial Committee for Legislation, 11 voted for the proposals, five objected while 2 abstained. In explanatory comments, the Israeli bill says it expressly intended to "bar Israeli organizations from receiving money from foreign governments and international groups such as the United Nations and European Union".
While the measure does not specify which Israeli organizations are being targeted, one of its sponsors, Likud lawmaker Akunis, cited the settlement watch group and peace movement "Peace Now," human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories group "B'Tselem" and a military watchdog called "Breaking the Silence" as foreign aid recipients.
The measure is one of several condemned as bids to muzzle critics of Israeli policies toward Palestinians who seek a Palestinian state on land Israel occupied in a 1967 war.
quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2011
BIBI AND BARAK’S TERROR FRAUD: EGYPTIAN NEWS REPORTS ATTACKERS WERE EGYPTIAN, NOT GAZAN
22 August 2011,Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
Al Masry Al Youm, an independent liberal Egyptian newspaper, reports that Egypt has identified at least three of the Eilat attackers and that they are Egyptian, and not Gazan as Israel has claimed:
Egyptian authorities have identified three of the people responsible for carrying out a terrorist attack in Israel, just north of Eilat, on Thursday, in which seven Israelis were killed, according to an Egyptian security source.
The same source added that one of the men identified is a leader of terrorist cells in Sinai, while another is a fugitive who owns an ammunition factory.
What is intriguing about this story is that it would explain many things which appeared to be discrepancies when the theory was that Gazans were involved. First, the Israeli bus driver said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Now, it might be possible for Gazans to get such uniforms, but it would be much easier for Egyptians to do so. Second, the Israelis themselves have disagreed about the authors of the crime, with Netanyahu claiming the Popular Resistance Commitee was behind it and the IDF spokesperson specifically rejecting her boss’ claim. All of which leads one to believe that the Israelis don’t have a clue who was behind it. Third, well over half the attackers escaped, which is highly unusual for a terror attack on Israel. It would be much easier for Egyptian terrorists to melt back into Sinai than for Gazans to do so. Fourth, it would be a lot easier for Egyptians to mount an attack on Eilat than for Gazans to do so considering how far the latter would have to travel to get to the Israeli city. Fifth, Israel bombed a house containing the entire top leadership of the PRC, killing three commanders. If the PRC was responsible for the attack it simply beggars belief for their top leaders to be sitting in the same house together when they should be going into deep hiding. Sixth, there have been five bombings of the Egyptian pipeline bringing gas to Israel. Clearly, there are Egyptians who, in the light of the new Egyptian leadership, are not happy with continuing good relations between Egypt and Israel and willing to engage in terror to disrupt it.
All this would mean, if true, that Israel was not only caught with its pants down by the attack itself, but it hasn’t been able to pull them up in the aftermath either. I can’t recall previously seeing such disarray within the Israeli military-political echelons as a result of a terror attack. But it would seem to indicate some serious dysfunction.
H/t to readers Mary Hughes Thompson and Chayma for the story and link.
UPDATE: I’m just as competitive as the next political blogger, and to my chagrin I wrote this post last night (18 hours ago) and then queried a few Egyptians I knew about how realiable a source Al Masry was. Then I waited for a reply, but one never came. Then I somehow forgot I hadn’t actually published the post. A comment in another thread by a reader made me realize I hadn’t published this and so did so a few hours ago. But this delay allowed me to read Yossi Gurvitz’s 972 Magazine post which goes over some of the ground here, but adds a few interesting points I either didn’t know or hadn’t considered, which further buttress the argument that Bibi and Barak are perpetrating a fraud of massive proportions.
First, Gurvitz argues that Israel always releases the names and home villages of captured or killed terrorists within hours of the attack. For Israel, it is a way of pinning blame where Israel feels it belongs. But in the case of this incident, not only hasn’t Israel released this information, but IDF spokesperson Avital Leibowitz, when asked for it by Gurvitz, flatly refused to provide it. Sorry fellas, but something ain’t right here. Israel is a creature of habit. It follows a time honored routine in matters like this. The fact that it’s deviating from SOP is a major “tell.”
