Saturday, October 02, 2010

Politics – August-September 2010

Many Israelis believe that vis á vis the Palestinians what does not work with force will work with more force. Many Palestinians believe that vis á vis the Israelis what does not work with force will work with more force. The bloody result is inescapable.


Gilad is still in captivity. Veshavu banim legvulam.

    ~Raphael Cohen-Almagor


The last month has been dominated by a few notable events: First, the Turkel Committee designed to investigate the Gaza flotilla which ended with the killing of nine people on one of the Turkish ships. In the first week, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defence Minister Barak and Chief of Staff Ashkenazi gave their testimonies. The Committee, no doubt, will do serious work. Don't hold your breath, though.

Common sense does prevail and the government agreed to take part in the international investigative committee that was established to investigate the same flotilla incident.
Turkey, I assume, will also have to deduce some lessons.

Second, the Chief of Staff nomination process. Six months before Ashkenazi is scheduled to complete his term, Ehud Barak decided to start looking for a worthy successor. It was widely known who this successor will be, General Yoav Galant, but Barak played the game and interviewed five candidates. However, one of the candidates or someone who did not wish Galant in office interfered in the process. More details below.

Third, the government decided to take action against the guest workers who illegally remain in the country after their term ends. 400 children of guest workers are destined for deportation. They constitute a grave demographic threat to the Jewish character of the State.

Reflections on July Newsletter
General Yoav Galant
The Washington Peace Summit
Egypt
Tony Blair
Iraq
Iran
Report on the Gaza Flotilla
Fidel Castro on Anti-Semitism
Honour Killing
Child Abuse and the Catholic Church
USA School Education 2010
George Soros’ Donation to Human Rights Watch
New Books
New Article
Israeli Summer
LIFE in Israel in 1948
Gem of the Month – The Moody Blues
Movie
Monthly Poem
Light Side


Free Gilad Shalit. The government should invest in his release. It should be one of its top priorities. Veshavu banim legvulam.



Reflections on July Newsletter

From Art Hobson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, U Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
USA

Hi Rafi –
I agree that "If Israel goes down, we all go down." I also agree with Mr. Aznar that the threat to the world from Islamic fundamentalism is enormous. But beyond these important points of agreement, I disagree with much of Aznar's essay. I especially disagree with his notion that we must defend Israel because Israel is a "fundamental part of the West", and that "The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots."
Indeed, it is not simply Islam but all of western religion, including our own "Judeo-Christian roots," that forms much of the problem in the Mideast and elsewhere.
Irrational fundamentalism--including Christian, Jewish, and Islamic fundamentalists--is the real problem. By "fundamentalists" I mean those who accept their holy books as literal (rather than metaphorical) truth. These people are the real enemy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's hard-line policies are not in Israel's interests, nor are they in the U.S.'s or the world's interests. It is precisely because "If Israel goes down, we all go down" that President Obama should speak forcefully to Netanyahu, telling him that U.S. aid to Israel will be gradually withdrawn unless Israel establishes a full freeze on new settlements in all Israeli-occupied territories. It is precisely because "If Israel goes down, we all go down" that Israel must proceed as rapidly as possible to a real settlement with the Palestinians. The outlines of a peace settlement have been  clear for years: Israel must give up its settlements, including East Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must give up the right of return to their pre-1947 lands in present-day Israel.
Jerusalem must be shared, probably under international protection. Some Israeli settlements could be retained by swapping them for Israeli land or allowances for some Palestinians to return to their pre-1947 homes. Both sides have hinted that a deal along these lines is possible. Anything less than this cannot work. Without such a real and workable peace, I fear that indeed Israel and the rest of us will go down.

Take care, my friend. – Art

General Yoav Galant

The nomination process of a new Chief of Staff tends to be complicated and difficult.
This is due to the zeal of the nominees, and the relationships between each of them and the Minister of Defence who nominates them, and the latter’s relationship with the Prime Minister who sometimes has his/her own agenda and interests that do not
necessarily coincide with those of the Defence Minister. Ehud Barak has a difficult
relationship with the present Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi is scheduled to complete his four-year term in six months time. The nomination process should not be too long. There are five candidates. Barak needs to interview them, decide, speak with the Prime Minister, approve the nominee in government and Israel has a new Chief of Staff. How long does this process take? Well, it depends. If you wish it to be quick, a week. If you wish to prolong it, a long time.

Barak did not wish to prolong the process. He did wish to cripple Ashkenazi. Thus, he started the process six months ahead of time. Once the identity of the new Chief of Staff is revealed, Ashkenazi becomes a lame duck. All eyes are set on the new man, and no substantive decisions can be made by the old guy. As said, there were five candidates but all who know something about Israeli politics knew that essentially there was only one candidate: Yoav Galant.

Barak interviewed two of the candidates and then, on August 6, a document was leaked to the media carrying the signature of Galant. In this document, Galant maps a plan how to improve his chances, “complimenting” his rivals and Chief of Staff Ashkenazi. Why should a leading candidate smear his opponents and Ashkenazi, and leak the document to the media? It did not make any sense.

Galant denied any connection to the document, saying it was forged. The public relations company that was said to have prepared the strategy, whose logo appeared on the document, denied any connection. At this point, it became clear that someone
concocted the document to damage and undermine Galant. But Barak had to wait until
the police had completed its investigation. Finally the police concluded that “There is no basis to suspect Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi of being involved in drawing up the document,” adding that all of the major candidates for the position of chief of General Staff have also been cleared of involvement.

Immediately after the police finalized its investigation, Barak interviewed the three remaining candidates and the following day announced that Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant will be the next Chief of Staff. Maj.-Gen. Gadi Eizencot was offered to become his deputy.
Eizencot and Galant like one another as a cat likes a parrot. Eizencot gracefully declined and said he prefers to continue his role as commander of the north. The present Chief of Staff Deputy Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz may retire, while the future of Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi and the IDF attach? in Washington, Gadi Shamni, remains unclear. They are likely to remain in the army. They wanted to put their signatures ahead for the next round of nominations.



Galant, 51, will be the first chief of staff to come from the navy, which he joined in 1977. He started his army career with Shayetet 13, the navy's elite platoon. He showed his strategic thinking by later moving to the green land forces. He was appointed commander of the Jenin Brigade in 1993. Galant then returned to the navy to command the Shayetet, but after some time left the navy for good when he was appointed commander of the Gaza Division. In 2001, he was appointed deputy head of the Ground Forces Command; a year later he received the rank of major general and began working alongside then-prime minister Ariel Sharon as his military secretary. Again, a strategic move that paid him well. Galant was well liked and appreciated by PM Sharon, and entered the elite circle of Israeli politicians. In 2005, after the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Galant took over as head of the Southern Command. In 2008-9, he commanded Operation Cast Lead which he planned and directed. During these later years he became close to Defence Minister Barak, who grew to like and appreciate him.

So what do we know about the new chief of staff? I emphasized his strategic thinking.
He knows how to map and analyze opportunities on the personal and army levels. He
has analytic thinking. People who know him describe Galant as Melach Haaretz, literally meaning in Hebrew "salt of the earth", a genuine man who is fully committed to the idea of Zionist Israel and has dedicated his life to secure Israel and fortify its existence.
Galant has little life outside the army. He is a full-fledged army person.

Operation Cast Lead reveals Galant’s capabilities. If you recall my analysis of the
operation, I said that the operation was guided by the following principles: Minimize casualties on the Israeli side; avoid direct confrontations; by no means allow another Gilad Shalit – no Israeli soldier should fall in the hands of the enemy; destroy the enemy.

These same principles guide many army commanders across the globe in many military
operations – past, present and future. Galant is an army man. As said, he dedicates his life to the army and is very good in what he is doing. That also means very little compassion for the enemy. The result, as we all know, was about 1400 dead on the Palestinian side; 13 dead on the Israeli side.


The Washington Peace Summit

Many asked me what I think of the peace summit. Well, I am not too hopeful. I wish I prove to be grossly wrong, I wish reality will crash my pessimism. But I cannot see peace at this juncture.



Photo: http://www.france24.com/en/20100902-mubarak-urges-netanyahu-act-peacechance- 0


Peace is a very precious commodity. It demands many sacrifices on both sides. Such a momentous moment in history will happen in the culmination of ripe circumstances,
and strong-willed leaders who are fully committed to the idea of peace. At present, I do not think the circumstances are ripe, and I do not think that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas are fully committed to peace. Both of them lack the will and the capability to reach peace.

Again, I wish I am very wrong, but listening to the opening statements of both leaders reveal the wide gaps between the two. Netanyahu said that we withdrew from Lebanon, and what did we get in return? Terror sponsored by Iran. We withdrew from Gaza and what did we get? Iranian-sponsored terror. Israel must insist on preserving its security.
What does it mean? All the things that the Palestinian dread and wish to dismantle: the Fence; checkpoints; settlements; army presence.

Abbas spoke of borders, Jerusalem, water, the right of return, checkpoints, settlements, the well-known bones of contention. President Obama delineates a one-year process. I am afraid it will take more than a year.

See text http://sdjewishworld.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/comments-by-obamanetanyahu- mubarak-abdullah-and-abbas-at-start-of-peace-talks/

The moment Netanyahu will be true to peace, Lieberman will withdraw from the coalition. This might not be the end of the Netanyahu government as he can welcome
Kadima. I will be less pessimistic if this will happen. Labour will remain in coalition now that the peace boat has anchored.

So here is a sign for you: As long as Lieberman is part of the coalition, it is all about words, hyper words, pleasantries, void words. If Lieberman leaves the government, then Israel’s real test will begin as heavy sacrifices are demanded.

I watched President Obama closely: He looks tired. I think the job demands a great deal from him, probably more than he expected and wished for. Obama made many rocky mistakes that had their toll on him. His handling of the economy crisis is not satisfactory. He aroused too many opponents against him on the Capitol and other centers of powers. His Middle East policy is questionable. In some parts of the USA he is perceived as a liability for some Democrat candidates. Obama is fighting far too many fronts at the same time, and still does not fully understand how to conduct his affairs vis-a-vis the media. I repeat what I wrote in the past: Obama and his team should study closely how Prime Minister Sharon dealt with the media. By then, the experienced Sharon was no longer blinded by the media specter and knew how to mobilize them to serve his best interests. Obama understands slowly that extensive media exposure burns you, not flatters you. The President of the United States is not a media producer.
Instead, he is the most beautiful girl in town who should be courted after, keep her life private, and maintain her glamour like the mysterious Mona-Lisa smile.




