Poor Gaza: Wealthy in Natural Gas

June 5, 2010 posted by Bob Nichols
Share

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.

- One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack) by Lambert-Potter, sung by Coven

(San Francisco) Everybody knows Israel does not possess any oil and gas. Right? Right.

As the legendary former Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir stated “Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil! Golda Meir ”

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli government are going to extreme lengths to prevent these Freedom Flotillas from getting directly to the Gaza shore. Why? Are the Israelis trying to hide something?

The political leaders in Gaza are using unyielding military discipline and truly have nothing left to lose; or do they?

As a result of this huge contrast, the common people of Gaza die like flies before a rigid, unflinching onslaught of US supplied F16s, bunker buster missiles, GBU-39 smart bombs, Israeli main battle tanks and small arms fire.

Why the slaughter of ready and willing to die, dirt poor Palestinians?

It appears the Freedom Flotilla sailing to Gaza would go through a thicket of off shore oil and gas rigs and wells. The wells are sucking an estimated minimum of US$6 Billion Dollars of Palestinian off shore Natural Gas through rigs set up for slant drilling.

From Peter Eyre The Palestine Telegraph Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:29 EDT

The drilling consultant on the hidden project is the former Noble Drilling Company of Ardmore, Oklahoma, USA, experts in “oil field management.” They are also allegedly experts in illegal slant drilling techniques Noble pioneered in the early Oklahoma oil fields back in the day.

Slant drilling is the best way to steal your neighbors’ oil and gas.

So much so that the formerly oil and gas poor Israel of Prime Minister Golda Meir is now floating the idea of Natural Gas exports to the European Union (EU) of presumably Palestinian Natural Gas.

Future Freedom Flotillas are said to specifically have escorts from the Turkish Navy. The Turkish Air Force version of the American F-16 Fighting Falcons were not mentioned. The Turkish Navy protection is symbolic and problematic without the Turkish F-16s. Will the Turkish government commit their 200 plus F-16s?

Small world, eh? Greed and force of arms count. Always have. Always will.

[End]

Notes:

Google “Gaza Marine 1” and “Gaza Marine 2” for well specific information of the coast of Gaza.

Passengers grabbed Israeli weapons to stop the killing

NEW YORK TIMES STORY ABOUT WHETHER ISRAEL SOLD NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO PRO APARTHEID RACIST SOUTH AFRICA IN 1975

May 24, 2010

Israel Denies It Offered South Africa Warheads

By ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — The office of Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, strongly denied Monday that Mr. Peres, as Israel’s defense minister, offered to sell nuclear warheads to South Africa in 1975, as reported by The Guardian.

Dan Meridor, Israel’s deputy prime minister and minister of intelligence and atomic energy, told reporters on Monday that he had no particular knowledge of what went on in the 1970s, as he was “not in business” then, but that he believed Mr. Peres.

Yossi Beilin, a former leftist minister, also dismissed the newspaper article and the book on which it was based, “The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa,” by Sasha Polakow-Suransky.

“The article does not concretely say that Israel wanted to sell nuclear warheads. It is a conclusion,” Mr. Beilin told Israel Radio. “The book itself does not say this explicitly, and I think that the president’s denial puts an end to the subject.”

Israel has a longstanding policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying that it has nuclear weapons, though it is widely believed to have developed a large arsenal.

The president’s denial was unequivocal, stating that “there exists no basis in reality for the claims” that “Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons.” The Guardian article, the president’s office added, was “based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts.”

The Guardian said its reporting was based on the “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975. The documents, it said, were uncovered by Mr. Polakow-Suransky in research for the book, and showed that South Africa’s defense minister, P. W. Botha, had asked for nuclear-capable Jericho missiles with the “correct payload,” Mr. Polakow-Suransky said in an interview with Al Jazeera, and that Mr. Peres had responded by offering them “in three sizes.”

The “three sizes,” The Guardian stated, “are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.” That, however, was not detailed in any of the documents shown, though Mr. Polakow-Suransky said the documents made clear that the South Africans had interest in Jericho missiles, “only if they carried a nuclear warhead.”

“Sure, there was some kind of cooperation, and there was talk about weapons,” said Ephraim Asculai, who worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission for over 40 years, and who retired in 2001. But to conclude that the “three sizes” necessarily referred to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads, was a long stretch, he said.

In an interview with the South African Press Association, Pik Botha, who served as South Africa’s foreign minister in the waning years of apartheid, also questioned the article’s claims. “I doubt it very much,” said Mr. Botha, who is not related to P. W. Botha. “I doubt whether such an offer was ever made. I think I would have known about it.”