Also, Gurvitz notes that B’Tselem has tried to identify, through Gaza sources, who the attackers might’ve been, and has failed. In addition, any Gaza family which discovers a relative was killed in a terror attack would do the Jewish equivalent of sit shiva. This would be a public ritual and known to everyone in Gaza. Yet somehow mysteriously there are no such mourning tents for the dead attackers.
If those of us who smell a rat here are right, then it would appear that Barak and Bibi knew the attackers were Egyptian. That meant that they had two choices: either commence a major row with Egypt over the attack which might lead to a regional or international escalation which Israel couldn’t afford considering it’s already feuding with Turkey. Or Israel could blame its usual whipping boy, Gaza and Hamas. This way it could attack the usual suspects, draw blood, and go home after declaring victory. Israelis wouldn’t be any the wiser, and Israel wouldn’t have to upset the unsteady apple cart of relations with the new Egyptian regime.
Something ain’t right about this picture. It is the duty of the Israeli media to start asking questions, and pronto. We may have yet another scandal brewing here.
UPDATE I: Prof. Joel Beinin, a respected Egypt studies scholar confirms that Al Masry is an indepencent liberal newspaper with no particular axe to grind regarding this story. He says that Al Masry’s story makes sense and might explain why Israel killed Egyptian security forces by accident. In other words, I’ve reported earlier that the Israeli bus driver whose bus was attacked near Eilat said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Most of these terrorists escaped back into Egypt. Israel would’ve alerted the Egyptians to this and the latter would have pursued them. But then you’d have legitimate Egyptian soldiers pursuing attackers wearing Egyptian military uniforms. It stands to reason that Israeli forces also pursuing the attackers inside Egypt might’ve easily mistaken the good guys for the bad guys.
Interestingly, the killing of the Egyptian soldiers by Israel indicates that Israel violated Egyptian sovereignty in hot pursuit of the terrorists. It’s common for Israel to do this with weak states like Lebanon, but not more formidable neighbors like Egypt. This potentially could be a incendiary issue if it got out widely inside Egypt.
UPDATE II: Prof. Ellis Goldberg, an Egypt specialist at the University of Washington, also just confirmed the reliability of Al Masry in the context of this story. He sent me a link to a new story in today’s Al Masry. It describes the Israeli incursion which killed the five Egyptian security officers (not three, as the NY Times has reported):
Reliable sources said that an Israeli unit entered (Sinai) at border point 79, in pursuit of the Eilat attackers, and then fought with the Egyptian unit stationed there. The sources said that an Israeli helicopter intervened in the clash, and fired two missiles, and then hovered vertically over the Egyptian unit and opened fire with two machine guns, killing instantly Captain Ahmed Galal–with nine shots and a number of [missile] fragments–two soldiers, and two others [who] died later.
…A vehicle belonging to the border security forces, was on its way to the scene, and was exposed to a barrage of fire launched by the Israeli force and the armed groups.
What is extraordinary about all this is that Israeli forces not only invaded Egypt to pursue these attackers, but that they engaged with legitimate Egyptian security forces (rather than the militants), and severely sabotaged the Egyptian operation to capture the killers. This meant that in the gun battle, the Egyptian forces were not just fighting the Eilat militants, but the IDF as well. Man, this is a screw-up of massive proportions.
It is one thing to kill terrorists who’ve attacked your citizens, this may be justified. But in this case the IDF has killed 14 Gazans who likely had nothing to do with the Eilat assault, not even the ones Israel has identified as Gaza militants. Just as many parts of Operation Cast Lead qualify to be investigated as war crimes, I’d say the Gaza reprisals are right up there on the scale of impunity. Can the leader of any nation get away with attacking another that didn’t even attack it at all? If this isn’t a war crime, what is?