The economy, Afghanistan, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and addressing ad hoc matters as they pop up, this should be Obama’s order of things.


Egypt

According to recent reports, Hosni Mubarak, the 82 year-old long serving president of Egypt is struggling with incurable cancer. I watched him in the Washington summit and Mubarak looked reasonably well. But he is no longer the strong man he was. Mubarak, who succeeded Anwar Sadat after the latter was assassinated in 1981, provided much needed stability for the newly built peace relationships between Israel and Egypt. For the past few years he has designated his son Gamal to be his successor.



Israel should prepare for the next era. As far as it is possible to judge, if Gamal will secure his father’s position the relationships between the two countries will be more of the same. Hosni took good care to see that Gamal understands his legacy and preserves it.


Tony Blair

The same evening of September 2, 2010, just prior to the opening of the peace summit in Washington DC I watched Tony Blair’s interview on the BBC, this on the occasion of the publication of his memoirs. You may not agree with all he says, but Blair always strikes me as a genuine and courageous leader, true to himself and to his conscience, with a strong sense of direction, belief in what he is doing, a man of ideas and ability to execute them, a doer. He gained my utmost appreciation during his terms in office and continues to have my appreciation in his various roles he assumed since then, mainly in his efforts to bring European ideas to the Middle East and some sanity to that part of the world that believes that the power of the sword is the answer to everything. This belief, I am sorry to say, is shared by both Palestinians and Israelis, with known, bloody results.




Blair believes he had taken the right decision to oust Saddam Hussein and to enter the Bush war coalition. He expresses sympathies and appreciation to the soldiers and their families who pay the highest possible price. He calls upon the world to take similar positions today regarding Iran, as he believes nuclear Iran constitutes a grave threat to the safety of the free world. The West cannot tolerate such a scenario and should resort to arms, if necessary, to prevent the Iranian bomb. I cannot agree more.


Iraq

Now that the coalition forces are leaving Iraq, guess who will come in.


Iran

Iran’s behaviour reminds me of Iraq’s under Saddam. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran has hindered its investigations by repeatedly objecting to the agency's choice of inspectors. The nuclear watchdog cannot confirm that Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful. Iran is continuing to produce low-enriched uranium, despite fresh UN Security Council sanctions. Those sanctions are insufficient to deter Iran or to convince its leaders to change their ways.


Bushehr Nuclear Power Station. Photo: BBC

Meanwhile, Tehran insists its nuclear programme is solely for energy production, and its Russian ally confirms this is the case. The free world has many reasons to suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The IAEA said Iran had produced around 2.8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium. This uranium may be used for peaceful purposes. It might be used for violent purposes.
Should the free world take its chances and allow Iran to reach the point of no return?
The IAEA's consistent reports are most troubling to all who care about nonproliferation and global security.

I presume Israel and the USA are discussing all these concerns at the moment. Some more time is available to press the Iranians. But if they remain adamant, Israel will attack. The cycle of violence will widen with grave consequences not only to the region but to the world at large.


Report on the Gaza Flotilla

As you know, my criticism of Cast Lead and of the Gaza blockade is not about the logic: Israel has every right to protect its citizens. No sovereign state should stand idly by while its enemies aim to destroy it. No state should allow rockets being fired into its territory.

The issue is not about the moral and legal right but about the means pursuing that end. It is about proportionality. It is about inflicting indiscriminate suffering and insensitivity. It is about preserving the basic human rights of your enemy.

Not all Gazans are terrorists. Not all Gazans should be subject to arbitrary and
indiscriminate fire and punishment. Israel, however, thinks that because Gazans elected Hamas, all deserve to be punished. There has been very little compassion in its actions.

Israel’s actions have been subjected to international scrutiny for good reasons.
And here comes another blow. Behaving like the neighbourhood bully does not pay dividends. It undermines Israel’s position in the community of nations and harms its relationships with friendly and not-so-friendly countries. Israel’s enemies rejoice and celebrate the mistakes Israel is making and wish its decision-makers many long years in power.

The report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of
international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance, was published on September 22, 2010. Here is its summary, reflections and major findings. I will be happy to email the full report to interested parties.

This report was prepared by the fact-finding mission established by the Human Rights Council in resolution A/HRC/RES/14/1 of 2 June 2010 to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law, resulting from the interception by Israeli forces of the humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza on 31 May 2010 during which nine people were killed and many others injured.

The report sets out background information relating to the interception of the flotilla as well as the applicable international law. The fact-finding mission conducted interviews with more than 100 witnesses in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman. On the basis of this testimony and other information received, the Mission was able to reconstruct a picture of the circumstances surrounding the interception on 31 May 2010 and its aftermath. The report presents a factual description of the events leading up to the interception, the interception of each of the six ships in the flotilla as well as a seventh ship subsequently intercepted on 6 June 2010, the deaths of nine passengers and wounding of many others and the detention of passengers in Israel and their deportation.

The report contains a legal analysis of facts as determined by the Mission with a view to determining whether violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, took place.

The fact-finding mission concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation.

Together with the Mission, I express my profound regret that the position of the Israeli government was one of non-recognition of and non-cooperation with the Mission. The Israeli government believes that non-cooperation better serves its interests. I beg to differ.

Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas. A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality. In particular a blockade is illegal if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage.

In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction, the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

Moreover, the Mission emphasises that according to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, collective punishment of civilians under occupation is prohibited.

Given the evidence at the Turkel Committee, it is clear that there was no reasonable suspicion that the Flotilla posed any military risk of itself. As a result, no case could be made to intercept the vessels in the exercise of belligerent rights or Article 51 selfdefence.
Thus, no case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission
therefore finds that the interception was illegal.

Events on board the M.V. Mavi Marmara
(i) Initial attempt to board the Mavi Marmara from the sea
112. Israeli zodiac boats made a first attempt to board the Mavi Marmara from the sea shortly before 0430 hours. Several zodiac boats approached the ship at the stern from both the port and starboard sides. The approach was accompanied by the firing of nonlethal weaponry onto the ship, including smoke and stun grenades, tear-gas and paintballs. Plastic bullets may also have been used at this stage: however, despite some claims that live ammunition was also fired from the zodiac boats, the Mission is not satisfied that this was the case. The smoke and tear gas were not effective due to the strong sea breeze and later due to the downdraft from helicopters.

113. The Israeli forces attempted to board the ship through attaching ladders to the hull. Passengers engaged in efforts to repel the attempted boarding using the ship’s water hoses and the throwing of various items at the boats including chairs, sticks, a box of plates and other objects that were readily at hand. This initial attempt to board the ship proved unsuccessful. It is the view of the Mission that the Israeli forces should have re-evaluated their plans when it became obvious that putting their soldiers on board the ship may lead to civilian casualties.

(ii) Landing of soldiers from helicopters onto the Mavi Marmara

114. Just minutes after soldiers from the zodiac boats had made initial unsuccessful attempts to board, the first helicopter approached the ship at approximately 0430 hours, hovering above the top deck. At this point between 10 and 20 passengers were located in the central area of the top deck, although this number increased as other passengers learned of events on the top deck. The Israeli forces used smoke and stun grenades in an attempt to clear an area for the landing of soldiers. The first rope that was let down from the helicopter was taken by passengers and tied it to a part of the top deck and thereby rendered ineffective for the purpose of soldiers’ descent. A second rope was then let down from the helicopter and the first group of soldiers descended.
The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

115. With the available evidence it is difficult to delineate the exact course of events on the top deck between the time of the first soldier descending and the Israeli forcessecuring control of the deck. A fight ensued between passengers and the first soldiers to descend onto the top deck that resulted in at least two soldiers being pushed down onto the bridge deck below, where they were involved in struggles with groups of passengers who attempted to take their weapons. The equipment jacket of at least one soldier was removed as he was pushed over the side of the deck. A number of weapons were taken from the soldiers by passengers and thrown into the sea: one weapon, a 9mm pistol was unloaded by a passenger, a former US Marine, in front of witnesses and then hidden in another part of the ship in an attempt to retain evidence.


Photo: IDF

116. A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives. At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object. Witnesses informed the Mission that their objective was to subdue and disarm the soldiers so that they could not harm anyone. The Mission is satisfied on the evidence that at least two passengers on the bridge deck also used handheld catapults to propel small projectiles at the helicopters. The Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds that the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it.

Deaths of nine passengers and wounding of at least 50 other passengers

117. During the operation to secure control of the top deck, the Israeli forces landed soldiers from three helicopters over a fifteen-minute period. The Israeli forces used paintballs, plastic bullets and live ammunition, fired by soldiers from the helicopter above and soldiers who had landed on the top deck. The use of live ammunition during this period resulted in fatal injuries to four passengers, and injuries to at least nineteen others, fourteen with gunshot wounds. Escape points to the bridge deck from the top deck were narrow and restricted and as such it was very difficult for passengers in this area to avoid being hit by live rounds. At least one of those killed was using a video camera and not involved in any of the fighting with the soldiers. The majority of gunshot wounds received by passengers were to their upper torsos in the head, thorax, abdomen and back. Given the relatively small number of passengers on the top deck during  the incident, the Mission is driven to the conclusion that the vast majority were in receipt of gunshot wounds.

118. Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Dogan received a bullet in the face and Ibrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull entered his brain.
Furthermore, some of the wounded were subjected to further violence including being hit with the butt of a weapon, being kicked in the head, chest and back and being verbally abused. A number of the wounded passengers were handcuffed and then left unattended for some time before being dragged to the front of the deck by their arms or legs.

119. Once the Israeli forces had secured control of the top deck they undertook measures to move down to the bridge deck below in order to take over the ship’s bridge and thus take control of the ship. In relation to this operation, a series of shooting incidents occurred centred on the portside doorway which gives access to the main stairwell on the bridge deck. This door is near to the hatch and ladder, which allows access from the top deck to the bridge deck.

120. Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition both from the top deck at passengers on the bridge deck below and after they had moved down to the bridge deck. At least four passengers were killed, and at least nine injured (five with firearms injuries) during this phase. None of the four passengers who were killed, including a photographer who at the time of being shot was engaged in taking photographs and was shot by an Israeli soldier positioned on the top deck above, posed any threat to the Israeli forces. There was considerable live fire from Israeli soldiers on the top deck and a number of passengers were injured or killed whilst trying to take refuge inside the door or assisting other to do so. Wounded passengers were brought into the ship through the stairwell and through the ship’s bridge room and were helped downstairs where they could be given some form of medical treatment by doctors and others on board.