Mr. Peres, an elder statesman, was responsible for establishing Israel’s nuclear program with help from France in the 1950s.

Israelis acknowledge that there was cooperation with South Africa — what Mr. Beilin, the former minister, called “an unholy alliance that Israel, in its isolation, forged with the apartheid regime.”

Shlomo Brom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, said it was well known that there had been cooperation between Israel and South Africa on ballistic missiles. “They paid, we developed them, then they bought,” said Mr. Brom, who served as defense attaché at Israel’s embassy in South Africa from 1988 to 1990. Mr. Brom said that Israel had also “probably” received uranium from South Africa.

But he said he had a hard time believing that Mr. Peres was trying to sell nuclear warheads to the South Africans in 1975.

Celia W. Dugger contributed reporting from Johannesburg.

'We are not satisfied'

February 27, 2010 - 1:16PM

Australia is not satisfied with Israeli explanations about the fraudulent use of Australian passports in the assassination of a Hamas operator, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.

Mr Rudd said on Saturday the federal government had to "proceed very carefully" in the controversy because of its complex security nature.

Israeli's ambassador to Australia was summoned on Thursday for an urgent meeting with Foreign Minister Stephen Smith.

"When it comes to Australian passport fraud or the use and abuse of Australian passports, this government has an absolutely hard line on defending the integrity of our passport system because millions of the travelling public depend on that each year," Mr Rudd told reporters in Adelaide on Saturday.

"That is why the foreign minister has called in the Israeli ambassador and asked for an explanation.

"Thus far we are not satisfied with that explanation."

Assassins with suspected links to the Israeli spy agency Mossad are believed to have stolen the identities of three Victorians.

The suspects were then involved in the murder of senior Hamas operator Mahmud al-Mabhuh in a Dubai luxury hotel on January 20.

Mr Rudd sidestepped criticism from one of the three Australians involved that they had not been contacted by Australian officials.

Nicole McCabe, 27, said she had no idea how her identity was stolen, as she still had her Australian passport in her Tel Aviv apartment, where she lives with husband.

Mr Rudd said: "My advice is that Australian officials have been in contact with a range of those associated with the most recent matters.

"Because these involve very complex and security intelligence matters, we have to proceed very carefully.

"I am just weighing my words very carefully.

"I wish to tread very carefully with the security and intelligence matters which arise in relation to each of the individuals and families concerned with this matter.

"Therefore I'm choosing my words very carefully so as not to compromise any person or so as not to compromise any continuing investigation."

AAP

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/we-are-not-satisfied-20100227-p9tm.html

No one contacted me on passport: Aussie

AAP February 27, 2010, 8:54 am

AAP ©

A terrified Australian woman whose identity was used in the assassination of a top Hamas official says the federal government has not yet offered her any help.

Pregnant Nicole McCabe, 27, said she had no idea how her identity was stolen, as she still had her Australian passport in her Tel Aviv apartment, where she lives with husband Tsahi Look.

Australian authorities have not yet contacted Ms McCabe over the revelations she is among three Australians whose stolen identities were used in the killing of senior Hamas operative Mahmud al-Mabhuh in a Dubai hotel room last month.

"I don't understand why nobody has called me to offer help from the government," Ms McCabe told News Limited.

"Nobody. Not one phone call.

"I'm surprised the embassy has not contacted me. I'm going to call them tomorrow to ask for help.

"I'm terrified. I haven't slept and I'm shaky.

"I'm worried for my health and I'm worried for my baby's health.

"I have no idea how they got hold of my passport, Obviously it's not my photo.

Ms McCabe, who is six months pregnant, has lived in Israel for two-and-a-half years and last left six months ago when she visited Australia and Thailand.

Joshua Bruce and Adam Korman also had their identities stolen and used in fake passports held by the alleged assassins.

Mossad, Israel's secret service, is believed to be behind the organised hit.

Earlier on Saturday, a former Australian ambassador to Israel revealed that he had warned the Israeli government not to fake Australian passports for intelligence operations.

Ian Wilcock, who was Australia's ambassador in Israel from 1997 to 1999, has told The Weekend Australian that he met Israeli Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem twice during his posting to convey to them strong concerns about the potential abuse of Australian passports by Israeli intelligence.

"The abuse of such a fundamental Australian document is completely unacceptable," Mr Wilcock said yesterday.

"We had concerns at the time about the abuse of the passports of a third country, so I met senior officials in the foreign ministry in Jerusalem and we put our concerns very strongly about the potential for this being done to Australian passports."

Mr Wilcock's comments support assertions made this week by former foreign minister Alexander Downer, who said the Howard government had raised the issue with the Israeli government.