The Al Masry describes the three Eilat attackers its forces killed and there can be no doubt that they are Egyptian and not Gazan:
The 3 attackers are … the actual commander of the terrorist and takfiri (militant islamists) in central Sinai, one of the inmates who escaped from Egyptian prison during the recent security chaos, and a member of the (Salafist) group “Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad” who owns an ammunition factory that (Egyptian) security forces discovered last week.
Idan Landau also writes an extraordinarily comprehensive blog post, Conspiracy in the South, about this in which he reaches similar conclusions to Yossi and I. Idan puts this incident in the historic context of a number of other Israeli operations, among them the 1982 Lebanon invasion, which used equally bogus information to justify themselves. He also equates the Israeli government’s fake account to the Bush administration’s bogus claims of WMD which led us to invade Iraq in 2003.
Idan also reinforces a post I wrote during the height of the J14 protest uproar. I reported a story by Shalom Yerushalmi in which he warned the Israeli leadership not to engage in a military adventure that would distract the Israeli public from the very real social issues raised by the tent protests. If we are all correct, and Bibi and Barak took advantage of the terror attack to escalate it into a major regional crisis, then Yerushalmi’s point will have been proven. Bibi did precisely what the reporter had warned him not to do. Masterful (unfortunately only in Hebrew).
Al Masry Al Youm, an independent liberal Egyptian newspaper, reports that Egypt has identified at least three of the Eilat attackers and that they are Egyptian, and not Gazan as Israel has claimed:
Egyptian authorities have identified three of the people responsible for carrying out a terrorist attack in Israel, just north of Eilat, on Thursday, in which seven Israelis were killed, according to an Egyptian security source.
The same source added that one of the men identified is a leader of terrorist cells in Sinai, while another is a fugitive who owns an ammunition factory.
What is intriguing about this story is that it would explain many things which appeared to be discrepancies when the theory was that Gazans were involved. First, the Israeli bus driver said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Now, it might be possible for Gazans to get such uniforms, but it would be much easier for Egyptians to do so. Second, the Israelis themselves have disagreed about the authors of the crime, with Netanyahu claiming the Popular Resistance Commitee was behind it and the IDF spokesperson specifically rejecting her boss’ claim. All of which leads one to believe that the Israelis don’t have a clue who was behind it. Third, well over half the attackers escaped, which is highly unusual for a terror attack on Israel. It would be much easier for Egyptian terrorists to melt back into Sinai than for Gazans to do so. Fourth, it would be a lot easier for Egyptians to mount an attack on Eilat than for Gazans to do so considering how far the latter would have to travel to get to the Israeli city. Fifth, Israel bombed a house containing the entire top leadership of the PRC, killing three commanders. If the PRC was responsible for the attack it simply beggars belief for their top leaders to be sitting in the same house together when they should be going into deep hiding. Sixth, there have been five bombings of the Egyptian pipeline bringing gas to Israel. Clearly, there are Egyptians who, in the light of the new Egyptian leadership, are not happy with continuing good relations between Egypt and Israel and willing to engage in terror to disrupt it.
All this would mean, if true, that Israel was not only caught with its pants down by the attack itself, but it hasn’t been able to pull them up in the aftermath either. I can’t recall previously seeing such disarray within the Israeli military-political echelons as a result of a terror attack. But it would seem to indicate some serious dysfunction.
H/t to readers Mary Hughes Thompson and Chayma for the story and link.
UPDATE: I’m just as competitive as the next political blogger, and to my chagrin I wrote this post last night (18 hours ago) and then queried a few Egyptians I knew about how realiable a source Al Masry was. Then I waited for a reply, but one never came. Then I somehow forgot I hadn’t actually published the post. A comment in another thread by a reader made me realize I hadn’t published this and so did so a few hours ago. But this delay allowed me to read Yossi Gurvitz’s 972 Magazine post which goes over some of the ground here, but adds a few interesting points I either didn’t know or hadn’t considered, which further buttress the argument that Bibi and Barak are perpetrating a fraud of massive proportions.