170. The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.

172. The Mission is satisfied that much of the force used by the Israeli soldiers on board the Mavi Marmara and from the helicopters was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and resulted in the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers.

Legal Analysis of the treatment of the passengers in Israel
(a) Arbitrary or illegal arrest or detention
215. Article 9, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guards against arbitrary arrest or detention. Since the Israeli interception of the flotilla was unlawful, the detention of the passengers and crew from the seven vessels at Ashdod was also prima facie unlawful since there was no legal basis for the Israeli authorities to have detained and transported these people to Israel. The passengers found themselves in Israel on the basis of an unlawful act by the State of Israel.

Conclusions
264. The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla
passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of
totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of
brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other
grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international
humanitarian law.

265. The Mission considers that several violations and offences have been committed. It is not satisfied that, in the time available, it can say that it has been able to compile a comprehensive list of all offences. However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

• wilful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment;
• wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under international human rights law have taken place, including:
• right to life (article 6, ICCPR);
• torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 7, ICCPR; CAT);
• right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (article 9, ICCPR);
• right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (article 10, ICCPR);
• freedom of expression (article 19, ICCPR).

The right to an effective remedy should be guaranteed to all victims. The mission must not be understood to be saying that this is a comprehensive list by any means.

The Turkel Commission that recently lost one of its members (Shabtai Rosen who passed away at the age of 93) will have to study this Report closely and address its concerns one by one.


Fidel Castro on Anti-Semitism

Cuba has never been Israel’s friend. Understandably so. As long as Cuba and the USA maintain tenuous relationships, Cuba will not be a fan of the American’s greatest and most reliable ally. This is why the news from Cuba arrived as a surprise. In a recent interview, Fidel Castro criticized Iranian President Ahmadinejad for what he called his anti-Semitic attitudes. He also questioned his own actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.


Photo: YNET

Castro repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism, chiding Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust. Castro said that Iran could further the cause of peace by "acknowledging the 'unique' history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence."

Castro related a story from his childhood that he overheard classmates saying Jews killed Jesus Christ. "I didn't know what a Jew was. I knew of a bird that was a called a 'Jew,' and so for me the Jews were those birds". Castro later added, "This is how ignorant the entire population was."

Castro said, "I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims." Castro also said that the Iranian government should understand that the Jews "were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God."

After undergoing emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006, giving up Cuba's presidency and dropping out of sight for four years, Castro has begun making near-daily public appearances to warn of a nuclear war pitting the US and Israel against Iran and also featuring a Washington-led attack on North Korea.

"This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats," Castro said.

Source: YNET,
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506, L-3951540,00.html


Honour Killing

A 10-month investigation by The Independent in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza, the West Bank and other parts of the world reveals unearthed terrifying details of murder of at least 20,000 women a year in the name of 'honour'. Iraqi Kurds, Palestinians in Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey appear to be the worst offenders but honour crimes long ago spread to Britain, Belgium, Russia and Canada and many other nations. Outrageously, rape is also used as a punishment for "honour" crimes. Security authorities and courts across much of the Middle East have connived in reducing or abrogating prison sentences for the family murder of women, often classifying them as suicides to prevent prosecutions.

Near the Belgian city of Charleroi, Sadia Sheikh was shot dead by her brother, Moussafa, because she refused to marry a Pakistani man chosen by her family; in the suburbs of Toronto, Kamikar Kaur Dhillon slashes his Punjabi daughter-in-law, Amandeep, across the throat because she wants to leave her arranged marriage, perhaps for another man.
He told Canadian police that her separation would "disgrace the family name".

In Britain, the phenomenon is well recorded: Surjit Athwal, a Punjabi Sikh woman was murdered on the orders of her London-based mother-in-law for trying to escape a
violent marriage; 15-year-old Tulay Goren, a Turkish Kurd from north London, was
tortured and murdered by her Shia Muslim father because she wished to marry a Sunni
Muslim man; Heshu Yones, 16, was stabbed to death by her father in 2005 for going out with a Christian boy; Caneze Riaz, was burned alive by her husband in Accrington, along with their four children - the youngest 10 years old - because of their "Western ways".

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-crimewave-thatshames- the-world-2072201.html


Photo: The Independent

I must demur and protest against the leniency exhibited by legal systems to this abhorrent phenomenon, leniency that essentially legitimizes crime. They show more sensitivity to cultural norms than to human life. It also seems that by adopting this reasoning the legal systems are more anxious to protect their own interests than to secure fundamental moral codes and basic human rights. Alienation of women from the legal systems, mistrust in them that they will protect their right to life is bad for the minorities and it also goes against state interests. The authorities prefer to exhibit a lenient attitude towards inhuman crimes without understanding that by this they undermine law and order.
Apparently the price to be paid is not very substantial: the lives of some dozens of persons, all from minority communities. I find this reasoning offensive and repugnant.

So the state does not mind that homicide takes place in many Muslim communities, and in the Muslim communities no powerful organizations exist to safeguard the most fundamental right: the right to live. Women are left unprotected and a crude rumour might be sufficient to end the life of one suspected of an indecent conduct. Those who do try to protect basic rights often walk on very thin ice, raising their voice against such acts, and at the same time watchful not to rouse angry people against them, who might perceive their activities as 'untraditional', as betraying religion and culture. In some communities, honour is far more important than the life of the girl who shamed her family. The murderers, who are mostly or always male, are not subject to internal punishment or banishment; on the contrary, in their communities they gain in honour. This situation should change, the sooner the better. No country should agree to that, condone it or legitimize it in some form of the shape. Honour killing should be condemned and fought against with all state power. The test of civilization and democracy is always the protection of vulnerable people. In this test until now many countries have miserably failed.


Child Abuse and the Catholic Church

Pope Benedict visited the UK. Both major news channels, BBC and ITV, welcomed him with yet another report about child abuse by clergy. Every few months for the past twenty years the media report such awful incidents. What the church needs is wise and courageous leadership that understands that there is an endemic problem that needs a root solution, otherwise the future is known. Every few months we will hear of yet another child abuse incident. These children are handed like sheep by their parents to God’s servants who abuse the parents’ trust and succumb to their own selfish sexual drives. Those clergymen destroy the children's lives forever.



The much-needed root change is to lift the ban on marriage. Despite all efforts to fight against human weaknesses and sexuality, humans remain human. We need sex. We possess drives. If suppressed, humans will seek refuge wherever possible abusing children deposited in their hands. Is Pope Benedict the person to bring forward the
much needed revolutionary change of allowing clergy the freedom to marry?

In his comments Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig wrote: Of course, removing the celibacy requirement could improve the Church's pastoral situation in the long run by opening the doors to the largest potential cohort by far: heterosexual, married men -- who (one would hope and imagine) are far less prone to molest children and others in general. If this occurred, then the Church could be far more selective in who it accepts as priests, thereby winnowing out (at least most of) the pedophiliac and molestation-prone priests. Today, the lack of candidates for the priesthood is so problematic for the Church that it seems to be willing to accept (and turn a blind eye to) just about anyone with pants and a zipper. With a significant expansion of the candidate pool for the priesthood, it would be far less prone to let slide any forms of sexual attack. Instead of three strikes and you're quietly moved to a different parish, a larger heterosexual, married pool of candidates would enable the Vatican to promulgate a policy of "one strike and you're out of the Church".


USA School Education 2010

This story was sent to me by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). It concerns J.W., a first-grader in Sarah T. Reed Elementary School in New Orleans. The 6-year-old boy is just four feet tall and weighs 60 pounds. He enjoys playing basketball, being read to by his parents, colouring and playing outside with friends.

Within one week, J.W. was twice forcibly arrested, handcuffed and shackled to a chair. His “crimes” were talking back to a teacher and later arguing with a classmate over a seat by an armed security officer. The amount of force used on J.W. inflicted severe emotional distress. J.W. has become withdrawn and afraid to go to school. His counselor reports that he has been "deeply affected and traumatised." Shockingly, this level of punishment is official school policy. All across the nation, schools have adopted draconian "zero-tolerance" policies that treat children like criminals and turn schools into prison-like environments.

SPLC filed a lawsuit against the school district to stop the brutal and unconstitutional policy of chaining students who break minor school rules. SPLC is determined to hold the school and school district accountable for what they've done and to stop their barbaric treatment of children so that no one else suffers like J.W.


George Soros’ Donation to Human Rights Watch

Billionaire philanthropist George Soros will give Human Rights Watch $100 million to expand its work throughout the world. The gift is the largest ever by Soros and the largest received by Human Rights Watch.



Soros, 80, said the gift is the first of a series of large gifts that he plans to make. This year, Soros has donated some $700 million to several causes. He earned $3.3 billion from his hedge fund in 2009.

Human Rights Watch, which monitors human rights abuses worldwide, said it will add about 120 staff members to its current 300 posted in capitals around the world, open new offices and expand the translation of its approximately 100 reports a year. Based in New York, the organisation was founded in 1978. It is funded solely by private donations.

I commend Soros for his generosity. I wish he would donate some funds to promote specific human rights causes in Israel and Palestine. There are quite a few worthy organizations that could certainly use some assistance. My special interest is in the Center for Democratic Studies, which I founded in 2003.

Source: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/09/07/2740840/soros-gives-100- million-to-human-rights-watch


New Books

Christopher C. Harmon, Terrorism Today (London: Routledge, 2009).



The third edition of this best-selling insight into terrorism today has been updated and revised to include what the author terms the new ‘militant Moslem international.’
Drawing directly on the words and ideas of terrorists themselves, this book is an examination of patterns, current trends and future threats in terrorism worldwide.
It explores the ideology and psychology, the politics and policies, the strategies and operations of many active small groups and major insurgencies. The book reflects on modern technology and tactics, and also on counter-terrorism mechanisms.

Terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon that troubles many nations. It is the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends. Terrorism is used by single-minded small groups, state agents, and broader insurgent movements to seek political and military ends. The terrorist leader emerges as a calculating, innovative and often well-educated person whose use of violence against the innocent is calibrated for maximum effects.

