The female conscientious objector who just made Israeli history

July 12, 2016, + 972 Magazine 972mag.com (Israel)

By Noam Sheizaf*

Following her sixth trial, Tair Kaminer has become the longest-serving female conscientious objector in Israel’s history. This is her story.

Young Israeli women Tair Kaminer and Tania Golan pose for a final photo outside the Tel Hashomer induction base where they announced their refusal to serve in the Israeli army, January 31, 2016. Kaminer was sentenced to prison.

DF military prison number 6 lies in one of the most picturesque spots in Israel, at the bottom of the Carmel Mountain, between green fields and banana plantations. The prisoners can see the mountains from the yard, but there is no view of the Mediterranean, less than a mile away.

The prison includes a separate unit for officers and, since 2011, a female unit as well. Prison life is boring and discipline is harsh. Most prisoners’

ISRAEL Y LA RADICALIZACIÓN MILITARISTA EN MEDIO ORIENTE

21 noviembre 2012, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)

Ariel Goldstein*

Como una constante que se ha acentuado en Israel de forma posterior a su triunfo en la guerra del ’67 -aquella guerra que según Idith Zertal transformó “lo que debería ser un refugio, un hogar y una patria en un templo y un eterno altar”-, este país se encuentra actualmente reforzando su poder en Medio Oriente a partir de la militarización de las relaciones internacionales. La pretensión israelí de dominio regional por la vía del militarismo se ha expresado en sus últimos ataques a Gaza, que incluyen la operación Plomo Fundido de 2008 y en el actual bombardeo con amenaza de exterminio a partir del ingreso por tierra, que ya ha implicado movilizar a 75.000 reservistas. No ha intentado otra cosa que activar la amenaza del exterminio el canciller israelí Avigdor Lieberman cuando señaló que "si entramos en Gaza por tierra tenemos que ir hasta el final", a pesar de que podría ser solamente una estrategia para amenazar y luego negociar en mejores condiciones.

Sin embargo, la estrategia militarista adoptada por Israel pareciera en cierta medida anacrónica, explicable por una excepcionalidad cultural constituida por el dominio que ejercen las IDF (Israel Defense Forces) en la sociedad israelí y por la heroificación religiosa. Ya lo había percibido Michel Warchawsky ante el inicio de la primavera árabe al señalar que “ cuando escuchamos las declaraciones israelíes sobre la rebelión egipcia, el aspecto más chocante resulta el gran abismo que existe entre estas declaraciones y las del resto del mundo. Se hace evidente que Israel habita un planeta totalmente diferente”.

La complejidad del escenario reside en que, a pesar del interés israelí de recuperar posiciones frente al nuevo escenario geopolítico regional con esta nueva ofensiva militarista [1] , así como a partir del importante resguardo que le brinda su alianza estratégica con EE.UU, el contexto actual ya no es el mismo. Las recientes rebeliones en el Mundo Árabe han expresado la vocación popular por demandas democráticas e igualitarias capitalizadas en ciertos casos por grupos religiosos tradicionales como los Hermanos Musulmanes. Así también, hemos visto últimamente una ronda de hostilidades frente a las autoridades diplomáticas estadounidenses en la región, que incluyeron el asesinato del embajador Chris Steven en Libia, así como las violentas manifestaciones frente a la embajada estadounidense en El Cairo, Túnez, entre otras, que dan cuenta del profundo sentimiento antinorteamericano de ciertas multitudes.

Suman a ello la constatación de que Egipto ya no se encuentra bajo los designios de Hosni Mubarak, sino de Mohamed Morsi, quien pertenece a la cofradía de los Hermanos Musulmanes y que triunfó en las primeras elecciones realizadas de forma posterior a la rebelión egipcia. Éste último, al igual que el primer ministro turco Recep Tayip Erdogan, expresa cierta autonomía frente a los poderes occidentales, mientras que Mubarak era un incondicional aliado de los intereses estadounidenses en la región y garantizaba el bloqueo a la Franja de Gaza.

Las consecuencias de esta nueva radicalización militar israelí posiblemente sean más inciertas actualmente, puesto que Israel actúa como “pez grande” -lo que efectivamente era y sigue siendo- en un escenario en mutación. A pesar de lo incierto del escenario regional, lo que sí parece asegurado con esta escalada de violencia, es la derechización del electorado nacional hacia a las elecciones en enero. Como ha demostrado Idith Zertal, revivir la amenaza del holocausto y el aniquilamiento ha sido una constante en las formas de manipulación de la política israelí instrumentada desde las elites político-militares, y resulta evidente señalar que este contexto a nivel interno favorecerá una vez más a la derecha.

*Ariel Goldstein es Sociólogo (UBA). Becario Conicet en el Instituto de Estudios de América Latina y el Caribe (Iealc).

[1] Agradezco al sociólogo Nicolás Damin por señalarme esta cuestión.

Coalition demands protection for Palestinian farmers

17 october 2012, The Israeli Communist Party http://www. maki.org.il המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית‎  الحزب الشيوعي الاسرائيلي‎ (Israel)

 

info@maki.org.il

The "Olive Harvest Coalition" and four human rights organizations – Rabbis for Human Rights, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Yesh Din and B’Tselem – sent a letter to the Minister of Defense, the Attorney General, and military and police commanders in the West Bank, demanding they take action to protect Palestinian residents and property during the current olive harvest, in accordance with the principles established by the Israeli High Court of Justice.

Israeli soldiers arrest Mohammad Khatib as Palestinian and international activists block 443 highway, during a protest against the violence of the Israeli settlers, October 16, 2012. The direct action was organized in light of the increasing settler attacks against Palestinians and their properties during the current olive harvest season (Photo: Activestills)

Israeli military and security forces currently focus on securing harvests at prearranged times and places. The disruptions and attacks, however, are taking place at other times, and in other areas. Past experience shows that the military and police can act to prevent these incidents, because most of the events occur in areas close to settlements known by the authorities as extremist. In 2008, for example, the Border Police’s Samaria Brigade was stationed in a ring around the Gil’ad Ranch during the olive harvest, and incidents of violence in the area were prevented that year.

The past week was unusual in terms of the extent of the theft and destruction of Palestinian olive groves, especially those near settlements and outposts known as trouble spots. According to early estimations, over 450 Palestinian trees have been damaged this week. Israeli troops on Tuesday used force to break up a protest against settler attacks on a main road in the West Bank.

Dozens of Palestinians and international activists blocked Route 443, west of Ramallah. A Palestinian news agency Ma'an reporter said several protesters were injured. "The direct action today was organized in light of the increasing settler terrorism against Palestinians and their properties during the current olive harvest season, including the torching, uprooting or setting fire to olive trees, the theft of harvested olives, and the attacking of Palestinian families while picking olives," the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee said in a statement. "We organized this action today to stress that as long as Palestinians suffer under the daily practices of the occupation and settler terror, Israeli daily life can’t continue on as normal," said activist Mohammad Khatib.