First, Gurvitz argues that Israel always releases the names and home villages of captured or killed terrorists within hours of the attack. For Israel, it is a way of pinning blame where Israel feels it belongs. But in the case of this incident, not only hasn’t Israel released this information, but IDF spokesperson Avital Leibowitz, when asked for it by Gurvitz, flatly refused to provide it. Sorry fellas, but something ain’t right here. Israel is a creature of habit. It follows a time honored routine in matters like this. The fact that it’s deviating from SOP is a major “tell.”
Also, Gurvitz notes that B’Tselem has tried to identify, through Gaza sources, who the attackers might’ve been, and has failed. In addition, any Gaza family which discovers a relative was killed in a terror attack would do the Jewish equivalent of sit shiva. This would be a public ritual and known to everyone in Gaza. Yet somehow mysteriously there are no such mourning tents for the dead attackers.
If those of us who smell a rat here are right, then it would appear that Barak and Bibi knew the attackers were Egyptian. That meant that they had two choices: either commence a major row with Egypt over the attack which might lead to a regional or international escalation which Israel couldn’t afford considering it’s already feuding with Turkey. Or Israel could blame its usual whipping boy, Gaza and Hamas. This way it could attack the usual suspects, draw blood, and go home after declaring victory. Israelis wouldn’t be any the wiser, and Israel wouldn’t have to upset the unsteady apple cart of relations with the new Egyptian regime.
Something ain’t right about this picture. It is the duty of the Israeli media to start asking questions, and pronto. We may have yet another scandal brewing here.
UPDATE I: Prof. Joel Beinin, a respected Egypt studies scholar confirms that Al Masry is an indepencent liberal newspaper with no particular axe to grind regarding this story. He says that Al Masry’s story makes sense and might explain why Israel killed Egyptian security forces by accident. In other words, I’ve reported earlier that the Israeli bus driver whose bus was attacked near Eilat said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Most of these terrorists escaped back into Egypt. Israel would’ve alerted the Egyptians to this and the latter would have pursued them. But then you’d have legitimate Egyptian soldiers pursuing attackers wearing Egyptian military uniforms. It stands to reason that Israeli forces also pursuing the attackers inside Egypt might’ve easily mistaken the good guys for the bad guys.
Interestingly, the killing of the Egyptian soldiers by Israel indicates that Israel violated Egyptian sovereignty in hot pursuit of the terrorists. It’s common for Israel to do this with weak states like Lebanon, but not more formidable neighbors like Egypt. This potentially could be a incendiary issue if it got out widely inside Egypt.
UPDATE II: Prof. Ellis Goldberg, an Egypt specialist at the University of Washington, also just confirmed the reliability of Al Masry in the context of this story. He sent me a link to a new story in today’s Al Masry. It describes the Israeli incursion which killed the five Egyptian security officers (not three, as the NY Times has reported):
Reliable sources said that an Israeli unit entered (Sinai) at border point 79, in pursuit of the Eilat attackers, and then fought with the Egyptian unit stationed there. The sources said that an Israeli helicopter intervened in the clash, and fired two missiles, and then hovered vertically over the Egyptian unit and opened fire with two machine guns, killing instantly Captain Ahmed Galal–with nine shots and a number of [missile] fragments–two soldiers, and two others [who] died later.
…A vehicle belonging to the border security forces, was on its way to the scene, and was exposed to a barrage of fire launched by the Israeli force and the armed groups.
What is extraordinary about all this is that Israeli forces not only invaded Egypt to pursue these attackers, but that they engaged with legitimate Egyptian security forces (rather than the militants), and severely sabotaged the Egyptian operation to capture the killers. This meant that in the gun battle, the Egyptian forces were not just fighting the Eilat militants, but the IDF as well. Man, this is a screw-up of massive proportions.
It is one thing to kill terrorists who’ve attacked your citizens, this may be justified. But in this case the IDF has killed 14 Gazans who likely had nothing to do with the Eilat assault, not even the ones Israel has identified as Gaza militants. Just as many parts of Operation Cast Lead qualify to be investigated as war crimes, I’d say the Gaza reprisals are right up there on the scale of impunity. Can the leader of any nation get away with attacking another that didn’t even attack it at all? If this isn’t a war crime, what is?