The Rudd government has demanded answers from Israel about its suspected role in backing the theft of three Australian citizens' identities by its spy agency, Mossad, to carry out a political assassination.

Britain, France, Ireland and Germany have also called on Israel to explain why the identities of their citizens were stolen as part of the 26-person hit-squad that suffocated Hamas official Mahmud al-Mabhuh in his Dubai hotel room.

Mossad 'factory' churned out fake Australian passports

By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker

Forged: The Australian passport in the name of Adam Korman allegedly used in the Dubai hit (AFP)

A former Mossad officer has alleged the Israeli spy agency has its own "passport factory" to create or doctor passports for use in intelligence operations.

Relations between Australia and Israel are under strain after three Australian passports were apparently used by suspects in the killing of top Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in Dubai last month.

Dubai police say they are 99 per cent sure Mossad was behind the operation to smother Mabhouh with a pillow in his hotel room.

Victor Ostrovsky, a case officer at Mossad for several years in the 1980s, says he has no doubt Australian passports have been forged or fraudulently used for similar operations in the past.

"They need passports because you can't go around with an Israeli passport, not even a forged one, and get away or get involved with people from the Arab world," he said.

"They'll shy away right away. So most of these [Mossad] operations are carried out on what's called false flag, which means you pretend to be of another country which is less belligerent to those countries that you're trying to recruit from.

"If they can obtain blank passports, which they have in the past from Canada, from England, they do. If not, they just manufacture them."

He says a company within Mossad headquarters is dedicated to forging passports.

"They create various types of papers, every kind of ink. It's a very, very expensive research department," he said.

He says the manufactured passports are almost identical to the originals.

"If they create a passport at a top level for use of that nature ... I don't think anybody will be able to find the difference," he said.

Mr Ostrovsky says fraudulent Australian passports have been used regularly.

"Consider the fact that Australians speak English and it's an easy cover to take, very few people know very much about Australia," he said.

"You can tell whatever stories you want. It doesn't take much of an accent to be an Australian or New Zealander, or an Englishman for that matter. And I know people had been under Australian cover not once [but] quite a few times. So why not use it?"

He says Mossad chooses which passports to forge based on the cover agents need and the operation they are involved in.

"At the time there were people that were asked ... 'If when you're here in Israel we may need for security purposes to use your passport, would you allow us to do that?'" he said.

"And people would say 'yes'. There were shelves upon shelves of real passports just waiting to be used."

Mr Ostrovsky says there is no chance any of the 26 suspects could really be Mossad agents.

"No, absolutely not," he said.

"Except for James Bond, who actually pronounces or announces his arrival at the scene by saying, 'I'm Bond, James Bond'.

"Most people who work in the intelligence field don't present themselves by their real name."

Israel has long rejected Mr Ostrovsky's claims and tried to stop his book from being published.

This morning Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmour told ABC NewsRadio there was no proof of any link between Israel and Mabhouh's death.

"No evidence was presented by the Dubai police that links Israel to the incident in Dubai," he said.

"Since there is no evidence of that nature and since the Dubai police have so far not presented any ultimate evidence, we don't think that we should respond to anything."

guardian.co.uk home
The Observer home
Location

Israel shaken by troops' tales of brutality against Palestinians

A psychologist blames assaults on civilians in the 1990s on soldiers' bad training, boredom and poor supervision

A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer.

The report, although dealing with the experience of soldiers in the 1990s, has triggered an impassioned debate in Israel, where it was published in an abbreviated form in the newspaper Haaretz last month. According to Yishai Karin: 'At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.'

In the words of one soldier: 'The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That's when I enjoy it. It's like a drug. If I don't go into Rafah, and if there isn't some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.'

Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'

The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. 'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,' he said.

The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. 'With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can't have children. Next time she won't throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn't have what to spit with any more.'

Yishai-Karin found that the soldiers were exposed to violence against Palestinians from as early as their first weeks of basic training. On one occasion, the soldiers were escorting some arrested Palestinians. The arrested men were made to sit on the floor of the bus. They had been taken from their beds and were barely clothed, even though the temperature was below zero. The new recruits trampled on the Palestinians and then proceeded to beat them for the whole of the journey. They opened the bus windows and poured water on the arrested men.

The disclosure of the report in the Israeli media has occasioned a remarkable response. In letters responding to the recollections, writers have focused on both the present and past experience of Israeli soldiers to ask troubling questions that have probed the legitimacy of the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.

The study and the reactions to it have marked a sharp change in the way Israelis regard their period of military service - particularly in the occupied territories - which has been reflected in the increasing levels of conscientious objection and draft-dodging.