Demonstrators were also protesting the ban on Palestinians using the road. Since 2002, Israel's military has prohibited Palestinians from using the highway, which Israel expanded on privately-owned Palestinian land. The ban disconnects seven villages from each other and from Ramallah. The Israeli high court ruled in Dec. 2009 that the ban on Palestinians using Route 443 in the West Bank should be lifted as it exceeded the Israeli military commander's authority and broke international law. Israeli's military still denies Palestinians free use of the road, which is used by thousands of Israelis every day. Israel has reopened a small section of the road to Palestinians, but villagers are still unable to use it to access Ramallah.

FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: SHIN BET MAKES FOOL OF ITSELF AND ISRAELI DEMOCRACY

22 August 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
by Richard Silverstein

The issue of Jewish terror and how the Israeli state fights or doesn’t fight it is extremely complicated.  If you view it from a liberal Zionist perspective, as people like Shimon Peres and most American Jewish leaders do, you only understand part of the problem and you believe–or hope–that Israeli democracy will eventually right itself and enforce the rule of law.  But when you understand this issue as a symptom of the rise of the permanent far-right majority which has hijacked Israel and destroyed its democracy, you realize that Jewish terror is not something the State can or will oppose because it is an organic expression of the ideology of those who dominate the nation.  No, I am not accusing Bibi Netanyahu of being a terrorist (though a number of Israeli prime ministers were before they dressed themselves in suits and became “statesmen”).  I am accusing him of being an accessory after the fact because the Jewish terrorists are the ultimate expression of the wishes of the State.

All this by way of reporting to you about an important article by Roni Shaked, Yediot’s Palestinian affairs correspondent.  Shaked’s bona fides are impressive: in the 1970s he “ran” Palestinian agents for the Shabak.  As such, he is a Shabak man at heart, though he is now a journalist.  That means that he knows the system, knows how it works, know how it fails.  What’s even more important: when it does fail he understands why.

His article is an evisceration of the Jewish terror unit of the Shabak.  He says the department has made itself a mockery by its inability or unwillingness to address the Jewish terror underground in the West Bank.  In addition to the agency itself, he blames the prime minister for being satisfied with such a record of miserable failure.

Here is a summary of the article with my own comments interspersed:

Now in a period of relative calm regarding Palestinian terror is the time Yoram Cohen should be expected to redouble his efforts to address the rampage of Jewish terror that has afflicted Israel: the price tag attack, the 17 mosque burnings, desecration of Muslim graves, destruction of property, racist graffiti scrawled on the walls of Muslim holy sites, and even attacks on IDF bases in the Territories.  Not to mention that vast increase in armed attacks on Palestinians.

The latest of these was the brutal “lynch” of three Palestinians by a scores of drunken Israeli ultra-nationalist youth who prowled Jerusalem last weekend seeking victims.  When they found their victims they pounded one to within an inch of his life.  He remains in hospital in a coma.  It isn’t known whether he will suffer brain damage.  Yediot reported yesterday that Palestinian shop workers in Zion Square called 911 and requested that police be called to stop the incipient mob.  A policeman came and told witnesses that there was little he could do.  Eventually he left.  Shortly thereafter, the main show began and the wilding took its most brutal form.  Don’t be shocked.  Remember what I wrote above.  The job of Israeli police is not to prevent Israeli violence against Palestinians or protect Palestinians.  It’s job is to look the other way when that happens and not to prosecute it seriously if that proves necessary.  If the leaders, citizens and police, have allowed their nation to become an authoritarian racist regime, this is the natural result.  Not an anomaly, as liberals like Shimon Peres or some readers here would argue.

Some readers will argue in defense that the State has arrested eight of the hoodlums.  It had little choice.  There were scores of witnesses who also stood by and did nothing.  But the crime was far too public to ignore.  The key will be whether the suspects are prosecuted, convicted and jailed.  The key will be how much punishment, if any, they will receive.  You know what my bet is.

The State Department has just accepted the inevitable and used the dreaded “T” word in its annual nation report on the terror.  What does this mean? Very little–now.  But in the future should this pattern continue it would allow Israel itself, conceivably to be labelled a terror state.  I know, unlikely.  But the problem with terror is that when it is unaddressed it can subsume an entire country.  Israel definitely is in danger of becoming such a place.  Many would even argue it already has.

The political echelon including the president and prime minister have denounced these heinous acts and demanded that they be stopped.  But somehow they’re not.  Mosques are burned.  Suspects are detained and questioned.  A few may even have their movement restricted so they cannot congregate with their ultranationalist brethren in the settlements.  But none are charged, none are tried and none certainly convicted.  There are crimes that somehow are never solved.  Netanyahu boasts that he will use an iron hand to uproot this poison from the land.  But in truth the settler terrorists are lords of this land.

91% of incidents of Israeli on Palestinian violence which are investigated do not end with any indictment.  Only 3% of crimes against Palestinians lead to an indictment.  The rest are closed due to the failure of investigators to identify the suspects or evidence; or with the excuse that the criminal is “unknown,” “insufficient evidence,” or the file was “lost.”  These statistics should remove the sleep from the eyes of the Shin Bet, the police and justice system.

What excuse does the Jewish terror unit for its failure?  None.  It is considered a prestigious post within the Shin Bet.  It has no budget constraints and manpower has been doubled and trebled recently.  Nor are their constraints of their operations.  Despite all this, this unit fails to stop Jewish terror.  It doesn’t just fail over a limited period, its failures have extended over a long period.

The excuses offered are varied and unpersuasive: they complain that suspects are schooled in resisting interrogation and cannot be broken.  That when confronted by interrogators’ questions instead of answering, they begin reciting verses from Psalms.  Shaked correctly dismisses these as irrelevant.  What the bosses need to see is results.  If they don’t see them either you fire those who are failing or, if you don’t, accept the fact that your society does not want to end Jewish terror because it is somehow intrinsic to the State and its prevailing ideology.

Shaked, who is, while a critic, loyal to the organization and the State, believes that the Shin Bet must begin using new and better tactics.  The current methods are like a pleasant tea party.  Like “talking to the stones and trees,” in Shaked’s words.  Instead, it must treat these criminals as a terror underground and to act against it with all the measures used to stop Palestinian terror (by which Shaked implictly concedes torture and other forms of abuse used to break suspects and elicit confessions).  If the Shin Bet refuses, then Israel will soon face a 3rd Intifada.

Unlike Shaked, I don’t think the worst danger is a Palestinian insurrection.  I think the worst danger is the death of Israeli democracy.  It is already on its death bed.  Refusal to address Jewish terror is a symptom of the disease.