The Al Masry describes the three Eilat attackers its forces killed and there can be no doubt that they are Egyptian and not Gazan:
The 3 attackers are … the actual commander of the terrorist and takfiri (militant islamists) in central Sinai, one of the inmates who escaped from Egyptian prison during the recent security chaos, and a member of the (Salafist) group “Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad” who owns an ammunition factory that (Egyptian) security forces discovered last week.
Idan Landau also writes an extraordinarily comprehensive blog post, Conspiracy in the South, about this in which he reaches similar conclusions to Yossi and I. Idan puts this incident in the historic context of a number of other Israeli operations, among them the 1982 Lebanon invasion, which used equally bogus information to justify themselves. He also equates the Israeli government’s fake account to the Bush administration’s bogus claims of WMD which led us to invade Iraq in 2003.
Idan also reinforces a post I wrote during the height of the J14 protest uproar. I reported a story by Shalom Yerushalmi in which he warned the Israeli leadership not to engage in a military adventure that would distract the Israeli public from the very real social issues raised by the tent protests. If we are all correct, and Bibi and Barak took advantage of the terror attack to escalate it into a major regional crisis, then Yerushalmi’s point will have been proven. Bibi did precisely what the reporter had warned him not to do. Masterful (unfortunately only in Hebrew).
EVIDENCE UNDERMINES GOV’T’S CLAIM THAT TERRORISTS WERE GAZANS
22 August 2011, + 972 http://972mag.com (Israel)
Yossi Gurvitz*
The Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister claim the terrorist attack last week came from Gaza. They have yet to provide any proof – and the evidence looks dubious
(PM Netanyahu blaming PRC for Eilat attack at press conference/Photo: Activestills)
An unknown group carried out a combined attack from Sinai into Israel, hitting a number of targets. Six Israeli civilians were murdered and two soldiers were killed; so were seven of the terrorists and a number of Egyptian security personnel. While the attacks were carried out, Minister of Defense Ehud Barak quickly told the public the people responsible were the Popular Resistance Committee of the Gaza Strip; within hours the IAF attacked a house in the Strip and killed several of its leaders. Later that day, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the people responsible for the attacks were killed. This attack by the IAF is what spurred the recent round of escalation – and it’s worth noting the IAF has been raising the flames in the regions for about a month, with the Israeli media quietly ignoring it.
However, Israel has never supplied any proof that the attack has indeed originated in the Gaza Strip. The PRC have denied involvement in the attack. An Israeli propaganda apparatus, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, also claimed (Hebrew) the PRC was behind the attacks, but had to tautologically write “no terror organizations has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack and the Popular Resistance Committee has denied any involvement. However, the Israeli prime minister and other Israeli officials have pointed to the Popular Resistance Committee as the organization who carried out the attack. So, according to the ITIC, the fact that Netanyahu said something is proof enough, even if the other side completely denies it.
During the weekend, the news website Real News interviewed a senior IDF Spokesman officer, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovitz, who’s in charge of the IDF Spokesman with the international media. Leibowitz denied that the IDF connects the PRC to the attacks, said she was not responsible for that the prime minister said, but claimed that the attackers did come from Gaza, citing as proof the fact they were using Kalashnikov assault rifies (Sic! 2:28 and onwards in the video). I dunno how to put it to Col. Leibovitz, but Kalashnikovs are the most common light assault rifle in the world – a gift that keeps on giving from the defunct Soviet Union – and are rather easy to get all over the Middle East.
In a phone conversation with Leibovitz yesterday, she said “senior officials have already expressed themselves on the issue”, and declined to provide more information on the attackers, aside from insisting on them being Gazans. I asked her if she could provide me with the identity of the attackers killed by the IDF, which was until recently standard procedure, carried out within hours of an attack. She said this is unfortunately impossible, and repeatedly insisted they were Gazans. B’Tselem researchers in the Strip, contacted via B’Tselem today, were unaware of the identity of the attackers. Again, usually they are quickly identified and a mourners’ hut is rapidly constructed. They were killed on Thursday; if they resided in the Strip, their families would have heard of their deaths by now.