The debate has contrasted sharply with an Israeli army where new recruits are taught that they are joining 'the most ethical army in the world' - a refrain that is echoed throughout Israeli society. In its doctrine, published on its website, the Israeli army emphasises human dignity. 'The Israeli army and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.'

However, the Israeli army, like other armies, has found it difficult to maintain these values beyond the classroom. The first intifada, which began in 1987, before the wave of suicide bombings, was markedly different to the violence of the second intifada, and its main events were popular demonstrations with stone-throwing.

Yishai-Karin, in an interview with Haaretz, described how her research came out of her own experience as a soldier at an army base in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. She interviewed 18 ordinary soldiers and three officers whom she had served with in Gaza. The soldiers described how the violence was encouraged by some commanders. One soldier recalled: 'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...

'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."

Yishai-Karin concluded that the main reason for the soldiers' violence was a lack of training. She found that the soldiers did not know what was expected of them and therefore were free to develop their own way of behaviour. The longer a unit was left in the field, the more violent it became. The Israeli soldiers, she concluded, had a level of violence which is universal across all nations and cultures. If they are allowed to operate in difficult circumstances, such as in Gaza and the West Bank, without training and proper supervision, the violence is bound to come out.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said that, if a soldier deviates from the army's norms, they could be investigated by the military police or face criminal investigation.

She said: 'It should be noted that since the events described in Nufar Yishai-Karin's research the number of ethical violations by IDF soldiers involving the Palestinian population has consistently dropped. This trend has continued in the last few years.'

U.S. SPEEDING UP MISSILE DEFENCES IN PERSIAN GULF

January 31, 2010
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.

The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.

Mr. Obama spoke of the shift in his State of the Union address, warning of “consequences” if Iran continued to defy United Nations demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.

The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East, to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if new sanctions are imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup, the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.

Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.

General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf region are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.

The general spoke about the deployments at a conference at the Institute for the Study of War here on Jan. 22, saying that “Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front.”

General Petraeus said that the acceleration of defensive systems — which began when President George W. Bush was in office — included “eight Patriot missile batteries, two in each of four countries.” Patriot missiles are capable of shooting down short-range offensive missiles.

He also described a first line of defense: He said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles. Those systems would not be useful against Iran’s long-range missile, the Shahab 3, but intelligence agencies believe that it will be years before Iran can solve the problems of placing a nuclear warhead atop that missile.

Iran contends that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that its program is for energy production. The White House declined to comment on the deployments.

But administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the moves have several aims. “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”

As Iran’s nuclear program proceeds — more slowly, American intelligence officials say, than the United States had once thought — Israel has hinted at various times that it might take military action against the country’s military facilities unless it is convinced that Mr. Obama and Western allies are succeeding in stopping the program.

Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, took an unannounced trip to Israel this month, partly to take the temperature of the Israeli government and to review both economic and covert programs now under way against the Iranian program, according to officials familiar with the meeting.

American officials argue that the willingness of Arab states to take the American emplacements, which usually come with a small deployment of American soldiers to operate, maintain and protect the equipment, illustrates the region’s growing unease about Iran’s ambitions and abilities.

Gulf countries are also taking steps of their own to harden their defenses. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have bought more than $15 billion in American arms in the past two years, including missile defense systems. The United States is helping support a plan by Saudi Arabia to triple the size, to 30,000 people, of a Saudi force that protects the kingdom’s ports, oil facilities and water-desalinization plants, a senior military officer said. The Washington Post reported both steps on its Web site on Saturday.

One senior military officer said that General Petraeus had started talking openly about the Patriot deployments about a month ago, when it became increasingly clear that international efforts toward imposing sanctions against Iran faced hurdles, and the administration’s efforts to engage Iran were being rebuffed by the Tehran government. In October, the two countries reached an agreement in principle to move a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country, but Iran backed away from the deal.

In discussing the Patriots and missile-shooting ships, General Petraeus’s main message has been to reassure allies in the gulf that the United States is committed to helping defend the region, said the military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the topic. But the general’s remarks were also a pointed reminder to the Iranians of American resolve, the officer said.

Israel 'electrocuted' Hamas leader

Middle East Correspondent Anne Barker, ABC January 30, 2010, 8:52 am

The militant Palestinian group Hamas has accused Israel of assassinating one of its most senior members.

Mahmoud al Mabhouh, 50, was apparently electrocuted on a visit to Dubai.

His family and Hamas officials believe his death bears all the signs of an attack by Mossad - Israel's intelligence agency - although neither Mossad nor Israel ever comments on such operations.