This is an important resource for students of terrorism, counter-insurgency and international security. Its main weakness is lack of careful discussion of the human rights violations that are increasingly the result of the War on Terror. The author is concerned with the terrorist phenomenon and with the ways to fight against it, not with the legality and the legitimacy of the means used to tackle and eradicate terror.

I thank Routledge for a copy of this book.


Yvonne Jewkes and Majid Yar (eds.), Handbook of Internet Crime (Portland, OR:
Willan, 2010).


This is a very thorough collection (654 pages) of essays on many aspects of Internet crime in the fields of New Media, sociology, criminology, film studies, computer law, forensics, and culture studies. It is arguably the most comprehensive book on cybercrime to date. It deals with Internet-related crime, deviance, policing, law and regulation in the 21st century. The Handbook reflects the range and depth of cybercrime research and scholarship, reflecting on the global nature of cybercrime problems, and the international span of scholarship addressing its challenges.



I particularly enjoyed James Curran, “Reinterpreting Internet history”, Barry Sandywell, “On the globalization of crime”, Steven Furnell, “Hackers, viruses and malicious software”, Dorothy Denning, “Terror’s web”, Ethel Quayle, “Child pornography”, and Maggie Wykes, “Harm, suicide and homicide in cyberspace”. The subject matters are diverse and cover a wide range of issues. I also enjoyed the international nature of the book whose contributors come from different nations, with different approaches to cybercrime. The American approach is very different than the rest of the world, and this is well reflected in this rich resource.

http://www.willanpublishing.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9781843925248

I thank Majid Yar for a copy of this book.


A Reporter’s Profile
In Memory of Mark Bianu (Haifa, 2010) (Hebrew)

Seven years have passed since the Maxim suicide murder that resulted with the death of many people. This murder literally wiped out families who came to have a peaceful meal in an Israeli-Palestinian restaurant. Among the dead were my student Mark Bianu and his newlywed wife Naomi.

Mark's family works hard to commemorate the life and work of this exceptional man whose life were abruptly cut short by this act of despicable terrorism. This new book includes five sections. In the first section titled “The Reporter” there are short articles of people who knew Mark from his work as a reporter in the Haifa local TV news. Among the authors are the Director of the Israel Broadcast Association, Amir Gilat; Mayor of Haifa Yonah Yahav, Commander of Haifa Police Nir Mariash and local reporters.


Mark is holding the microphone

The second section, “The Academician”, includes articles by Mark’s teachers and fellow students. Among the authors are Professor Oz Almog, Professor Sheizaf Rafaeli, Professor Gabi Weimann, Dr. Yariv Tzfati, Dr. Lilach Nir, Dr. Jonathan Cohen, Dr. Aimy Lev, Dr. Rivki Ribak and yours truly.

The third section was authored by Mark’s friends, reflecting on his big heart and similar captivating smile, while the fourth and fifth sections bring the voices of Mark’s teachers at school and Mark’s family. The last section includes some of the articles that this young man wrote before his life at the age of 30 were taken in the most tragic way, including an article that Mark and I wrote together about Israeli wars as covered by Haaretz newspaper. This work was based on Mark’s seminar paper which I thought was excellent and in some institutions would be considered as a worthy MA thesis.

I thank Florence Bianu for a copy of this touching book.


New Article

Ethical Space: Journal with a Difference”, The Review of Communication, Issue 10:3 (2010), pp. 228-235.
Authors: Richard Keeble - Richard Keeble (PhD., City University, London, 1996) is Professor of Journalism, University of Lincoln, School of Journalism, Main Campus, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK; Raphael Cohen-Almagor - Raphael Cohen-Almagor (D.Phil, Oxford University, 1991) is Professor of Politics, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK



Abstract
Ethical Space is a journal with a difference—based on the premise that many segments of the modern media are neglecting ethical concerns. In a reality of fierce competition, ratings, and economic considerations, ethics becomes a secondary, sometimes irritating issue. The idea, so to speak, is “Let me do my job of reporting and don't trouble me with your morals.” As the media have grown in size, scope, and means of dissemination, so the academic interest in the media has grown. More and more departments of media, journalism, and communication have been established in North America, in Europe, as well as in other parts of the world. More courses on media ethics are being offered to evoke awareness to ethical media concerns that will accompany students in their future work in the field. And more pertinent journals have been established to entertain ethical concerns. But it is an unfair race. Often, economic and financial considerations triumph over ethical considerations. Many academic programs do not hire media ethicists and, if they teach media ethics, the courses are taught by scholars who are not specialists.
Often, media ethics courses are not obligatory for all students. Thus they miss the only opportunity they may have to acquire awareness and knowledge of ethical concerns.
The commitment of the academic journal, Ethical Space, is to examine significant historical and emerging ethical issues in communication.

Keywords: Ethical Space; journalism ethics; PR ethics; communication academics and professionals


Israeli Summer

Israel’s relative quiet does good for the tourism industry. Tel Aviv hotels are in full capacity. As in previous summers, French is frequently heard on the beach and in bars and restaurants. This year, in addition to French I heard lots of English, Italian, Spanish and German. Tourists are coming from all over the world to enjoy the gems Israel is blessed with. The Tel Aviv promenade is stunning as ever, the sand golden, the food excellent, the people are welcoming, and the weather is hot and steamy, as usual is the case in August.




LIFE in Israel in 1948

LIFE Magazine archive has a vast collection of photos. See
http://benatlas.com/2009/07/life-in-israel-in-1948-part-1/ ;
http://benatlas.com/2009/07/life-in-israel-in-1948-part-2/ and
http://benatlas.com/2009/08/life-in-israel-in-1948-part-3/ for photos of Israel in
1948.


Gem of the Month – The Moody Blues

In my youth, one of my favourite groups was The Moody Blues. I love the tunes, and the voice of the lead singer. Three of the original members remain, and they added four other talented musicians. Presently they are touring the UK and Amsterdam, and I was fortunate to see and hear these giants in London. Amazingly, Justin Hayward’s voice remains as it was some forty years ago.

Their greatest album is:



Here is one of the greatest ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rkgm1yGgbM

See also http://www.brumbeat.net/moody.htm


Movie

Departures (2008)

In Judaism, we wrap the dead in robes, conduct a funeral procession leading to the graveyard, where people say prayers and bid farewell to the deceased. Then, we bury the dead. It is a very simple ceremony. In Japan they do it differently.

I have spent the past twenty years studying death with dignity. I did not pay much attention to the issue of dignity after death. “Departures” hammers this theme and forces you to think and rethink.



Daigo (Masahiro Motoki) is a cellist whose orchestra had been dissolved. He is looking for work and the first ad he encounters is entitled Departures. Daigo believes this ad was placed by a travel agency. The available position, however, turns out to be with a company that meticulously prepares corpses for cremation. Daigo has to overcome his prejudices regarding the job, something he is able to do upon watching his mentor’s dignified conduct; but then he has to face others, including his loyal, optimistic and fullof-life wife (Ryoko Hirosue), who does not wish him to deal with corpses.



This slow and beautiful drama, which won the Oscar, is about four people and one ghost that continues to hunt Daigo throughout his life, accompanied by beautiful music (if you like cello, this one is for you). The film is sensitively directed by Yojiro Takita (http://www.lovefilm.com/browse/contributor/97623/Yojiro_Takita.html). You cannot remain indifferent watching Daigo-Motoki’s agony until he comes to peace with his ghost; the superb acting of Hirosue and Diago’s mentor, Tsutomu Yamazaki, and the beautiful scenes of preparing people to their final departure. The final scene is breathtaking.


Monthly Poem

Summer Sun

Great is the sun, and wide he goes
Through empty heaven with repose;
And in the blue and glowing days
More thick than rain he showers his rays.

Though closer still the blinds we pull
To keep the shady parlour cool,
Yet he will find a chink or two
To slip his golden fingers through.

The dusty attic spider-clad
He, through the keyhole, maketh glad;
And through the broken edge of tiles
Into the laddered hay-loft smiles.

Meantime his golden face around
He bares to all the garden ground,
And sheds a warm and glittering look
Among the ivy's inmost nook.

Above the hills, along the blue,
Round the bright air with footing true,
To please the child, to paint the rose,
The gardener of the World, he goes.

Robert Louis Stevenson

More poems from Robert Louis Stevenson
(http://www.poemhunter.com/robert-louis-stevenson/)


Light Side

Don Juan, Valentino, Casanova and Jacob are having lunch in a restaurant in Bern. They speak about women, what else.

Don Juan: Last week I woke up with a blond lady in Rome, made love for lunch with a
red-head lady in Venice, and finished the day with a lovely brunette in Florence.

Valentino: I stayed in hotel in Seville, met five women in three days and made love to all of them.

Casanova: I met three married ladies in a bar in Paris, left with all three to one of the ladies’ rooms. When her husband was about to arrive we moved to a second room, and then to the third room. There I was almost caught by the angry husband. As a matter of fact, this is why I am here today.

All this time, Jacob is sitting quietly eating his pesto pasta.

Don Juan: What about you, Jacob?
Jacob: I sleep only with my wife – sometimes, he added dryly.

Casanova: And don’t you find it a bit, how shall we say, boring?

Jacob: I do. But if I sleep with another woman I will spend my life moving from one bed to another, running for my life.

Peace and love.

Yours as ever,

Rafi


My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/

People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at
r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Politics – July 2010

If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down
~ José María Aznar

Common sense does prevail. Sometimes it hesitates, sometimes it needs encouragement, but finally it comes about.

By trying to isolate Gaza, Israel isolated itself from the world.

Four l o n g years have passed. Gilad is still in captivity. Veshavu banim legvulam.
~Raphael Cohen-Almagor

A positive meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu at the end of which both announced that it is possible to reach a peace agreement within a year. Amen. Meanwhile, the settlements occupy some 45 percent of the West Bank, Mr Lieberman is the Foreign Minister, Mr Netanyahu announced that the freeze on enlargement of settlements is about to expire and building will resume, and Hamas is Hamas.

The appalling situation and the lack of hope drove the people on both sides to elect extreme governments that wish to destroy one another.

The Shalit family finally came to realize that its interests are not necessarily identical to those of the government and started to mount pressure on the government by organizing a cross country march, calling to free Gilad. Thousands of people joined the march.

This has been a month of football: a colourful celebration of national symbols, dresses trumpets and drums, nerves and will power -- of the very best excitement and drama. The two finalists of 2006 were ousted in the group stage.