Yesterday evening the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm reported that Egyptian security forces have identified three of the dead attackers. Egypt has a strong interest to claim the attackers were Gazans, since this would lessen its responsibility for the attacks; nevertheless, they say at least two of the attackers were known terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula. As far as I could find out, the rest of the bodies are in the hands of the IDF – which, again, does not reveal their identity.
And probably with good reason. After all, it seems Barak and Netanyahu pulled off a major disinformation campaign here, which the IDF (in the form of Colonel Leibovitz) has to cooperate with, somewhat unwillingly. They took us to a false war against the Gaza Strip. You can’t really blame Leibovitz: She’s a uniformed officer. She can’t contradict “senior officials [who] have already expressed themselves on the issue”.
Assuming no other reliable evidence shows up, which at the moment is doubtful, we must ask ourselves: Why did Barak and Netanyahu pull off what seems to be a major deception of the Israeli public, which puts to shame any such deception since the Abu Nidal group tried to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Britain in 1982, Shlomo Argov. Sharon, Begin and Eitan needed a pretext to begin their war of deception in Lebanon – the bright idea of, under the guise of fighting the PLO, enthrone the friendly Maronites. When Eitan was informed that the assassins were Abu Nidal’s men, he replied with “Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal – we need to screw the PLO.” That’s how it began.
None of the people responsible for that deception, which ended a 11-months old ceasefire and sparked 18 years of war in Lebanon, ever paid a price for it. Ehud Barak, then a young aluf¬ – major general – learned the lesson well. His part in planning the war was suggesting to Sharon that the IDF will attack the Syrians as well, admitting that such a move required the hoodwinking of the public. Sharon, while impressed, rejected the suggestion.
Now it looks – again, barring new evidence – that Barak and Natanyahu are selling us another lie, one which directs fire towards the Gaza Strip. Why? This is the question they must answer. They are, after all, still working for us, not the other way around – and this is precisely the sort of a spin which calls for a board of inquiry and for the separation of Ehud Barak’s body from his seat.
-------------------------
I am Yossi Gurvitz*, a 40-year old journalist, blogger and photographer.
I write for several Israeli publications, including the influential financial daily Calcalist and the Nana portal. In the past, I’ve been deputy editor of Nana News, and with Itamar Shaaltiel edited its 2006 Knesset elections section.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17. After the mandatory three years in the military, much more strictly enforced in 1988 than now, I studied history and classics, earning a BA degree, and studying three additional years towards an MA, but abandoned the project in favor of earning my living as a journalist. [It seemed a good idea at the time.]
Yossi Gurvitz*
The Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister claim the terrorist attack last week came from Gaza. They have yet to provide any proof – and the evidence looks dubious
(PM Netanyahu blaming PRC for Eilat attack at press conference/Photo: Activestills)
An unknown group carried out a combined attack from Sinai into Israel, hitting a number of targets. Six Israeli civilians were murdered and two soldiers were killed; so were seven of the terrorists and a number of Egyptian security personnel. While the attacks were carried out, Minister of Defense Ehud Barak quickly told the public the people responsible were the Popular Resistance Committee of the Gaza Strip; within hours the IAF attacked a house in the Strip and killed several of its leaders. Later that day, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the people responsible for the attacks were killed. This attack by the IAF is what spurred the recent round of escalation – and it’s worth noting the IAF has been raising the flames in the regions for about a month, with the Israeli media quietly ignoring it.
However, Israel has never supplied any proof that the attack has indeed originated in the Gaza Strip. The PRC have denied involvement in the attack. An Israeli propaganda apparatus, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, also claimed (Hebrew) the PRC was behind the attacks, but had to tautologically write “no terror organizations has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack and the Popular Resistance Committee has denied any involvement. However, the Israeli prime minister and other Israeli officials have pointed to the Popular Resistance Committee as the organization who carried out the attack. So, according to the ITIC, the fact that Netanyahu said something is proof enough, even if the other side completely denies it.