Authorities in Dubai say they have identified several European passport holders as suspects and they say he was targeted by a professional criminal gang.

Al Mabhouh was in Dubai apparently on a Hamas mission.

His brother claims his attackers held an electrical device to his head and killed him with an electric shock.

His family say he recently survived another attempt to kill him with poison.

Al Mabhouh was a key member of Hamas's military wing and was responsible for several attacks on Israel, including the kidnap and murder of two Israeli soldiers 20 years ago.

Hamas has vowed to exact its revenge for his death.

Israel has made no comment on whether it was behind the assassination.

Thousands of people attended the funeral of Al Mabhouh at al-Yarmouk camp near Damascus in Syria.

ISRAELIS REJECT US LOAN 'THREAT'

Israelis reject US loan 'threat'

Israeli officials have shrugged off a suggestion that the US could withhold loan guarantees to pressure Israel over the Middle East peace process.

The finance minister said Israel did not need the guarantees, while the prime minister accused the Palestinians of holding up peace negotiations.

US envoy George Mitchell said this week the US could withhold loan guarantees to extract concessions from Israel.

The guarantees allow Israel to raise money cheaply overseas.

'Doing fine'

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz reacted by saying the Israeli economy was doing well.

“ Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel ”
George Mitchell US Middle East envoy

"We don't need to use these guarantees," he was quoted by Israeli media as saying.

"We are doing just fine. But several months ago we agreed with the American treasury on guarantees for 2010 and 2011, and there were no conditions."

In response to Mr Mitchell's comments, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said: "Everyone knows that the Palestinian Authority is refusing to renew the peace talks, while Israel has taken important and significant steps to kickstart the process."

Palestinian officials say Israel must completely halt settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it occupied during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, before negotiations can resume.

Since he came to office in 2009, President Barack Obama has focused closely on trying to get Israeli-Palestinian peace talks moving, but with little success.

Mr Mitchell, who is due to return to the Middle East this month in his latest attempt to restart negotiations, was asked on Wednesday in an interview with America's PBS how the US could bring pressure to bear on Israel.

"Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel," he said.

Precedents

He noted that support for the guarantees had been reduced in 2003, but added that no sanctions were being considered and that he preferred persuasion.

Former US President George W Bush's administration whittled down backing for the guarantees after Israel built part of its West Bank barrier.

In 1991, $10bn of loan guarantees were withheld under former President George H W Bush to pressure Israel over the peace process.

The Israeli comments on the loan guarantees came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signalled a shift in the US approach by saying that agreeing the borders of a future Palestinian state would deal with Palestinian concerns about settlement building.

Both sides should resume peace talks as soon as possible and without preconditions, she said.

But chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat played down the chances of peace talks, citing settlements.

The Israeli government has refused Palestinian demands for a complete halt to settlement building.

It has limited building work for 10 months in the West Bank, but not in East Jerusalem.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8450715.stm

Published: 2010/01/10 15:47:04 GMT

© BBC MMX

THOUGHTS ON LAWYER BEHIND MUCH LAWFARE AGAINST ISRAEL

Thoughts on Lawyer Behind Much Lawfare Against Israel

Daniel Machover, a lawyer from London and founder of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, has published a salvo against "die-hard supporters of Israeli policies" who he argues have co-opted the term "lawfare" on the Huffington Post blog. His comments have prompted some thoughts.

Mr. Machover begins by suggesting that applying the term lawfare is meant to discredit non-violent resistance as politically motivated efforts with no legal merit. What Mr. Machover ignores is that these claims, while indeed non-violent, are politically motivated on their face and they often have no legal merit, as evidenced by them being thrown out of court by judges in reputable, western jurisdictions. Consider, further to this argument, that Palestinian Lawyers for Human Rights has as it's goal the furthering of a political aim, that being achieving Palestinian self determination. Mr. Machover as well has represented the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights who have launched an extensive legal fishing expedition in the hopes of finding just a single case with which they can point to a legal decision branding an Israeli as a war criminal.

More compelling, however, is the fact that courts in the west have been considering and throwing out these lawfare style cases that Mr. Machover suggests are legitimate. Cases in Canada, the Netherlands and Spain, have all been thrown out because the courts determined that there were no legal grounds to pursue them. Mr. Machover, as a person who seems to speak with true conviction, and as a lawyer being paid by a client, naturally disagrees with these courts and may think that the law should be otherwise, but the courts of liberal democracies disagree with him. His response to these legal victories is to suggest that these cases were decided the way they were because "It is arguable that Israeli legal successes abroad have had nothing to do with the core merits of the cases concerned." Mr. Machover, however, does not make this argument.