One African country, Ghana, and two Asian countries, Japan and South Korea, advanced to the second stage. Ghana had a chance to make history and be the first African team to reach the semi-finals but failed in the last minute. Holland, Germany, Uruguay and Spain reached the semi-finals.

Spain won the championship in convincing fashion.

So this Blog contains an elaborate section on the most popular sport in the world as it came to one of its peaks. I am about to leave for Israel for my annual vacation; thus there will not be an August monthly Blog. I will return to my loyal readers in September.

Reflections on the June Blog
My Reflections on the Reflections
Israel Eases Restrictions on Goods into Gaza
Tony Blair
Israel Sets Up Gaza Flotilla Commission
Turkey
Iran
If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down – by Josי Marםa Aznar
Report of UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee on Social Responsibility
and Health
Planned Home Birth Is Associated with a Tripling of the Neonatal Mortality Rate
New Books
Visit to Israel
2010 World Cup
Movie
Monthly Poem
Light Side

Free Gilad Shalit. The government should invest in his release. It should be one of its top priorities. Veshavu banim legvulam.


Gilad Shalit

Reflections on the June Blog

Professor Sam Lehman-Wilzig wrote from Ramat Gan, Israel:

The people of Gaza voted for terrorists, continue to support their terrorist government - - and you say that these Gazan civilians are not responsible and merely "victims"? Would you say the same about the German people who supported the Nazi regime for a decade and then suffered the Allied bombings? They were merely "victims" and didn't deserve to suffer? Your "argument" makes no sense - or at least is simply not argued.

As for denying Chomsky entry to Israel: How many times have Britain and the U.S. refused entry to "ideological undesirables"? Quite a lot! Where is it written that a noncitizen has ANY right of free speech in a foreign country? Every nation on earth decides who enters and who not. The comparison you make here with Israeli citizens is completely specious.

As for Turkey, ever since the EU has made it clear that it will not accept Turkey, the Turks have moved towards the RADICAL Muslim world. Look at their recent vote in the U.N. AGAINST the Iranian sanctions that even Russia and China agreed to! Loyal friend to Israel? Yup -- until 2009! And by the way, now it is clear that no less than PM Erdogan was involved in organizing the flotilla resistance. That's a loyal friend????

Mr. Tim Friedman wrote from Leeds, England:

Hi Rafi

Thank you for your usual stimulating and informative report.

Whilst there is much that I accept without question - not least the Israelis' criminal ignoring of the need for PR - there are a few matters I respectfully raise which do impact on your comments and challenge some of the things you have included (in no particular order):-

1. Whatever Israel does now is looked at prejudicially and in a pre-judged way. If it acts well, ulterior motives are ascribed or the actions are disputed. If it acts badly, the media is full of criticism.

2. Favourable behaviour is ignored. I was in S'derot a couple of weeks ago and was told that 10,000/14,000 tons of goods are passed officially through Israel into Gaza each month and that Ashdod provides 70% of Gaza's power. Was that in the Guardian or on the BBC?

3. Construction materials are diverted to military use, so naturally Israel's security interests demand it restricts what goes in to Gaza.

4.Why does Israel and not Egypt get pilloried for restricting the goods going to Gaza?

5. Even when the international community actually supports Israel's security interests in principle, eg restricting weaponry to Southern Lebanon after the Lebanon "war", everyone turns a blind eye. I understand it is felt that the Hezbollah preparations to attack Israel from Lebanon are viewed with great anxiety in Israel. World reassurances to Israel re what is allowed into Gaza must be seen in this light.

6. Why should Israel's actions against Gaza be described as "suffocating" it? I would not like to live there and many Gazans are not exactly comfortable - though many richer/elevated residents are doing pretty well - but that is not the same thing as "suffocating" and is the sort of hyperbole which should be challenged.

7. The independent countries like the UK pay lip-service to Israel's right of self-defence. When Israel takes any active steps in self-defence (often against others who ignore the Geneva Conventions and other moral guidelines), however, this is regarded by many as "disproportionate".

8. Hamas is generally understood by most casual observers in the free world as the Government of Gaza which is not very kindly rather than as a proscribed organization which kills many Muslims and given the chance would eliminate the Jewish state and its residents.

Few commentators are putting the case for Israel in part because they are told not to and their contributions in support of Israel are monitored, censored and modified and thus they are cautious in subsequent pieces to ensure they toe the (anti-Israel) media line ( per Col Richard Kemp who visited Leeds recently).

I can suggest a number of reasons why Israel is treated in this way and I am sure you can add to the list - fear of domestic terror, fear of international terror, fear of limitation on oil supplies, wish for a quiet life, shame that democracies are not prepared to take appropriate military action in support of their interests except in the most extreme of extreme circumstances (eg Afghanistan) whilst non-democracies are, the inability to understand those from different cultures etc etc and currently there is also the momentum which has built up which enhances this opposition to Israel despite its entitlement (as I see it) to moral and other support.

Just because many of us are neurotic about the view of the majority against those who support Israel, even in a liberal democracy like ours, doesn't mean they aren't after us!

Regards

Tim Friedman

Dr. Yoav Tenenbaum wrote from Tel Aviv, Israel:

Dear Rafi,

Thank you for sending me the June Newsletter.

I have just finished reading it.

As ever, I enjoyed reading your newsletter, particularly this one which was devoted, in part, to football….

Regarding other issues you dwell upon in your newsletter, I tend to agree with you on some of your comments regarding the Gaza Flotilla Crisis, but I disagree with some of your remarks.

To begin with, and to be quite candid with you, I think that your comment about the Shaitet 13 was a bit over the top. I had the impression that you displayed a rather condescending attitude towards it. Anyhow, based on everything I know, it seems to me that the soldiers who participated in the operation, if anything, were rather controlled and cautious considering the circumstances. The problem, so far as I can ascertain, was with the decision and the intelligence, rather than with the individuals who took part in the operation.

Regarding Noam Chomsky, it is known that the problem arose as a result of a decision by one, single, individual at the border crossing, who, apparently, decided by herself not to let him in. Indeed, Chomsky, I understand, had visited Israel before without any incident.

I beg to differ with your comments about Israel-Turkey relations. I think that Turkey decided some time ago to re-direct its foreign policy towards the more radical elements in the Middle East. This had precious little to do with Israel. I believe Israel became an easy launching pad for Erdogan and his political allies in Turkey to advance his wider agenda. May I remind you that Erdogan behaved in an offensive manner in the presence of Shimon Peres, and that was before Netanyahu became PM.

Turkey is not pro-Palestinian. Turkey is pro-Hamas, also as part of his broader policy in the area. Erdogan has said that his party and the Hamas are like sister parties. Erdogan is not an ally of Iran because of Israel. Israel is not the motive for Erdogan's policies, but rather an excuse.

The part about the IHH is excellent! I learned quite a lot from it. Thank you.

I was interested to read about the Privacy Law Scholars Conference. What a good idea!

I wasn't aware that you were a Spurs aficionado. Although my team in England is Leeds
United, I like Spurs very much.

I hope you and your family are well.

Best wishes.

Yoav

Ms. Michal Anosh, media commentator, wrote from Ponoka, Alberta, Canada:

Shalom Raffi,

Thanks for your always informative and entertaining blog.

On the issue of starving Gazans - how come you never mention the fact that they ripped down all those greenhouses that were preserved and paid for so they would have food, work and export opportunities?

How can the society there stumble through life like raging teenagers who want the family car, but take no responsibility for wrecking it by driving it into a wall, and then they want bus fare for the weekend?...AND they make the rest of the world cry about their situation when there's definitely a large chunk of responsibility in their hands.

Likewise, the sorry fact that many live on less than a dollar a day is sad - but its often more than their un-aided neighbors in Egypt or other oppressive states in the Middle East and more than the people in Darfur - that's for sure - NONE of whom are getting aid or television coverage - and so many millions more of them are in agony or the throws of a long, painful death..

If we believe that in order to survive and relate as civilized people a certain level of responsibility for one's action is REQUIRED then why do we keep enabling the Hamasled Palestinians to be 'bad'? Why, specifically, do you keep supporting the view that they have a right to be bad, even though they hold Schalit, fire rockets, and work for Iran?

Okay - they have a 'right' to behave anyway they want - but behavior and actions have consequences. I think it is time they grew up.

Regarding your interest in Europe and the descent of Germany into hell, taking us and the rest of the world with it - I recommend "Rites of Spring" by Modris Eksteins (sp). It was published a number of years ago but it is a fascinating exploration of the interwar period in Europe - the stunning overnight industrialization of Germany (how its iron/steel production outdistances England's by something like 5 times in the space of maybe 50 years, when England had been rolling steel for 200) and what factors farm failure and unemployment played in the issue.

I was then lead to read "Marienthal" by Marie Jahoda, which was a study done in 1932 (I believe) about the Austrian village by the same name where all the workers were laid off - a whole town unemployed. It was the first social study of the unemployed and the results blew my mind - how men, particularly, end up like rudderless ships without work. Consequently, the conclusions can be drawn that anything 'to do' that is organized, gives them purpose and some form of being 'a man' again, will be enough to make them say 'yes'.... and Hitler's brown shirts provided that....tragically.

All the best and thank you so much for your ongoing sharing of information, news, views, books, poems, ideas, movies, football stars....life!
L'chaim.
Michal/Michelle

Professor Jack Hayward wrote from Hull, England:

Le Monde,10 June 2010, p1 Editorial
Title: Ne Boycottons pas les artistes israיliens -- Don`t boycott Israeli Artists

The Editorial is a clear voice against attempts to boycott Israel, arguing

...This movement is dangerous: the assault on the flotilla is indefensible, but to respond with a boycott is unacceptable. It is counter-productive. It contributes to weakening voices and views in Israel that are among the most intransigent towards their government. If there is a country whose creative writers and artists investigate their state with talent and lucidity, it is without doubt Israel....It will be serious to align ourselves with most Arab countries, which boycott all creative work from their neighbour.... To boycott is to censor. It is the worse response.

I thank Jack for the translation.

My Reflections on the Reflections

First, let us distinguish between the substantive remarks and the non-substantive remarks.

Substantive remarks

In Genesis 18:2 God sends three men/angels to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah, God reveals to Abraham that he intends to ruin Sodom and Gomorrah because their sin is very grievous. Abraham then starts pleading with God: Will you destroy the righteous with the guilty? Suppose there are fifty righteous people in the city. Will you really destroy it? Will you not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous in it? Will you put the righteous to death with the guilty, so that righteous and guilty fare alike? Is the judge of the whole world not to act justly? God replied: If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I shall spare the whole place because of them. Abraham relentlessly continued his pleading: Will you destroy the city if there were 45, then 30, then 20, then 10 righteous people.