On related matter: Haaretz reports (and English) that a Lt. Col. and unit head with 25-years service in the Shin Bet was forced to resign for demonstrating investigatory techniques (i.e. torture) on the body of a 22 year-old IDF soldier who was his subordinate, against her will.  This isn’t the first sexual scandal in the agency’s history.  In fact, I’ve reported here on a number of them involving very high level officers.

The charges against him ended with his banishment from the Shin Bet for a period of five years.  In other words, this choice piece of humanity can return to the service of his country and harrassment of its female personnel once more after this little slap on the wrist.

In justifying its toothless punishment, the court said it was impressed by a letter written by the accused’s commander which credited his “devotion, loyalty and humanity and his many contributions made over the years to the State of Israel.”  Apparently being a good torturer trumps being a sexual harrasser in the eyes of Israel’s domestic spy agency.

 

---------------

 

DONATION APPEAL: I incur regular expenses related to hosting this blog and related to maintaining contact with Israeli sources and the media.  At the height of the media frenzy over the Israeli war plan report which the BBC covered last week, my host suspended the site because it was overloading the server.  To address these issues, I’ve hired someone to deal with technical matters and improving the speed of the site.  All this costs money.

Though I regularly appeal to readers for support and many of you have answered the call, many of you have yet to step forward.  In the Jewish tradition, tikun olam (repairing the world) is an ethical obligation.  Financially supporting such efforts is not elective.  It is an obligation, one willing accepted by believers.

If you are a believer in the mission of this blog, please support it as much as you can.  You can give a single donation or an ongoing subscription through Paypal.  It means a lot to me and to the mission of this blog.

 

'Undercover Israeli combatants threw stones at IDF soldiers in West Bank'

7 May 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

Testimony by commander of the Israeli Prison Service's elite 'Masada' unit sheds light on IDF methods in countering demonstrations against barrier.

By Chaim Levinson

Undercover soldiers hurled stones in the "general direction" of IDF soldiers as part of their activity to counter weekly demonstrations in the Palestinian village of Bil'in, the commander of the Israeli Prison Service's elite "Masada" unit revealed during his recent testimony in the trial of MK Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash).

Barakeh has been charged with assaulting a border guard in Bil'in who was attempting to arrest a demonstrator.

Undercover soldiers hurled stones in the "general direction" of IDF soldiers as part of their activity to counter weekly demonstrations in the Palestinian village of Bil'in, the commander of the Israeli Prison Service's elite "Masada" unit revealed during his recent testimony in the trial of MK Mohammed Barakeh (Hadash).
Barakeh has been charged with assaulting a border guard in Bil'in who was attempting to arrest a demonstrator.

(MK Mohammed Barakeh confronting IDF soldiers in Bil’in in 2005./Photo by: Reuters)

Since 2005, the weekly protests against the separation barrier in Bil'in, which cuts the village off from much of its residents' land, have attracted international attention as well as the participation of Israeli and international activists.

Several "Masada" fighters testified two weeks ago in Barakeh's trial in the Tel Aviv Magistrate's court. The fighters testified from behind a curtain and their identity is to remain secret. The central witness was "Fighter 102," an officer in "Masada," who told the court that "we were sent to counter the disruptions at the separation barrier in Bil'in. It was the first time I was undercover. Two men were arrested, they were Palestinians."

When quizzed by defense attorney Orna Kohn if the undercover soldiers hurled stones, "102" answered that they did. When asked if he hurled stones toward IDF soldiers, he answered "in the general direction."

The unit's commander, "fighter 101," who commanded the operation that day, shed light on the unit's operational methods. "I was commander of the force, directed by the IDF, following intelligence about a huge demonstration due to take place in the Bil'in area. We had several forces in the field - one of them was an undercover force whose mission was to provide intelligence and carry out 'quality' arrests, if needed, and a rescue force which was wearing regular uniforms," he revealed.

"An enormous demonstration began, coming down from the village. It seemed that the army was losing control. Some 500 demonstrators came down and ignored the orders of the deputy battalion commander, who was in charge of the operation, and simply passed by him without blinking. The army forces swiftly lost their ability to effectively control the situation," the officer continued.

"At a certain stage the deputy battalion commander told me he had lost control and requested that we act to stop the demonstrators. We used equipment for dispersing demonstrations and managed to stop them. When the undercover unit reported, it identified 'quality' targets - that is substantial activists who led the demonstration, hurled stones and constituted a danger to the forces. I ordered the undercover forces to carry out arrests. I caught the back of a man who attacked one of my soldiers, and identified him as MK Barakeh. As far as I'm concerned if an undercover soldier arrested someone, he must be a quality target," the commander told the court.

MK Barakeh originally faced four charges, but two were dropped in the preliminary proceedings. The second of the two remaining charges dates back to July 2006, when the prosecution alleges he assaulted a right-wing activist who attempted to attack peace activist Uri Avnery.

SCOOP: ISRAELI BORDER POLICE NAMES NEW COMMANDER, HIS IDENTITY IS UNDER MILITARY CENSORSHIP, BUT NOT HERE

May 6th, 2012/Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

New border police elite Yamam unit commander, Col. Shlomi Michael, whose identity is under military censorship (Michael Kramer/Ynet)

Israeli military censorship prohibits revealing the identity of the new commander (Hebrew) of the Border Police’s elite counter-terror unit, Yamam (this post displays a priceless photo of Shimon Peres mugging with weapons with Yamam personnel). Not only am I not under the jurisdiction of Israeli censorship, I make a point of bucking censorship because most of it is, as in this case, ludicrous. An Israeli confidential source informs me the new commander, which the Israeli media may only call “Colonel Shin,” is Col. Shlomi Michael, former head of Central Unit of the Tel Aviv police (Yamar). Among the many crimes his unit failed either to prosecute or solve since he assumed command, was the Tel Aviv gay community center murders and the alleged rape of P. by television journalist, Yoav Even. In fact, there is still an Israeli gag in place prohibiting mentioning Even’s name in connection with the rape.

(Israeli MK Mohammed Barakeh assaulted by IDF personnel at Bilin/Reuters)

Before assuming command in Tel Aviv, Michael commanded a unit of Mistarvim, the controversial forces which infiltrate Palestinians towns and villages in order to arrest or kill suspected militants. They also arrest Palestinians demonstrating peacefully and brutally manhandle detainees in the process. I’ve featured photos of such treatment here.

Today’s Haaretz reveals that a Mistarvim unit infiltrates the Bilin anti-Separation Wall protests in order to provoke violent outbursts by protesters. The undercover officers throw stones at the IDF forces on patrol in order to permit the latter to unleash their overwhelming and regularly lethal firepower against unarmed civilians. In fact, such soldiers arrested Israeli MK Mohammed Barakeh, claiming he assaulted one of them when this photo clearly shows HIM being assaulted. So much for reality as seen by Israeli security forces. In any other democratic country police would be fired for throttling an elected national official. In Israel, they give them medals if they’re Israeli Palestinian leaders.