Machover also suggests that Israeli courts are designed to provide immunity to those who would be prosecuted by the so-called "lawfare" cases in other jurisdictions. He points to situations where he believes that the Israeli courts have not done their job, but ignores he litany of cases where Israeli courts have made decisions that are anything but "subservient to the grinding machine of occupation and repression." Take for example the most recent decision allowing Palestinians access to a highway from which they had been barred for security reasons, decisions against soldiers for abuse of Palestinians, for land rights violations (see video), or for a list of other abuses where Israelis were found to have committed crimes.



Machover then points to this troubling incident, of Jewish groups in the United States supporting the dismissal of charges against a foreigner accused of human rights violations on the grounds that if the complaint is allowed, a flood of such cases may be brought against Israel in the US. Machover's point is that supporters of Israel must ally themselves with the worst violators of rights in the world to advance their positions because Israel's position is just as bad. He proposes that the world's worst most repressive countries would support an Israeli push to have universal jurisdiction laws reformed. What he does not consider, however, is that unlike these most repressive regimes, Israel is the country against which suits are regularly filed. Mr. Machover seems to be defeating his own argument that these cases against Israel are not politically motivated when he highlights how Israel seems to be lobbying to change universal jurisdiction laws because of the concerns it has, but other states do not.

What Mr. Machover ignores and fails to distinguish is that in the example he points to, the victims were punished merely for opposing the government, whereas in the Israeli context, cases are brought for injuries incurred in a war. Indeed, context is lacking from all of Mr. Machover's post. He suggests that terming cases against Israel as lawfare serves those who "want it to become lawful to use disproportionate force against civilians where they are proximate to what state actors identify as legitimate military and quasi-military targets." This is clearly not the case. There is no widely accepted suggestion that civilians should be faced with disproportionate force. Indeed, international law provides that civilian casualties should be minimized, but the law recognizes that mistakes occur in the fog of war and that "collateral damage" occurs and is not a violation of the laws of war.

Mr. Machover wants what everyone wants, a world without wars, or at the very least, a world where in wars, only combatants are hurt. The fact is, that this does not happen. If there were prosecutions in every case in which a civilian died in conflict, than the leaders of a great many countries would be standing in the docket: Canada, the US, UK, Israel, Russia, Georgia, basically every NATO country and many, many more. Mr. Machover seeks a utopia which does not exist in law or in reality and his goals of having the law act as a deterrent for violations should an Israeli be found guilty would not be realized with the pronouncement of a guilty verdict.

IDF LAWYERS TO CONSULT WITH ARMY DURING OPERATIONS

IDF Lawyers to Consult With Army During Operations

The IDF has now adopted the policy of having military lawyers consult with the army not only prior to military operations, but during them as well.

Frankly, I took it as a given that this is what had been happening all along and am surprised that it had not been. The implication of this order seems to be that prior to this latest decision, the emphasis of Israeli legal decision making was jus ad bellum, the legality of going to war, as opposed to jus in bellum, the law relating to the actual conduct of war. Certainly, Israeli military lawyers had examined questions of who or what can be targeted and under what circumstances, but it appears that when decisions were required in short time frames, there was no legal input. Contrast this with the Canadian experience where military lawyers are closely engaged at nearly all levels of the targeting process.

Also noteworthy from the Ha'Aretz article above is that Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs lawyers have advised against efforts to reopen the text of the Geneva Conventions so as to recognize the nature of the types of wars fought today, different from the ones fought when the conventions were drafted. Instead, Israeli lawyers are seeing understandings for a "dynamic" interpretation of the law with other western countries.

The reality of the situation this will likely lead to is one where all states that have come to an agreement for a "dynamic" interpretation will come to increasingly ignore traditional interpretations of the laws of war. It could, in effect, create a two tiered system where those that support a traditional interpretation will make one claim and Western states will argue in support of another. One would have to hope that this duality would not result in an undermining of the law all together and a situation where human rights are altogether ignored to make way for purely security concerns.

I think that if Western states truly believe that the Laws of War, as they now stand are insufficient to cope with the realities of modern counter-terrorism and asymmetrical warfare, then there is a legal and moral imperative to take the lead and make their case to the rest of the world.

UK ATTORNEY GENERAL VISITS JERUSALEM

UK Attorney General Visits Jerusalem

In Jerusalem on a quasi-official visit, the UK Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, has had meetings with Israeli officials relating to the recent attempts to arrest Livni in the UK, proposed changes to UK universal jurisdiction legislation and to give a lecture at Hebrew University entitled: "Lawfare – Time for Rules of Engagement?"