The moral of the story is clear: You should not inflict indiscriminate punishment upon people. There is good even among the worst possible evil. You cannot punish one for the evils of another. More so, the power of the good is so significant that ten good people among a large city may save the entire city from destruction.

As a Jew, as an Israeli, as a citizen of the world, as a human being, I cannot accept that all Gazans are alike; all deserve punishment because of the evils that Hamas inflicts upon Israel: the terror, the rockets, the hatred, the incitement, Gilad Shalit. Not all Gazans are terrorists. We must distinguish between terrorists and civilians and refrain from punishing all for the evils of some.

I say time and again: Israel is facing a bitter enemy that does not recognize its very right to exist. Therefore, it should forestall any attempt to smuggle weaponry into Gaza. However, the policy should be clear, transparent and prudent. No one of right mind would object to stopping the shipment of rockets into Gaza. But this necessity has nothing to do with stopping the delivery of coriander and chocolate into Gaza.

Given the devastation that Israel had inflicted on Gaza in Cast Lead, it should permit construction materials into Gaza. People should have the ability to rebuild their ruined houses. I am utterly unconvinced that there is a security need to stop these materials from entering Gaza. Yes, the material may assist Hamas in the construction of tunnels and other means to bolster its security and terrorism. But Israel has the capacity to ruin whatever Hamas is building. This cannot serve as an excuse from depriving thousands of people of the ability to rebuild their homes.

I always try to be lucid in the way that I explain my reasoning, using the best words to describe phenomenon. Believe you me that I often delete and amend sentences when I am unhappy with certain phraseology. I call Hamas “terrorist” with no qualms, although many other people and countries find other terms to relate to Hamas. We need to call terrorism by its name. At the same time, we also need to recognize that what Israel is doing to Gaza is suffocation. Look at the map. Gaza is closed all around. Egypt and Israel control its borders. To a large extent, Israel decides whether Gaza will have food, water, electricity, gas, houses, basic needs and utilities. At will, it provides them. At will, it deprives them. No person in the world would like to live like that. Israelis surely would hate every moment of living under such isolating conditions, not realizing that by its imprudent policies we bring this gloomy future upon ourselves. There is a growing distance between Israel and many people in the world who think: This is not right.


Source: BBC

From the general to the Gaza flotilla particular: I have no criticisms of the commando fighters who landed on the ships. They tried to follow their orders to the best of their abilities. My criticism is directed at the people who sent them to carry out such an impossible mission. My criticism is directed at the commanders who did not prepare their homework, who did not know what is likely to happen, who endangered the commandos’ lives and put them in situation where they were forced to kill nine people in order to carry out their mission and escape death.

Same applies to denying Chomsky entry. It might be the case that one officer at the border control took the initiative to turn him away. I don’t know. But if this situation is possible, that one person can inflict such damage on her own volition, then something is wrong in Israel’s policy. This should not be allowed. There should be clear instructions, which are not opened to wild interpretations, as to when entry should be refused.

You won't believe how many emails I received from different people, mostly academics, from different corners of the world, about the Chomsky affair. And I assume we did not see the end of this.

It is clear to me why Israel objected to international investigating committee regarding Cast Lead. We had a lot to lose. It is unclear to me why we object to such investigation concerning the flotilla. Put things in perspective. And if we believe that we did the right thing, prove it to the world. We can expect more flotillas to arrive, more such problems. We need international support and understanding. But Israel is so afraid of international scrutiny and pressure that it is always adamant in its refusal. The adamant refusal does not exactly relieve the scrutiny and pressure but nevertheless.

Regarding Turkey: Turkey has its own agenda, which is at present pan-Islamic. At the same time, Israel should not play into the hands of the hostile elements inside Turkey thereby weakening the secular, liberal, western elements in Turkey. Any depiction of Turkey as one unified body is misleading. There have been many avenues for cooperation between Israel and Turkey: security, tourism, industry, commerce. The west at large, and Israel in particular, should try to retain and strengthen these elements, act prudently, with foresight and clear sense of purpose. I am sorry to say that I see very little sense in the way that Israeli leaders have been communicating with Turkish officials during the recent months. Erdogan is crucially important, but he is not the only Turkish official. Turkey is not a dictatorship. Israel should not alienate itself from the Turkish elements that wish to cooperate, i.e., security, tourism, industry, commerce. More on Turkey infra.

Unsubstantive remarks

The fact that there are even poorer countries than Gaza does not help the Gazans nor should make any difference in our concern (or lack of) for the well being of the Gazans.

My “significant other”, a model to be followed, is not the behavior of the backward, undemocratic, authoritarian, totalitarian societies in the world. Remarks like “they started”, “they destroyed”, “they behave worse” are not convincing to me. My significant others are not Iran, North Korea or Hamas. I’d like to keep Israel democratic, a socialliberal democracy to be exact.

All arguments like why Israel and not someone else are unconvincing. One wrong does
not justify another. There is no absolute justice in the world. There are double
standards. Israel is not Russia or the United States. Most countries in the world do not
do what the US has been doing for many years for different reasons, some noble, some
less so. What the USA can afford to do, we cannot.

Israel is not Egypt either, for better and for worse.

And sometimes double standards work for Israel. For instance, USA and some other countries turn a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear policy/ability. What is tolerated for Israel is not tolerated for many other countries. Let’s not go this path.

Israel Eases Restrictions on Goods into Gaza

On June 17, 2010, Israel announced easing of restrictions on goods entering the Gaza Strip but left in place a sea blockade of the Palestinian enclave, raising the prospect of further clashes with aid flotillas.

After two weeks of behind-the-scenes pressure from European and U.S. diplomats, Israel's security cabinet agreed to let more civilian goods enter the strip, but the scope of what would be permitted remained vague.

In the first instance, there would be a 30 percent increase in the volume of goods passing into Gaza.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said "we welcome the principles" announced by the Israeli government. "They're a step in the right direction," adding that the administration would continue to work with Israel "to improve a humanitarian situation in Gaza that the president has said is unsustainable."

The partial nature of the policy change prompted criticism from some Palestinians, human rights groups and academic observers, who said it did not go far enough. Although Israel is trying to "make it appear that it has eased" the blockade, "in reality, the siege of the Gaza Strip, illegally imposed on Palestinians, continues unabated," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. Amnesty International said the decision was not enough to end the "collective punishment" of Gazans.

Augustus Richard Norton, a Boston University international relations professor, described the decision as an "arrogant in-your-face to the U.S. and other concerned members of the international community." "If Israel was serious about improving the living conditions of Gazans, it would stop preventing the exports of agricultural goods and allow the strip's simple manufacturing sector to resume making and selling everyday essentials," Norton said.

Many factories closed in the past three years because of the ban, which was designed to put pressure on the Palestinian economy as part of an effort to foster popular dissatisfaction with the Hamas leadership.

Israel said that crucial building items would still be permitted only for projects that are monitored by a third party.

The Israeli announcement came after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Israel's raid on the aid flotilla had increased the chances of war in the region.

He told the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen that although Syria was working to prevent a war, there was no chance of a peace deal with the current Israeli administration, which he called a "pyromaniac government".

Sources: Janine Zacharia, “Israel eases restrictions on goods bound for Gaza Strip”, Washington Post (June 18, 2010): A18; “Israel cabinet votes to ease Gaza Strip blockade”, BBC.co.uk (June 17, 2010), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10338199.stm

Tony Blair
I wish to command Mr Blair for the positive role that he played in enlightening the Israeli government that the blockade, in its present form, does not serve the Israeli interests.



The BBC reported that changes to the terms of the blockade had been proposed by Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair. Speaking after the deal was announced, Mr Blair said Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip, could become part of a peace process by releasing captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and renouncing violence. But he insisted that his main concern was about quality of life in the territory.

"My concern is if you improve the lives of people in Gaza... I think you have got a far better of chance of creating peace," he told the BBC.

In its statement, Israel pledged to expand operations at land crossings into Gaza, increasing the capacity for inspecting and transferring goods into the territory.

Items classified as "dual-use" (suitable for civilian or military use) would be reassessed and goods destined for projects such as UN-backed housebuilding would be assured of entry, an Israeli government statement said.

There was also a promise to "streamline" the entry and exit of people for humanitarian and medical reasons. Gazans have limited access to medical facilities and seriously ill Palestinians often require urgent medical attention inside Israel.

Common sense does prevail. Sometimes it hesitates, sometimes it needs encouragement, but finally it comes about.

Blair, a statesman with healthy common sense, said the following:
“Where I divide from some others in the international community is that I think that Israel has got a genuine security concern that it is entitled to meet,” said the former British prime minister. “For me, the fact that Israel says, ‘Look, we’re not going to allow things into the [Gaza] seaport, but you can bring them to Ashdod, and we can check them, and then they can come on to Gaza,’ I think that is a reasonable position. What you can’t justify is saying that basic foodstuffs and household items can’t go into Gaza.”

Sources: “Israel sets out changes to Gaza blockade curbs”, BBC News (June 20, 2010), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10361711.stm; “No need for aid flotillas, says Blair”, The Jerusalem Post (June 22, 2010), http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=179110

Israel Sets Up Gaza Flotilla Commission

On June 15, 2010 Israel’s cabinet unanimously approved a commission of inquiry into the interception of a Gaza-bound flotilla that left nine passengers dead. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that its establishment “will make it clear to the entire world that the state of Israel acts according to the law, transparency and with full responsibility”. Amen Ve’Amen.

The prime minister voiced his expectations: “I am convinced that the commission’s uncovering of the facts will prove that the goals and actions of the state of Israel and the IDF were appropriate defensive actions in accordance with the highest international standards”.

Retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Jacob (Yaakov) Turkel will head the commission. The other Israeli members of the committee are international law professor Shabtai Rosen, winner of the Israel Prize for jurisprudence and the Hague Prize for International Law, and former Technion President, Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Amos Horev.

What I have written about the Winograd Committee is also true here. See R. Cohen Almagor and Sharon Haleva-Amir, The Israel-Hezbollah War and the Winograd Committee”, Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law, Vol. II:1 (2008), pp. 113-130.