During the weekend, the news website Real News interviewed a senior IDF Spokesman officer, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovitz, who’s in charge of the IDF Spokesman with the international media. Leibowitz denied that the IDF connects the PRC to the attacks, said she was not responsible for that the prime minister said, but claimed that the attackers did come from Gaza, citing as proof the fact they were using Kalashnikov assault rifies (Sic! 2:28 and onwards in the video). I dunno how to put it to Col. Leibovitz, but Kalashnikovs are the most common light assault rifle in the world – a gift that keeps on giving from the defunct Soviet Union – and are rather easy to get all over the Middle East.
In a phone conversation with Leibovitz yesterday, she said “senior officials have already expressed themselves on the issue”, and declined to provide more information on the attackers, aside from insisting on them being Gazans. I asked her if she could provide me with the identity of the attackers killed by the IDF, which was until recently standard procedure, carried out within hours of an attack. She said this is unfortunately impossible, and repeatedly insisted they were Gazans. B’Tselem researchers in the Strip, contacted via B’Tselem today, were unaware of the identity of the attackers. Again, usually they are quickly identified and a mourners’ hut is rapidly constructed. They were killed on Thursday; if they resided in the Strip, their families would have heard of their deaths by now.
Yesterday evening the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm reported that Egyptian security forces have identified three of the dead attackers. Egypt has a strong interest to claim the attackers were Gazans, since this would lessen its responsibility for the attacks; nevertheless, they say at least two of the attackers were known terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula. As far as I could find out, the rest of the bodies are in the hands of the IDF – which, again, does not reveal their identity.
And probably with good reason. After all, it seems Barak and Netanyahu pulled off a major disinformation campaign here, which the IDF (in the form of Colonel Leibovitz) has to cooperate with, somewhat unwillingly. They took us to a false war against the Gaza Strip. You can’t really blame Leibovitz: She’s a uniformed officer. She can’t contradict “senior officials [who] have already expressed themselves on the issue”.
Assuming no other reliable evidence shows up, which at the moment is doubtful, we must ask ourselves: Why did Barak and Netanyahu pull off what seems to be a major deception of the Israeli public, which puts to shame any such deception since the Abu Nidal group tried to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Britain in 1982, Shlomo Argov. Sharon, Begin and Eitan needed a pretext to begin their war of deception in Lebanon – the bright idea of, under the guise of fighting the PLO, enthrone the friendly Maronites. When Eitan was informed that the assassins were Abu Nidal’s men, he replied with “Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal – we need to screw the PLO.” That’s how it began.
None of the people responsible for that deception, which ended a 11-months old ceasefire and sparked 18 years of war in Lebanon, ever paid a price for it. Ehud Barak, then a young aluf¬ – major general – learned the lesson well. His part in planning the war was suggesting to Sharon that the IDF will attack the Syrians as well, admitting that such a move required the hoodwinking of the public. Sharon, while impressed, rejected the suggestion.
Now it looks – again, barring new evidence – that Barak and Natanyahu are selling us another lie, one which directs fire towards the Gaza Strip. Why? This is the question they must answer. They are, after all, still working for us, not the other way around – and this is precisely the sort of a spin which calls for a board of inquiry and for the separation of Ehud Barak’s body from his seat.
-------------------------
I am Yossi Gurvitz*, a 40-year old journalist, blogger and photographer.
I write for several Israeli publications, including the influential financial daily Calcalist and the Nana portal. In the past, I’ve been deputy editor of Nana News, and with Itamar Shaaltiel edited its 2006 Knesset elections section.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17. After the mandatory three years in the military, much more strictly enforced in 1988 than now, I studied history and classics, earning a BA degree, and studying three additional years towards an MA, but abandoned the project in favor of earning my living as a journalist. [It seemed a good idea at the time.]
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)