Though the Attorney General was short on specifics of what a new law would look like, there is the implication that the Attorney General them-self would be given a veto over any arrest warrants under universal jurisdiction laws. Reading British press, however, it sounds as though the law will be specifically written to say "Israelis shall be exempt." A circumstance which is highly unlikely.

If the AG is given veto over arrest warrants there are certainly grounds for concern as to the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the AG. The judiciary should be sealed off from influence by political considerations, but in this case, it is easy to imagine how political and other non-legal considerations would seep into the AG's decision making. As argued previously, however, cases of universal jurisdiction are almost by definition political cases and decisions may come down to something as simple as a consideration of which country will be too expensive to pursue. For example, the political pressure against arresting a Chinese official may make such an action too costly, but a country like Israel, may be less 'expensive' to take to court. This is a fine line the UK may be walking between injecting legislative, executive and other powers into the judiciary, and separating the three.

Israel shrugs off fury over settlement drive

Jason Koutsoukis, Jerusalem and Anne Davies, Washington
November 19, 2009 - 12:00AM

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has brushed aside international anger about the expansion of Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem by defining the new plans as ''standard procedure''.

On Tuesday the Jerusalem municipality approved the construction of another 900 housing units in Gilo, which is built on land annexed by Israel after the 1967 Six Day War and is regarded as an illegal settlement by the United Nations.

''The construction in Gilo has been going on for decades, and there is nothing new in the planning procedures,'' said a spokesman for Mr Netanyahu.

Gilo, south of the Jerusalem centre, has 40,000 Jewish residents and completes a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods through East Jerusalem that Palestinians argue prevents the eastern side of the city from becoming a future capital of a Palestinian state.

The new construction plans raised the ire of the US, Britain and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said: ''We find the Jerusalem planning committee decision to move forward the approval process for the expansion of Gilo, in Jerusalem, as dismaying.''

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement: ''At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.''

The White House went further and reprimanded Israel about other activities related to housing.

''The US also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes,'' Mr Gibbs said.

''Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.''

Diplomatic sources said that Israeli officials ignored a request on Monday by US President Barack Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell to halt the Gilo decision.

Mr Ban also issued a tersely worded statement deploring the Israeli Government's decision on the Gilo settlement, stressing that it was built on Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.

''The Secretary-General reiterates his position that settlements are illegal, and calls on Israel to respect its commitments under the road map to cease all settlement activity, including natural growth,'' a statement issued by his office said, referring to the peace plan that foresees two states - Israel and Palestine - living side by side in peace and security.

Since Mr Obama was sworn into office in January, a key plank of his strategy to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians has been to demand that Israel cease all settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel has repeatedly refused to consider a construction freeze of any kind in East Jerusalem, offering instead to impose a temporary construction freeze in the West Bank during the resumption of future negotiations with the Palestinians.

Despite its ostensibly tough stance, the Obama Administration has sent mixed signals.

Last month US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Mr Netanyahu's offer as ''unprecedented''.

But in the face of a furious response from the Arab world, and the announcement by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that he would quit politics, Mr Obama has renewed his insistence that Israel halt all settlement construction.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/israel-shrugs-off-fury-over-settlement-drive-20091118-imhm.html

Israeli angst over PM's last-minute date with Obama

Jason Koutsoukis, Jerusalem
November 10, 2009 - 12:00AM

ISRAELI Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was under attack last night over his handling of Israel's relationship with its most important ally, the United States.

In Washington to address the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, Mr Netanyahu was left looking embarrassed as he struggled to secure a meeting with US President Barack Obama.

When Mr Obama finally consented to meet Mr Netanyahu this morning [Melbourne time], White House aides let it be known that the US President felt the meeting was being imposed on him.

Mr Obama met Mr Netanyahu in September, when he hosted a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and reportedly believes there is no need to meet the Israeli leader again.

''This is not how the White House works,'' an Administration official was quoted as telling Israeli diplomats. ''We don't have to stand at attention when Netanyahu wants a meeting. There's no substantive reason to hold a meeting, particularly in light of the current political stalemate.''

Mr Obama has been frustrated since taking office at Israel's refusal to agree to freeze Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Instead, Mr Netanyahu has offered to restrain settlement construction in the West Bank during the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.

Morning newspapers in Israel carried headlines declaring that Israel's relationship with the US was in crisis.

''This is the conclusion that stems from the difficulty in arranging a meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama,'' wrote Haaretz columnist Aluf Benn.

''The delays in finding a time to meet, and pushing it to a late hour … make Netanyahu look as if Obama threw him a bone. In such circumstances, it is no longer important what will be said at the meeting.''