Michael is moving up in the world to an elite SWAT-type unit charged with policing domestic terrorism and hostage situations. One of their snipers was killed during the Sinai Islamist terror assault on Eilat last summer. Among other controversial actions in which Yaman played a role: its snipers killed a number of the Israeli Palestinian unarmed protesters in the protests of October, 2000 in Umm al Fahm. It also has been responsible for a long list of targeted killings as documented in the Hebrew (though not the English) Wikipedia article.

UPDATE: I posted this scoop to the Israeli news portal, HaKafe (motto: “THE Democratic Forum”) and it was taken down. The site wasn’t prepared to buck the Israeli censor unfortunately. I’ve asked other Israeli bloggers whether they might be willing to join a campaign to challenge censorship en masse by reporting it.

A few days ago I read the obituary of Edward Kennedy, a courageous American journalist who violated WWII military censorship by reporting the surrender of Nazi forces a day before the U.S. wanted the news reported. For his trouble, his bosses at AP fired him and apologized to the U.S. military. Kennedy spent the rest of his life seeking vindication that he’d made the right decision. Recently, the current head of AP apologized profusely to his family and praised Kennedy for being a courageous journalist who did the right thing.

I understand the Israeli system of censorship is difficult to face alone. But I’m convinced that if enough websites and media outlets could join together they could make a dent in this noxious system. It would be much harder for the censor to take on a group of sites acting in defiance.

I recognize that I’m not as vulnerable as anyone in Israel is. Therefore, I can’t expect anyone to take a risk when they are the ones who would pay the price. Very few journalists in Israel have been willing to do what Edward Kennedy did. Only two by my count over the past 50 years or so. But Kennedy is testament to the fact that even if you lose your job over something this, there can be a second act. Kennedy went on to be the editor of the Santa Barbara (CA) newspaper and the owner of a newspaper in Monterey, CA. His life had that second act, fortunately and his courageous defiance of censorship was vindicated in the long run.

BIG BROTHER, ISRAELI CENSOR, TO MONITOR JOURNALISTS’ SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS

May 2nd, 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

IDF's 'Big Sister' military censor expands monitoring of social media (Walla/Bernie Ardov)

The IDF military censor will be assuming even more ominous Big Brother-like prerogatives as it begins monitoring the social media accounts of Israeli journalists and bloggers for potential violation of censorship provisions. At a conference on digital media, the censor, an IDF colonel, announced that her staff would further constrict freedom of the press and speech by assuming the mantle of social media enforcer:

Israel’s military launched a new system this week to monitor information on the Internet, the chief military censor said on Tuesday.

Col. Sima Vaknin-Gil said that the new system will monitor visual and textual information on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, on blogs and on traditional news sites.

Vaknin-Gil explained that the new system will examine information using keywords labeled in advance. The system will be able to monitor information that was previously difficult to reach.

In one Israeli media story covering this, she claims that the method of canvassing the social media will be “sophisticated.” But in another publication she says they will do it using keywords. This indeed is a format used by web filtering software employed by Chinese and Iranian government internet snoops. And these systems are notoriously arbitrary and even foolish in what they pick up as possible violations.

But never fear, the good Colonel explains that she doesn’t want to monitor everything. Apparently that would cut a little too close to Big Brother’s bone and might be a tad intrusive and morally troubling:

“I think that you can’t try to catch everything,” she said, “because that will make the censor lose its relevance, and furthermore – its morality.”

You could indeed catch “everything” if you simply shut down the internet. But if you did that the censor would indeed lose its relevance because there’d be nothing left to censor. As for morality, the notion that expanding the censor’s brief to include social media is somehow “moral,” is laughable. When the internet is less free, it means Israeli rights are trampled and that is the farthest thing from moral.

There is this passage in which the censor concedes that censorship and democracy are at loggerheads with each other. But she maintains that she’s a “sensitive” censor who is always thinking of minimizing her intrusion of free speech and other civil liberties. I tell you it’s goddamn touching to read:

I know that when I protect the security of the State of Israel I’m damaging freedom of speech. Censorship and democracy do not go hand in hand. That’s why every day we ask ourselves whether we’re damaging freedom of speech or the public’s right to know.

To which I respond, you may ask yourself the question but it doesn’t mean you’re coming up with the right answers.

I was tickled to find, thanks to Rupa Shah and a host of other eagle-eyed readers, that a question at the conference compelled the censor to address my censor-busting work here at Tikun Olam. In fact, if the conference organizers had been brave they would’ve invited me to address the meeting. In fact, when the Shamai Leibowitz story broke, a journalist who profiled me said he knew Israeli journalists organizing a conference very much like this one and that they intended to invite me to participate. I guess they got cold feet. Very likely, if anyone wished to invite me to this conference the censor would’ve refused to participate, which would’ve nixed my participation.
At any rate, the censors response was a curious non-sequitur:

Referring to recent incidents of censored information being published on social networks and blogs – notably by Jewish-American blogger Richard Silverstein – Vaknin-Gil said that “the censor is perceived as a body trying to control the Internet, to no avail. This is mistake – we try to operate within the Internet only in terms of elements related to us.”

“The censor cannot reject everything,” she added. “The censor can only touch things that are likely to harm the security of the state, and these incidents are few.”

What she means to say is that she has no jurisdiction over what I report since I’m neither on Israeli soil nor an Israeli citizen. But Didi Remez has raised an important point in this Facebook entry: if he retweets or links to my censorship-evading posts will that get him into hot water. The answer I think is that it very well might. It depends on how eager the censor is to repress the story and how willing they are to take on whoever the Israeli offender might be. All of which makes me appreciate even more those Israelis who serve a sources and those willing to amplify my stories by promoting them to Israeli audiences on Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Please support my ability to comfort the afflicted and afflict the IDF censor by donating through the Paypal button in my sidebar.

Vaknin-Gil attempts to make a distinction between a private social media account and one representing a journalist. She claims not to be interested in private accounts but only ones belonging to journalists. Seems to me that distinction is very difficult to make and can easily bleed from a so-called “public” account hosted by a journalist into a “private” one. What really gave me the heebie-jeebies is her claim that the censor works hand in glove with journalists and that they have common interests (Hebrew). Not in my world they don’t. Perhaps in an authoritarian society that might be true. Which does Israel want to be?

She also makes a false claim when she says that Israeli journalists use censorship as a crutch when they claim they know much more than they’re able to report publicly. She maintains that in reality journalists don’t have anything to add to a story, but hide behind the censor to protect themselves from the claim that they’ve missed a story. I can in fact attest to the fact that many Israeli journalists are already aware of at least some of the scoops I report, but that their hands are tied by censorship. In fact, I’ve reported stories to Tzinor Layla editors that were under censorship and they will never put me on air in such a case. Or in a few rare cases, they may put me on air and edit out the name of the person who is the focus of the story.