Two foreign observers with experience in the fields of military law and human rights were also named to the commission: Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lord William David Trimble from Northern Ireland, and international jurist Ken Watkin, former Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Armed Forces. Both are known for their sympathies to Israel. In May 2010, Trimble launched, with Spain's former prime minister Jose Maria Aznar (see below) the "Friends of Israel Initiative," a non-Jewish international project supporting Israel's right to exist.

The committee has a mandate to examine whether the Gaza blockade and the flotilla's interception conformed with international law and also investigate the actions taken by the convoy's organizers and participants. Israel says its embargo is necessary to limit arms smuggling to Hamas.

Turkey, which has cut back ties to Israel since the raid last month, has said Israel's investigation will be biased and reiterated demands for a U.N.-controlled probe. Turkey seems to think, quite astonishingly for the Israeli government, that a Turkish representative should be on the committee. After all, the main event took place on a Turkish ship, involving the death of nine Turkish citizens.



Justice needs to be heard, seen and felt on all levels. This composition of the committee does not help Israel’s credibility. On June 16 I spoke with Justice Turkel and asked him about the inclusion of Lord Trimble in the commission. His answer was that the decision has already been made.

Source: The Jewish Tribune (June 15, 2010), http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php/201006153153/Israel-sets-up-
Gaza-flotilla-commission.html

Turkey

Thomas Friedman is a sensible and sensitive reporter. On June 15, 2010 he published “Letter from Istanbul” on the pages of the NY Times in which he said the following:

The Erdogan government tries to fill some lacunas. The first vacuum comes courtesy of the European Union. After a decade of telling the Turks that if they wanted E.U. membership they had to reform their laws, economy, minority rights and civilianmilitary relations — which the Erdogan government systematically did — the E.U. leadership has now said to Turkey: “Oh, you mean nobody told you? We’re a Christian club. No Muslims allowed.” The E.U.’s rejection of Turkey, a hugely bad move, has been a key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world.

But as Turkey started looking more South, it found another vacuum — no leadership in the Arab-Muslim world. Egypt is adrift. Saudi Arabia is asleep. Syria is too small. And Iraq is too fragile. Erdogan discovered that by taking a very hard line against Israel’s partial blockade of Hamas-led Gaza — and quietly supporting the Turkish-led flotilla to break that blockade, during which eight Turks were killed by Israel — Turkey could vastly increase its influence on the Arab street and in the Arab markets.



Indeed, Erdogan today is the most popular leader in the Arab world. Unfortunately, it is not because he is promoting a synthesis of democracy, modernity and Islam, but because he is loudly bashing Israel over its occupation and praising Hamas instead of the more responsible Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which is actually building the foundations of a Palestinian state.

As one Turkish foreign policy analyst said to me: “We are not mediating between East and West anymore. We’ve become spokesmen for the most regressive elements in the East.”

Finally, there is a vacuum inside Turkey. The secular opposition parties have been in disarray most of the decade, the army has been cowed by wiretaps and the press has been increasingly intimidated into self-censorship because of government pressures. In September, the Erdogan government levied a tax fine of $2.5 billion on the largest, most influential — and most critical — media conglomerate, Dogan Holdings, to bring it to heel. At the same time, Erdogan lately has spoken with increasing vitriol about Israel in his public speeches — describing Israelis as killers — to build up his domestic support. He regularly labels his critics as “Israel’s contractors” and “Tel Aviv’s lawyers.”

Sad. Erdogan is smart, charismatic and can be very pragmatic. He’s no dictator. I’d love to see him be the most popular leader on the Arab street, but not by being more radical than the Arab radicals and by catering to Hamas, but by being more of a democracy advocate than the undemocratic Arab leaders and mediating in a balanced way between all Palestinians and Israel. That is not where Erdogan is at, though, and it’s troubling. Maybe President Obama should invite him for a weekend at Camp David to clear the air before U.S.-Turkey relations get where they’re going — over a cliff.

My only critic of Friedman that he, too, depicts Turkey here as a homogenous society under the firm leadership of one person. I think that are more facets in Turkish society than what is described here.

Source:

Iran

On June 23, 2010 the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Salehi, announced that Iran has succeeded in enriching 17 kilograms of uranium to a level of 20 percent. That amount is sufficient to provide all the fuel needed by Iran's medical research reactor, which requires fuel enriched to that level.

Salehi also announced that Iran is capable of enriching five kilograms of uranium a month to the 20 percent level. However, he said, it will not do so, as it already has enough for the medical reactor.



Photo: Haaretz by AP

Western intelligence agencies fear the need for fuel for its research reactor is just an excuse, and that Iran's real goal is to master the techniques needed to enrich uranium to the 90 percent level needed for a bomb. Getting to the 20 percent level is considered a much higher technological hurdle than getting from 20 to 90 percent.

The same day, the United Arab Emirates announced that it intends to strictly enforce United Nations sanctions against Iran - a potentially significant move, since the UAE is one of Iran's biggest trading partners and serves as a key conduit for nuclear and missile components that are supposed to be barred to Tehran under UN Security Council sanctions.

The UAE, and particularly the emirate of Dubai, is a major base for straw companies that smuggle banned components to Iran. Many of these companies are controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or its senior officers.

The emirates have decided to crack down on companies and businessmen in their territory that help Iran evade the UN sanctions. Among other steps, the UAE plans to shut down 40 local and international companies that supply Iran with dual-use items, which can be used for either civilian or military purposes. Any company found to have ties with the Revolutionary Guards or any other organization or individual specified in the four UN sanctions resolutions, will be shut down immediately.

The decision apparently stems from heavy American pressure on the emirates. If carried out, it greatly increases the likelihood that the new round of sanctions approved by the Security Council this month will be more effective than previous ones at impeding Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

On July 1, 2010 US President Barack Obama has signed into law new sanctions against Iran intended to impede the development of its nuclear programme. The measures, which penalise foreign companies that trade with Iran, were overwhelmingly approved by US Congress last week. The bill targets those firms that supply Iran's Revolutionary Guards or contribute to the country's energy industry, including foreign companies that provide finance, insurance, or shipping services. Mr Obama noted that Iran had rejected the offer of dialogue and engagement he had made on taking office last year: "To date, Iran has chosen the path of defiance," he said. "That is why we have steadily built a broader and deeper coalition of nations to pressure the Iranian government."

Sources: Yossi Melman, “UAE vows to strictly enforce UN nuclear sanctions on Iran”, Haaretz (June 24, 2010), http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/uae-vowsto-
strictly-enforce-un-nuclear-sanctions-on-iran-
1.297941?trailingPath=2.169,2.225,2.226; “Barack Obama signs new sanctions against Iran into law”, BBC.co.uk (July 1, 2010), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10484468.stm

If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down

By José María Aznar

José María Aznar was prime minister of Spain between 1996 and 2004. As said, he is a friend of Israel. On June 18, 2010 he published this piece in the Times of London, and I bring it in full.



For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion.

In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment's peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel's destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world's future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel's strength is our strength and Israel's weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.
It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel's legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel's vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo- Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.

Report of UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee on Social Responsibility and Health

The Report of IBC on Social Responsibility and Health (2009) has been published as the second issue of the series devoted to the IBC’s reflection and deliberations on specific principles of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005).

In dealing with Article 14 of the Declaration, which introduces the principle of social responsibility and health in the field of bioethics, IBC does not pretend to have drawn up an exhaustive or prescriptive document. The report is built upon the large amount of work and debates on public health policy issues already carried out in other international bodies, in particular the World Health Organization (WHO); it attempts to find a proper balance between the empirical data, the theoretical discourse and the practical implications arising when applying the principle of social responsibility and health.

After a descriptive part on the social determinants of health and constraints on health access, and a specific section devoted to the elaboration of the ethical and legal dimensions of the principle of social responsibility and health, the Report presents a sample of possible concrete strategies and courses of action in order to translate the principle of social responsibility and health into specific policy applications, with a view to promote the highest attainable standard of health for all.

This publication is currently available in English and will soon be available in French; copies can be obtained from the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology, Bioethics Section (ibc@unesco.org) and on-line (www.unesco.org/ibc).

English: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187899E.pdf

Planned Home Birth Is Associated with a Tripling of the Neonatal Mortality Rate

Speaking of responsibility, Holland has one of the highest home birth rates in the world. A third of its women deliver at home. A new study published by The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (July 2, 2010) sought to systematically review the medical literature on the maternal and newborn safety of planned home vs planned hospital birth. Planned home births were associated with fewer maternal interventions including epidural analgesia, electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, episiotomy, and operative delivery. These women were less likely to experience lacerations, hemorrhage, and infections. Neonatal outcomes of planned home births revealed less frequent prematurity, low birthweight, and assisted newborn ventilation. Although planned home and hospital births exhibited similar perinatal mortality rates, planned home births were associated with significantly elevated neonatal mortality rates. The study concluded that less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.

Source: Joseph R. Wax et. al., “Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis”, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (July 2, 2010) http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)00671- X/abstract; see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10465473.stm

New Books

Paul R. Viotti, American Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Polity, 2010).



As the world's only superpower, America's foreign policy inevitably has a major impact ׀ be it positive or negative - on contemporary international affairs. Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, George W. Bush's decision to move away from multilateral decisionmaking toward a more aggressive, pre-emptive style of foreign policy attracted widespread debate, and criticism, throughout the world. Reversing direction, the Barack Obama presidency is placing greater emphasis on constructive or peaceful engagement within multilateral frameworks, relying on special envoys to deal with some of the thorniest problems. In this book, Paul Viotti explores American foreign policy from the founding of the republic in the late 18th Century to the present day. Part 1 examines the broad policy options available to the US government: namely, peaceful engagement, containment through deterrence or coercive diplomacy, and armed intervention. Part 2 looks at the American experience in foreign policy. By exploring early precedents and elite practices, the moralism of American exceptionalism as well as the roots of an expansionist American foreign policy, the discussion draws out the continuities running from the 18th century to the present. Part 3 concludes with an analysis of the politics of interest on the Potomac with analysis of the interplay of contending policy elites, factions and parties influencing foreign policy making today. Assessing alternatives, the author concludes that even though containment and armed intervention will remain part of the way the United States conducts its foreign policy, diplomatic engagement options are the most promising course of action for the coming decades.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f5kWNoaD9MC&
dq=Paul+R.+Viotti,+American+Foreign+Policy+(Cambridge:+Polity,+2010).
&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

I thank Polity Press for sending me a copy of this book.