Writing in Maariv, columnist Ben Caspit wrote that the meeting was ''purely for protocol, barely a photo-op, so that it will not be said that Bibi was in the US and didn't see Obama. That is why the fiasco is so great. A chronicle of a disgrace foretold.''

Meanwhile Mr Abbas, who announced last week that he would not be standing for another term as head of the Palestinian Authority in elections scheduled for January 24, told supporters in the West Bank town of Hebron that Israel did not want peace.

''I don't know what the Israelis want,'' Mr Abbas said. ''They must start thinking about what needs to be done if they really want peace.''

He rejected claims that his call for a settlement freeze was a new precondition for joining talks with Israelis, insisting that he was simply calling for Israel to abide by its commitments.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/israeli-angst-over-pms-lastminute-date-with-obama-20091109-i5c7.html

Scientist caught in spy sting

Washington
October 21, 2009 - 12:00AM

US AUTHORITIES have arrested a leading American scientist who had worked for the White House and NASA and charged him with attempting to sell top-secret information to Israel for $US11,000 ($A11,950).

Stewart Nozette, 52, was apprehended after a sting operation involving an undercover FBI agent, the Department of Justice said, adding that there was no wrongdoing by Israel.

Nozette, who was arrested in a Washington suburb and taken into custody, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

He developed an experiment that fuelled the discovery of water on the south pole of the moon, and previously held special security clearance at the Department of Energy on atomic materials.

In addition to stints at the US space agency NASA and the Department of Energy, Nozette worked at the White House on the National Space Council under then-president George Bush snr in 1989 and 1990.

In early September, Nozette received a phone call from a person ''purporting to be an Israeli intelligence officer, but who was in fact an undercover employee of the FBI'', the Justice Department said.

''Nozette met with the UCE [undercover employee] that day and discussed his willingness to work for Israeli intelligence,'' informing the agent that ''he had, in the past, held top security clearances and had access to US satellite information''.

First, Nozette answered questions for a $US2000 cash payment, including one answer that ''contained information classified as secret'', the Justice Department said.

Later in September, the suspect picked up a payment of $US9000 in cash and more questions, answers to which he returned to a drop-spot in a manila envelope this month.

AFP

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/world/scientist-caught-in-spy-sting-20091020-h6wg.html

Israel wants law of war changed

Ron Bousso
October 21, 2009 - 6:29AM

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has instructed his government to draw up proposals to amend the international laws of war after a damning UN report on its war in Gaza.

The security cabinet did not, however, on Tuesday discuss calls made by ministers for an internal investigation into the 22-day offensive at the turn of the year that killed some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis, an official told AFP.

"The prime minister instructed the relevant government bodies to examine a worldwide campaign to amend the international laws of war to adapt them to the spread of global terrorism," his office said in a statement.

Israel was dealt a heavy diplomatic blow with the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of the report that accused both Israel and the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip of war crimes.

Israel's closest allies, the United States, Britain and France urged it to investigate war crime allegations raised by the fact-finding missions headed by Richard Goldstone, a former international war crimes prosecutor.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak backed Netanyahu's call for a diplomatic campaign, saying that Israel should propose changes in the international laws of war "in order to facilitate the war on terrorism," an official quoted him as saying.

"It is in the interest of anyone fighting terrorism. We must give the IDF (Israeli army) the full backing to have the freedom of action," Barak said.

Netanyahu dismissed the Goldstone report on the Gaza war and vowed that Israel would not give up its right of self-defence.

"We are struggling to delegitimise the ongoing attempts to delegitimise Israel... We must persistently fight this lie, which is being spread by the Goldstone report," Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

"I want to make it clear: no one will weaken our ability and right to defend our children, citizens and communities."

Goldstone, the respected South African jurist who led the UN fact-finding team, recommended that the conclusions of the report be forwarded to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court at The Hague if the two sides fail to conduct credible investigations into the conflict within six months.

Israel has slammed it as a "diplomatic farce" and warned that it risked sinking the stalled Middle East peace process.

Goldstone, who has faced a storm of personal attacks inside Israel since the report's publication, dismissed the argument and urged the Jewish state to comply with the recommendation to investigate the war.

"It's a shallow, utterly false allegation," Goldstone said during a meeting with a group of rabbis in the United States, remarks aired on Monday by Israeli public radio.

"What peace process are they talking about? There isn't one. The Israeli foreign minister doesn't want one," Goldstone said, referring to ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

This story was found at: http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/israel-wants-law-of-war-changed-20091021-h767.html