By the way, Ms. IDF Censor–you can expect Israel’s ranking in international press freedom surveys to plummet even lower than it already is, with this new initiative.

There is another form of censorship in Israel: the judicial gag order. Gag orders have the same effect as censorship but they derive from different sources. The police or defendants in legal cases can file for gag orders which bar the Israeli media from reporting stories. In some cases, gag orders leak into military-security cases. For example, in a recent case a gag order prohibited for several hours revealing the identity of a dead IDF soldier whose remains were sought.

Israel is notorious for sheer volume of gag orders and the ease with which they may be obtained. Yoav Even is still protected by a gag order many months after he was accused of rape by an Israeli woman. A gag order prevented the exposure of Dror Oved, a young rightist thug guilty of phoning death threats to the Peace Now offices. In that case, both of his parents were high level police officers who were connected and could work the system to their and their son’s advantage. At times, gag orders appear to be approved almost on a whim.

I reported here last December, a story no Israeli reporter covered (perhaps because they didn’t believe the claim offered): that the security services (then) and the police (now) seek to reform the system and decrease the number of gag orders. I imagine their fear is that as long as Israeli judicial practice is so out of line with other western democracies, the farther outside the international norms Israel will remain. If they do indeed implement this reform it will be welcome. But Israeli authorities have a habit of announcing with great fanfare initiatives which are never realized. So I’ll remain agnostic on this till I see real proof.

NETANYAHU IS PREPARING ISRAELI PUBLIC OPINION FOR A WAR ON IRAN

15 March 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

In response to Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, Haaretz's editor-in-chief says that what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war.

By Aluf Benn

Since his return from Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has mainly been preoccupied with one thing: Preparing public opinion for war against Iran.

Netanyahu is attempting to convince the Israeli public that the Iranian threat is a tangible and existential one, and that there is only one effective way to stop it and prevent a "second Holocaust": An Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which is buried deep underground.

In his speech before the Knesset on Wednesday, Netanyahu urged his colleagues to reject claims that Israel is too weak to go it alone in a war against a regional power such as Iran and therefore needs to rely on the United States, which has much greater military capabilities, to do the job and remove the threat.

According to polls published last week, this is the position of most of the Israeli public, which supports a U.S. strike on Iran, but is wary of sending the IDF to the task without the backing of the friendly superpower.

Netanyahu presented three examples in which his predecessors broke the American directive and made crucial decisions regarding the future of Israel: the declaration of independence in 1948, starting the Six Day War in 1967 and the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

The lesson was clear: Just as David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol and Menachem Begin said "no" to the White House, Netanyahu also needs not be alarmed by President Obama's opposition to an attack on Iran. Netanyahu believes that, as in the previous incidents, the U.S. may grumble at first, but will then quickly adopt the Israeli position and provide Israel with support and backing in the international community.

If Netanyahu had submitted his speech as a term paper to his father the history professor, he would have received a very poor grade. In 1948, the U.S. State Department, headed by George Marshall, opposed the declaration of independence and supported a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine. But President Truman had other considerations.

Like Obama today, Truman was also a democratic president contending for his reelection, who needed the support of the Jewish voters and donors. Under those circumstances, Truman rejected Marshall's advice, and listened to his political adviser Clark Clifford, who pressured him to recognize the Zionist state. And indeed, Truman sent a telegram with an official recognition of Israel just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion finished reading the Scroll of Independence. The U.S. opposition to the recognition of Israel was halted at the desk of the president, who repelled the explanations by the Secretary of State and the "Arabists" in his office.

In 1967, the official U.S. position called on Israel to hold back and refrain from going to war, but a different message was passing through the secret channels: go "bomb Nasser," reported Levi Eshkol's envoys to Washington, Meir Amit and Avraham Harman. This message tipped the scales in favor of going to war. In 1981, Begin did not bother asking the Americans their opinion before attacking Iraq, but lulled them to sleep and launched a surprise attack.

In these past incidents, Israel acted against the U.S. position formally, but made sure that the Americans will accept the results of the action and support it in retrospect. And indeed, the U.S. recognized Israel in 1948, allowed it to control the territories annexed in 1967, and made do with weak condemnations of the attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor in 1981.

That being the case, then Netanyahu is hinting that in his Washington visit, he received Obama's tacit approval for an Israeli attack against Iran – under the guise of opposition. Obama will speak out against it but act for it, just as the past U.S. administrations speak against the settlements in the territories but allow their expansion. And in this manner Netanyahu summarized the visit: "I presented before my hosts the examples that I just noted before you, and I believe that the first objective that I presented – to fortify the recognition of Israel's right to defend itself – I think that objective has been achieved."

This morning, the editor-in-chief of the Israel Hayom newspaper, Amos Regev, published on his front page an enthusiastic op-ed in support of a war against Iran. Regev writes what Netanyahu cannot say in his speeches: that we cannot rely on Obama – who wasn't even a mechanic in the armored corps - but only on ourselves. "Difficult, daring, but possible," Regev promised. We need not be alarmed by the Iranian response: the arrow would take down the Shahab missiles, and Hezbollah and Hamas would hesitate about entering a war. The damage would be reminiscent of the Iraqi scuds in the 1991 Gulf War - unpleasant, but definitely not too bad. The analysts are weak, but the soldiers and the residents of the Home Front have motivation. So onward, to battle!

To use Netanyahu's "duck allegory", what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a "bluff" or a diversion tactic. Until his trip to Washington, Netanyahu and his supporters in the media refrained from such explicit wording and made do with hints. But since he's been back, Netanyahu has issued an emergency call-up for himself and the Israeli public.

More on this topic
Netanyahu: Gaza violence shows Israel cannot afford to be lax on Iran nuclear threat
Obama: Window for diplomatic solution to Iran nuclear standoff is 'shrinking'

IDF opposes the screening of Israeli documentary about West Bank legal system

18 March 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

The documentary film The Law in These Parts, critical of the IDF justice system in the territories, was not authorized to be screened for IDF soldiers.

By Nirit Anderman

The IDF Spokesperson's unit has recently forbidden the screening of an Israeli documentary film about the West Bank legal system before an Israeli Defense Forces unit.
The creators of the film, which critically examines Israel's legal system in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, contacted senior officials within the IDF court system in attempts to screen the film before soldiers serving in military courts. The IDF Spokesperson's unit, however, thwarted the plan and forbade the screening.

The Law in These Parts, directed by Ra'anan Alexandrowicz, was first shown at the most recent Jerusalem Film Festival, and won the prize for best documentary. Two months ago, it competed in the prestigious Sundance Film Festival where it won the World Cinema Grand Jury Prize in Documentary.