Visit to Israel



I am scheduled to arrive in Israel in early August and would love to see friends and colleagues. Please advise of your availability so we could coordinate to meet.

2010 World Cup



The group stage of any World Cup tends to be slow and cautious. This was the case also in South Africa. The best game I had seen in the group stage was Germany v. Australia. Germany decisively won 4:0, and it could have easily ended 7:0. Man of the Match was Philip Lahm, the best right back in the world for several years.

Another great game was Brazil v. Ivory Coast. Two very good teams but Brazil is still much better. It ended 3:1 for Brazil. Maicon and Elano impressed me the most among the Brazilians.


Maicon


Elano

The major upset in the first stage was Switzerland v. Spain 1:0. Spain suffered from lack of creativity in offense, unable to penetrate the excellent Swiss defence. I was particularly impressed with Stephane Grichting who was always in place to avert the Spanish attack.


Photo:
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1214118/index.html?cid=rssfeed&att=

Torres came late into the game and was as sharp as a marble. Months of injury made a significant impact on his scoring ability. Despite his poor ability, Spain was able to progress to the quarter finals where they met Paraguay.

Good game in the quarter finals was Brazil v. Holland. A miserable game for the Brazilian defence saw Brazil ousted 2:1. Elano did not play. Maicon, Lucio and Kaka are excellent world-class players; but they were not enough.


Lucio


Kaka

For Holland, Arjen Robben and Wesley Sneijder are excellent, superb players. With one spark of their immense talent they have the ability to decide games.


Arjen Robben (The Netherlands)

Uruguay and Ghana provided great drama. The game ended 1:1, went into extra time and in the 120 minute a Ghanian attack was stopped on the goal line with Suarez’s hand.
Suarez was sent off. Ghana had a penalty. Gyan missed. Uruguay that enjoys the excellent goal keeping services of Fernando Muslera went through. What a finale for a game in which both teams gave all that they have. Diego Forlan is an excellent scorer who never stops running and takes upon himself defensive roles.

The best game in the quarter finals was Germany v. Argentina. Yet another German show ousted Argentina. 4:0 was the score. Third time that Germany scored four goals against opponents. Man of the match was Bastian Schweinsteiger.


Bastian Schweinsteiger (Germany)

Lukas Podolski and Thomas Muller join Miroslav Klose for a most lethal attack.


Lukas Podolski

In the Argentinean team, most impressive throughout the tournament were Lionel Messi and Gonzalo Higuaín. Until they faced Germany.




I thought Messi was too young to lead his team to the final. If he’ll be healthy, Messi will be just ripe in the next Mondeal. Then he will have to face Brazil.

The tragic figure of this tournament is Asamoah Gyan. He could have put the first ever African team in the semi finals. But his last-minute penalty miss led to a penalty shoot-out where the superior Uruguayan keeper Muslera stopped two penalties and led his team to the semis.


Asamoah Gyan (Ghana)


Fernando Muslera (Uruguay)

I was very impressed with the referee in this game, Olegario Benquerença. It was not an easy game yet the Portuguese referee was on spot all the time, close to events, sharp eye, making decisive and correct decisions. We have seen so many refereeing mistakes in this Mondeal. It is a treat to watch Mr Benquerenחa in action. More info at http://worldreferee.com/site/copy.php?linkID=514&linkType=referee&contextType=b io

The first semi-final ended 3:2 to the Netherlands over Uruguay that missed Suarez. Giovanni Van Bronckhorst scored a terrific goal in the 18th minute. This was THE goal of the tournament. Wesley Sneijder and Robben added two more while Forlan and Pereira scored for Uruguay.

The key factor in the second semi-final between Germany and Spain was containing the German attack. Spain enjoyed the fact that Thomas Muller did not play due to yellow cards. With him out, the German attack suffered a huge drawback. One decisive goal by Puyol was enough.

In the first time in the world cup history the Netherlands met the European Cup holder Spain. Both teams never won the cup, and Spain never reached this stage. In a way, the final typified this Mondeal. It was a tactical, physical game, where after an exhausting struggle talent prevailed over tactics. Holland came to destroy the Spanish passing game, basing themselves on strong defence and Sneijder and Robben’s sparks of genius.
Eight Dutch players received nine yellow cards. Indeed, it was after John Heittinga received his second yellow and was ejected from the pitch that Spain was able to exploit the hole in defence. Iniesta scored the world champion goal on the 116 minute in extra time.

Spain deservedly won the championship. It has the best goal keeper in the world, Casillas, the best midfielder in the world Xavi, and one of the best strikers in the world Villa, with a very good supporting team. Seven Barcelona players are in the starting lineup: Pique, Puyol, Busquets, Iniesta, Xavi, Villa and Pedro. They have been playing together, know one another, and have vast experience in international football, winning all the major trophies in the world on both club and nation levels.

Germany finished third, beating Uruguay 3:2 with goals from the most exciting Thomas Muller (who is only 21 yet plays like a 30 year-old), the wonderful defender Marcell Jansen (25), and the midfielder Sami Khedira (23). Diego Forlan, who had a magnificent tournament, and Edinson Cavani scored for Uruguay.

Germany played the most entertaining games in this tournament. In four years time, Germany will have an experienced and most talented team that will sure compete against the host Brazil, and Messi’s Argentina for the world title. Here is my 2010 team in a 1-4:3:3 formation:

Goalkeeper:


Iker Casillas (Spain)

Defenders:


Philip Lahm (Germany)


Carles Puyol (Spain)


Per Mertesacker (Germany)


Joan Capdevila (Spain)

Midfielders:


Xavi Hernandez (Spain)


Wesley Sneijder (The Netherlands)


Thomas Mueller (Germany)

Forwards:


David Villa (Spain)


Miroslav Klose (Germany)


Diego Forlan (Uruguay)

Subs:
Fernando Muslera (Uruguay)
Maicon (Brazil)
Maximiliano Pereira (Uruguay)
Kaka (Brazil)
Bastian Schweinsteiger (Germany)
Andres Iniesta (Spain)
Arjen Robben (The Netherlands)
Luis Suarez (Uruguay)

Compare this team to my 2006 team:

Goalkeeper:

Gianluigi Buffon (Italy)

Defenders:
Philip Lahm (Germany)
Fabio Cannavaro (Italy)
Lúcio (Brazil)
Gianluca Zambrotta (Italy)

Midfielders:

Andrea Pirlo (Italy)
Claude Makelele (France)
Juan Romבn Riquelme (Argentina)
Zinedine Zidane (France)

Forwards:

Miroslav Klose (Germany)
Thierry Henry (France)

Subs:

Jens Lehmann (Germany)
Ricardo (Portugal)
Miguel (Portugal)
Francesco Totti (Italy)
Ivan Gennaro Gattuso (Italy)
Franck Ribery (France)
Lukas Podolski (Germany)

The only two players who kept their place in the best eleven are Philip Lahm and Miroslav Klose, both from Germany.

One last word about England: The English team in recent years (that is, since 1966…) lacked killer instinct. Fabio Capello was brought to instill this instinct in them, and it did this until reaching South Africa. England dominated the group leading to the World Cup, but in SA the players did not show even one good game. No energy. No zeal. No desire to play the game as they know so well. Some players did not show up until the last whistle in the game v. Germany, where Germany ousted England 4:1, a decisive victory that highlighted the English weaknesses, first and foremost poor defence.
England defence does not have the quality players it has in midfield and attack.

Movie

The Secret in Their Eyes

"The Secret in Their Eyes" (El secreto de sus ojos) encapsulates the reasons why I love cinema. It has all that I cherish: A good story, wonderful actors, captivating music, excellent editing, solid photography.

Essentially, the film is about two love stories. Ricardo Darin as a retired prosecutor who sets out to write a book after he is haunted by a 25-year-old rape and murder case. He is haunted by this case because he never encountered a person who loves a woman to the extent that the widowed husband loved his murdered, beautiful life. This is one circle of love. The second is his own, unfulfilled love to his boss, an attractive, smart woman. She was his superior. He is a proud man. It was too complicated for him to pursue with the utmost conviction that is required to consummate such love. It takes time, twenty five years, experience, and knowledge of what is needed to do the right thing, get a second chance, and fulfill the desire of two people who never uttered what they both felt, and suspected of the other.

The murder was gruesome. The identity of the murderer is revealed. We do not know what happened to him as his body was never found. The plot provides ample hints so when his whereabouts revealed we are not really surprised. It is simply another manifestation of the power of love, and the sense of revenge.



This film won last year’s Oscar for the best foreign film, for good reasons. Director Juan Jose Campanella did a brilliant job in bringing Eduardo Sacheri's novel La pregunta de sus ojos (The Question in Their Eyes) to the screen. Actors Ricardo Darin, Soledad Villamil and Javier Gordino are magnificent. Composers Emilio Kauderer and Federico Jusid offer a subdued and tragic soundtrack, filled with delicate piano, sorrowful violin playing, and strings that unfold the plot in Adagio for Strings style. Performed by the Bulgarian Symphony, the score has been awarded as best in Argentina, Spain, and other countries.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcHmXXYqirE
http://www.emusic.com/album/Emilio-Kauderer-Federico-Jusid-The-Secret-In-Their-
Eyes-MP3-Download/11889403.html

Monthly Poem

Affection

The earth that made the rose,
She also is thy mother, and not I.
The flame wherewith thy maiden spirit glows
Was lighted at no hearth that I sit by.
I am as far below as heaven above thee.
Were I thine angel, more I could not love thee.
Bid me defend thee!
Thy danger over-human strength shall lend me,
A hand of iron and a heart of steel,
To strike, to wound, to slay, and not to feel.
But if you chide me,
I am a weak, defenceless child beside thee.

Mary Elizabeth Coleridge

More poems from Mary Elizabeth Coleridge

Light Side

The cultural hub of many parts of Britain is the pub. One cannot speak of life here without speaking of the pub which for many is as important as family. For some, it is family. Understandably, the English have many pub jokes. Here is yet another one.

Three men discussing their sex lives in a pub.

The first says: When my wife does sex, she shouts and screams so loud, wakening up the kids.

The second says: When my wife does sex, she shouts and screams so loud, wakening all our neighbours.

The third says: When my wife does sex, she shouts and screams so loud I can hear her here in the pub.

Peace and love, joyful vacance,

Yours as ever,

Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/

People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at
r.cohen-almagor@hull.ac.uk