In the film, Alexandrowicz interviews several Israeli lawmakers who were former senior officials in the military courts, in order to better understand the development of the Israeli legal system in the territories. Alexandrowicz attempts to understand the logic used by the people who created the legal system, and determine what are the ramifications of such a court system on the principles of law and justice in Israel.

A few months ago, the creators of the film contacted officers within the IDF courts and offered to screen The Law in These Parts for the judges in the military courts at the Ofer prison, located near Ramallah. The filmmakers also offered to hold and participate in a discussion of the film and its contents with the judges, as they have done at screenings in the past.

"Despite their disagreement with a large portion of the film's contents, the officials in the unit expressed interest in our offer," said producer Liran Atzmor. "However they told us that a screening of this type can only be done with permission from the Spokesperson's unit," he added. Despite the agreement between the filmmakers and the court officials to screen the film, the IDF Spokesperson's unit did not give permission to hold the screening. The event planned for the judges at the Ofer prison was cancelled but according to sources, a small screening, initiated by a few officers with a copy of the film provided by the filmmakers, was held for a few justice officials and the Military Advocate General.

Another incident of IDF opposition to the film arose nearly two months ago, when a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem decided to show the film to his students. The professor, who preferred to remain anonymous, contacted the Military Advocate General to invite a representative to join the screening and participate in a discussion with the students. The professor's request was turned down, as the Military Advocate General's office had received "orders not to comment on this film."

In the end, an agreement was reached and the Military Advocate General sent a representative to discuss the issues presented in the film, however not as part of a screening of the film. The students saw the film a week later.

"We think that the film The Law in These Parts is very relevant to military history, and should very much interest the Military Advocate General," said Atzmor. The filmmakers were astonished that "the IDF Spokesperson's unit did not see fit to authorize the screening of the film, even in a closed setting for military officials, and refused to send a representative to an academic screening of the film."

At this point the film has been screened all over the country at more than 150 separate screenings, among them screenings for public defenders, State Attorney workers, members of the Council for Peace and Security, and law schools. Atzmon noted "that in two weeks, the film will be shown on television, which makes the attempt to keep the film under wraps that much stranger."

When asked for comment, the IDF Spokesperson's unit replied "In these matters, the IDF does not comment about the internal decision-making process to newspapers."

Read this article in Hebrew

More on this topic
Israeli documentary on West Bank legal system wins prestigious Sundance prize

AFP RESPONDS TO FALSE ACCUSATIONS SURROUNDING A PICTURE TAKEN IN THE WEST BANK VILLAGE OF AL-DIRAT ON JANUARY 25

February 3, 2012 AFP http://www.afp.com
http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/content/news/afp-responds-to-false

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE (AFP) WAS RECENTLY ACCUSED IN BLOGS AND IN A LETTER SENT BY THE ISRAELI EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON TO PROMINENT US NEWSPAPERS OF FILING A PICTURE TAKEN ON JANUARY 25 IN AL-DIRAT, WEST BANK THAT HAD BEEN STAGED. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS OF THOROUGH RESEARCH BY OUR JERUSALEM BUREAU, AFP WISHES TO CONFIRM THE VERACITY OF BOTH THE PICTURE AND THE ACCOMPANYING PHOTO CAPTION.

In a letter to US newspapers, the Israeli embassy in Washington wrote that the vehicle was in fact stationary and that medics from the Israeli Defense Forces and Red Crescent determined that the construction worker had not been injured. In its letter, the embassy asked newspapers to “issue a correction that the purported injury was not confirmed independently, contradicts medical examinations by both the IDF and Red Crescent, and was perhaps staged”. After casting doubt on AFP’s credibility and journalism ethics, it then asked the newspapers “to consider ceasing to publish the photographs of Hazem Bader”.
These claims are false.

AFP’s Jerusalem bureau and photo editor interviewed other media representatives present at the scene and watched video footage filmed by other colleagues showing the construction worker being carried away on a stretcher. Their trust in the events described by Hazem Bader is unequivocal.

Reporters from AFP Jerusalem bureau also interviewed the injured construction worker, Mahmud Abu Qbeita, on February 1 as well as the doctors that treated him at Yatta hospital. The following is a translation from Arabic of the medical certificate issued on the day of the incident : “Yatta Hospital Prescription for Mohammed Abu Qbeita To whom it may concern, The above mentioned person has attended the emergency service at the hospital. He was suffering from severe pain in his right leg. He said that an Israeli military vehicle ran over him. In the medical examination we found that he has pain in his right knee, pain in his pelvis, and pain in the neck, and has difficulty in walking. We conducted X-RAYS on him and found fractures. He has been advised to consult the orthopedic department."

Here’s a transcript of the interview given on February 1 by Mohammed Abu Qbeita: "I was working on this site for the first day. It was the first time I'd been working there. Some time after we started working the Israeli army arrived. All of a sudden, a lot of them, started saying it was forbidden to build there. I didn't know that because I hadn't worked there before, but they said it was forbidden and we had to stop and they wanted to demolish what was already at the site. They were shouting a lot and I started walking over to where my stuff was so I could get my phone and my ID card and that's when the tractor hit me. It hit me twice, first on my side, which knocked me over on the ground. Then it drove over one of my legs. I didn't see it coming. It went over one of my legs, one was under the wheel, the other one was outside it. (Asked whether he heard it coming) I didn't hear it, there was a lot of noise, a lot of shouting. Even if I heard something, I didn't respond because I never imagined that it would hit me. (Asked who was driving?) It was one of them driving, one of the army, the Israelis. I don't know who he was. It was our tractor, for our work, but he was on it and driving. (Asked if he went to the hospital?) Yes, I went to the hospital, they examined me and treated me and I have a medical certificate and I will show it to anyone who wants to see it. Anyone who wants can talk to me and take a picture of my leg and of me."

In the light of these inquiries and based on the trust we have in our photojournalist, AFP Management does not believes that this event could ever have been staged.
Given the ferocity of the attacks against the AFP Photo service, we have decided to release this statement in order to set the record straight. We will not make any further comment.

MARCADORES

Israeli parents protest growing extremist bent in religious schools

18 November 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

Parents of some 400 children are protesting issues such as prohibition against kindergarten girls singing.

By Talila Nesher

Parents of some 400 children in the state religious school system have banded together to protest what they view as the extreme bent the system has taken.
"People are angry over the issue of women [prohibited from] singing in the IDF, but our outcry is over the prohibition against kindergarten girls singing," Ariela Miller, the mother of three children in the Orthodox state school system, told Haaretz.

"Children are habituated to rabbis being the only source of authority, much before educators. No wonder that when they come to crossroads in life, they cannot use their own judgment," Miller said.

Unlike Miller, most of the parents are afraid to reveal their names for fear of a negative impact on their children's schooling. One activist, who works for the Education Ministry, said she was summoned for a talking-to and told to stop her activities against the Education Ministry.

Another mother said that the main extremist influence was coming from organized groups of Orthodox people moving into a community with the purpose of increasing religious observance in that community. "But make no mistake, the Education Ministry is a full partner and is pushing them forward," she said.

Parents are brimming with examples of increasing extremism in state religious schools. One father who has children in Tel Aviv's Moriah school said: "On the last Memorial Day, some of the girls did not sing in the ceremony because 'it is not modest,' and they have already begun talking about the fact that at the end of the year event the fathers won't be able to see the girls perform and that there will even be separate events for boys and girls."

Another father said the school principal has no choice but to accede to the demands of the parents of the ultra-Orthodox group that has moved in, "and if an instruction is not implemented, it comes later from above - from [the Education Ministry's] supervisor."

The father added that when he complained he was told that if he did not like it, he could take his daughter to another school.

A mother from a state religious kindergarten in Kiryat Gat said that when she asked if a date had been set for the class Hanukkah party, the teacher said the event was being organized by the Orthodox residents' group, and that fathers would not be invited because "it is not modest for girls to dance and sing in the presence of the fathers, which would [also] prevent the mothers from dancing."

Classroom hours have also been changed unrecognizably, the father of a child at the Shilo school in Kiryat Ono says. When the parents first received the schedule of classes, it seemed alright, he said. "Only later did we realize that there are sacred studies disguised as secular studies: homeroom, for example, is suddenly being taught by the school rabbi, who certainly doesn't deal with civics, but rather with Jewish law."

The father said his daughter showed him a book that the school had purchased for the children, which he said was "completely ultra-Orthodox." The father said the male figures in the book were depicted with ultra-Orthodox skullcaps and sidelocks and on the page teaching about showing respect to parents "there was only a father, no mother at all."

A project to further classic Israeli literature at the Tomer kindergarten in Ramat Hasharon by subsidizing the purchase of books was scrapped last year, a parent said, after the group of Orthodox people who had moved into the community to further its religious observance said Haim Nahman Bialik and Lea Goldberg were "not modest."

A mother of a child in the Tomer kindergarten said the group of Orthodox residents "impose censorship instead of the Education Ministry" in checking the plays the school was paying for the children to see.

A parent from the Moriah school said: "One fine day they decided to separate the children on the bus: the boys in the front and the girls in the back. Recess is also taken in different yards."

Parents from Kiryat Gat said that on the first day of kindergarten they were given a flyer in which mothers were instructed "to come to the kindergarten in modest dress (skirt or dress, no pants and certainly not without sleeves)."

Before the beginning of the school year at the Morasha school in Petah Tikva, a group of parents petitioned the High Court of Justice over what they perceived as forced gender separation beginning in the first grade. "The High Court ordered the situation to remain as it is until a committee studies the issue," Idit, one of the mothers said. "But the High Court doesn't know that it is being tricked, because last year we were forced to separate them under the assumption that it was for one year, so leaving the situation as it is means continuing the separation."

The Education Ministry responded: "State religious education provides solutions to a variety of communities and the various groups studying in its framework. Discussions are underway to study the matter in all its aspects."

More on this topic
Hundreds across Israel protest against religious marginalization of women in Jerusalem
Jerusalem & Babylon / Ultra-Orthodox need not protest Israel, they run it

Academics rally behind Ben-Gurion University prof. fined for refusing IDF duty

16 november 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

Prof. Idan Landau has refused reserve duty for past 11 years, has been imprisoned three times; first time university has taken steps against him.

By Talila Nesher

Hundreds of academics from Israel and abroad have urged Ben-Gurion University of the Negev to reverse a fine it imposed on one of its professors, over his refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces reserves.

About 230 senior university lecturers from Israeli institutions of higher learning and about another 100 from abroad have sent a letter to BGU President Rivka Carmi, calling on her to reconsider the decision to reduce the pay of Prof. Idan Landau for a week that he spent in jail for refusing to serve. Another 90 faculty members from BGU made a similar demand of Carmi.

Prof. Landau, who lectures in the university's linguistics department, was informed about two weeks ago that half of his salary would be withheld for the period during which he was imprisoned for refusing for reasons of conscience. Landau has refused to do reserve duty for the past 11 years and has been imprisoned previously three times, but the university had not taken any steps against him in the past. In May of this year, after he spent a week in jail, he made up the instructional time that he had missed.

Landau also claimed that he continued conducting research from prison. In late June, however, the university administration deducted half of Landau's salary for the week on the grounds that he had been absent.

"Landau was not punished by the university," university spokesman Amir Rozenblit said. "No sanctions were imposed upon him for his political beliefs or due to any stance on the part of the university regarding his decision not to serve in the reserves. Employees are paid a salary for work. Since Dr. Landau was in detention, he was not at the disposal of his employer and is therefore not entitled to a salary for that period."

NO EVIDENCE FOR POPULAR RESISTANCE COMMITTEES INVOLVEMENT IN ATTACKS

25 August 2011, + 972 http://972mag.com (Israel)

Yossi Gurvitz*

A week passed since the Eilat attack, and the IDF has yet to prove the blame of the group Israel chose to attack in response.

Earlier this week I posted about the cracks in the Barak-Netanyahu narrative regarding the terror attacks near Eilat. A quick reminder: While the attacks were still going on, Barak blamed them on the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, and hours later the IAF attacked and killed the leadership of the PRC. However, there is not a shred of evidence the PRC had anything to do with the attacks, and Barak’s action plunged Israel and Hamas into a new round of hostilities.

Since Monday, there have been a few more reports in the Israeli media, casting more doubt on the official story. Yediot reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that nameless people in the security apparatus doubt the PRC were responsible for the attacks, and raise an interesting question: If they were responsible, why was the PRC’s entire leadership in the same place?

According to Yediot’s anonymous intelligence sources (bear in mind that such sources should always be viewed with skepticism; by their very nature they cannot be corroborated, and they tend to be unreliable even when speaking openly), the attribution of the attacks to the PRC stems from one somewhat incoherent comment on some Jihadi message board.

Ha’aretz reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that at least three on the attackers were Egyptian Jihadis. American intelligence sources – the same caveat above applies here – told Globes (Hebrew) that they, too, doubt the PRC are responsible, though they may have had a small role in the attacks.

Two days ago, the IAF attacked the Gaza Strip again – naturally, it does not consider itself bound by the ceasefire; only the Palestinians are, and only them can be blamed for breaking it – and killed some Islamic Jihad apparatchick. Yesterday, the IDF claimed (Hebrew) that he was in charge of funding the Eilat attacks. Hold on a minute, I’m confused: I thought you said the attacks were carried out by the PRC, and now it’s the Islamic Jihad left holding the bag? As of yesterday, reported Amira Hass in Ha’aretz (Hebrew), there are no mourning tents in Gaza. As of today, one week after the attack, the IDF refrains from exposing the identity of the attackers it killed.

One should note that none of the bewildering array of information comes officially from the IDF Spokesman, but rather from all sorts of “senior sources”. That’s the way the IDF raises a smokescreen, and then, when it is penetrated, rightly say he said nothing official. Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz was adamant, during a phone call on Sunday, that all of the people involved in the attacks were Gazans; unofficially, the IDF seems to back away from this position.

Despite the ceasefire, the IDF renewed attacks on the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli media – aside from Netanyahu’s mouthpiece, Israel Ha’yom – quietly points that out. This low level of military activity suits barak fine: It prevents a serious escalation, which may deal a blow to the Egyptian peace treaty – the Egyptians have warned the cabinet, it is reported, from a full-scale offensive (Hebrew) – and yet allows the government a distraction from the demands of the #J14 movement.
And if a few Gazans die, who cares?

-------------------

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.]

ISRAEL’S NICE LITTLE WAR

25 August 2011, CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org (USA)

Gaza, Egypt in the Range of Fire

by Ramzy Baroud*

Israeli writer Uri Avnery recently wrote an article entitled ‘How Godly Are Thy Tents?’, which began with the words, “First of all, a warning.” The reference was made to the tent cities that have sprung up across the country by middle class Israelis demanding change and reforms. The organizational style of these demands was not entirely different from Arab uprisings. To everyone’s surprise, the limited Israeli mobilization, which extended from concerns about sky-rocketing real estate prices to calls for ‘social justice’, was seen as Israel’s Tahrir Square moment. The movement was yet to articulate a political agenda, although such enunciation would have been a natural progression.

So what was Avnery’s warning about?

The “social protest movement is gathering momentum,” wrote Avnery. “At that point, there will be a temptation – perhaps an irresistible temptation – to ‘warm up the borders’. To start a nice little war. Call on the youth of Israel, the same young people now manning…the tents, to go and defend the fatherland.”

It was an unnerving warning, not only because it came from Avnery, a veteran well-versed in his understanding of the Israel ruling class, but also because it actualized in its entirety a few days later.

The ‘war’ had indeed commenced, starting on August 18. The ‘provocation’ had supposedly demonstrated without doubt that Israel’s security was greatly compromised and that the small state with ‘indefensible borders’ was paying a high price for Gaza’s armed intransigence and Egypt’s post-revolutionary chaos. Israeli sources reported that a large number of militants had crossed Sinai into Israel’s Red Sea resort of Eilat on Thursday (August 18), opening fire on two buses carrying Israeli soldiers. The passage was implacably coordinated, thus the ability of these bold attackers to kill and wound soldiers and other Israelis. According to the Israeli version of events, some of the attackers were killed, but others managed to flee back to Egypt. This forced the Israeli military to pursue them in an extraordinary chase, which mistakenly killed three Egyptian military personal.

Israeli sources, seemingly clueless to the armed men’s infiltration of a high security area, immediately provided precise information about the attackers. Instant consensus was also reached about the attackers’ link to Gaza. Per the massive strikes on many Gaza targets, it seemed as though the entire Strip was being blamed and punished.

The outcome was most predictable, albeit tragic. Israeli warplanes flew back over the Gaza sky, drones roamed uncontested, and the Palestinian death toll augmented. The whole miserable scene of killed civilians, mutilated children and burnt buildings was once more upon us. The chorus of support for Israel and condemnation of Palestinians from Washington was reminiscent of a history that never stops repeating itself.

But before delving into counter-arguments, one is tempted to question the conveniently situated Israeli wars of ‘self defense.’ How different is this latest ‘nice little war’ from the horrifying Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? When Ariel Sharon requested an American green light to attack Lebanon, Alexander Haig, US Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, insisted Israel must possess a ‘credible provocation’ before leading such a mission. Moreover, the case made to justify the war on Gaza in 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead also had its own ‘credible provocation’. In fact, all of Israel’s wars are sold to the public within this neat package which actually holds little credibility.

This time the provocation had to be convincing enough to justify multiple Israeli strikes on all of Gaza’s factions, as well as politically vulnerable Egypt.

Why is Israel bent on discrediting Egypt, exploiting the most sensitive period of its modern history, and destabilizing the border area so as to show Egypt’s failure to ensure Israel’s border security, as stipulated in the Camp David treaty?

Reportedly, all of Gaza’s prominent factions denied any responsibility for the Eilat attacks, including the Popular Resistance Committees (not affiliated with Hamas), which was accused by Israeli of being behind the attacks.

Responding to Israel’s killing of Egyptian officers, and under pressure by thousands of porters, Egypt pulled its ambassador out of Israel on August 20. In Israel, the discussion is now shifting to security and the need to complete construction of its 200km barrier at the border with Egypt, ostensibly aimed at blocking African immigrants from sneaking into Israel. Strangely, Egypt, which stands accused of allowing hundreds of militants into Israel from Sinai, had kept an eye on the border despite the effects of the revolution on security throughout the country. On July 7, for example, and on August 11, Egyptian security reportedly killed an Eritrean man and a Sudan migrant respectively for trying to cross the border. Many others have been apprehended during past months as well.

The army’s ability to strike down lone migrants, while supposed laxity allowed for the infiltration of hundreds in one instance raises more questions than it provides answers.

Some hidden hands seem to be orchestrating chaos in the city of Arish and the rest of the Sinai area. This includes the peculiar daytime attack by hundreds of armed met at police stations in Arish on July 29, which killed several Egyptian officers.
While deliberate chaos was being engendered in Sinai, fear was returning to Gaza as it was promised another Israeli military assault.

On August 9, residents of the impoverished Gaza Strip feared attack by Israel. The fears were not only based on repeated threats by Israeli officials, but also on a mysterious telecommunication blackout that day which cut off all Internet, mobile phones and international landlines for hours, according to Ma’an news agency. “Meanwhile, residents of Gaza near the border with Israel said army bulldozers were seen operating shortly before communications went offline,” Ma’an reported.

Why did Israel cut Gaza’s communication off? Was the ‘credible provocation’ being concocted then? Why did Israel fail to provide a reasonable explanation for the blackout? More, why the attempt at embarrassing, provoking and perhaps dragging Egypt into a border confrontation at a time when Egypt is attempting a transition towards democracy?

It ought to be said that “new Egypt’ was also credited for facilitating Palestinian unity, a first step towards taking Hamas out of its international isolation.

Is it not then possible that Israel’s ‘nice little war’ was a response to such a dangerous shift in Egyptian policy towards Hamas – and Palestine in general?

*Ramzy Baroud is editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. He is the author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: a Chronicle of a People’s Struggle and “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London).