Barghouti, Amnesty and travesty .

 

by Martin Sherman

 

The Israeli occupation changed local agriculture profoundly. It introduced modern technology, including mechanization, precision tillage, pest control, plastic covering of crops for temperature control, high yielding varieties, postharvest processing of produce, marketing and export outlets. It also introduced efficient methods of irrigation, including sprinkler and especially drip irrigation. Consequently, output increased greatly, and farming was transformed from a subsistence enterprise to a commercial industry. — Daniel Hillel, Rivers of Eden, Oxford University Press, 1994

The above excerpt is sufficient to heap richly-deserved ridicule on the recent Amnesty International report claiming that Israel's avaricious water policy has gravely compromised Palestinians' human rights. Miraculously, the Amnesty report was published to coincide perfectly with a vicious crusade launched across US campuses by Omar Barghouti, a Tel Aviv University graduate student, campaigning for - among other things - the boycott of Tel Aviv University, together with the entire Israeli academic establishment (avowed leftists and all).

By some curious coincidence, one of the issues raised by Barghouti to justify the BDS (boycott-cum-divestment-cum-sanctions) campaign was Israel's alleged exploitation of water resources to implement a process of "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid." Predictably - if not persuasively - Amnesty denied any hint of collusion with the Barghouti initiative, emotively entitled "Palestine: Thirsting for Justice."

The facts, however, paint a very different - indeed antithetical - picture to that painted by the A/B (Amnesty/Barghouti) duo. For by every conceivable measure of consumption of fresh water, the lot of the Palestinians has improved dramatically - indeed beyond all recognition - since 1967 under Israeli administration, whether it be overall consumption, per capita consumption, consumption relative to Israel/Israelis, conveyance of running water to households, area under agricultural cultivation or size of the agricultural product.

In the period 1967-2006 the overall annual consumption of the Palestinians in the West Bank grew by 300 percent - from 60 million cubic meters to 180 million cu.m. The annual per capita consumption in the same period rose by almost 15% - from 86 cu.m. to 100 cu.m. By contrast the overall consumption by Israel dropped by 15% (from 1411 million cu.m. to 1211 million cu.m.), while the per capita consumption plummeted an amazing 300% from 508 cu.m. to 170 cu.m. - a decrease made possible not only by more efficient usage but also massive replacement of fresh water by recycled sewage for agricultural irrigation and of naturally occurring water by artificially produced (desalinated) water for domestic use. The Palestinians, by contrast, have steadfastly refused to undertake agreed upon sewage purification plants, allowing untreated effluents to endanger "downstream" Israeli supplies.

Moreover, from 1967 to the years preceding Oslo, the Palestinian household consumption of water rose dramatically under Israeli rule - by almost 600%, significantly higher than in Israel where domestic consumption in the same period rose by approximately 230%. But not only did consumption by households improve, so did conveyance to households. In 1967 only 50 West Bank villages were connected to a running water system whereas by the early 1990s the number rose to 260.
 

LIKEWISE, AS can be inferred by the opening citation from Hillel, there was a dramatic enhancement of agricultural performance - even though water allocations were not increased. This was facilitated by more advanced methods of cultivation/irrigation introduced under Israeli rule. (In this regard it should be remembered that Israeli farmers have had their water allocations significantly reduced since 1967.) This resulted in an increase of the cultivated area by about 160% and of the agricultural product by 1200%.

Furthermore, the malicious and mendacious claims that the luscious lawns and shimmering swimming pools in the Jewish settlements are unfairly and provocatively depriving Palestinians of water are belied by a single statistic. For Israel in fact conveys more water from inside the pre-1967 borders into the West Bank (nearly 56 million cu.m.) than the total consumption of the entire Jewish population in the settlements across the Green Line ( just over 48 million cu.m.).

In other words, there is a net inflow of water from pre-1967 Israel to the Palestinians which more than compensates for the sorely-maligned lawns and swimming pools. (In addition, Israel conveys about 5 million cu.m. to Gaza in accordance with the provisions of the Oslo Accords.) All these facts are studiously omitted from the Amnesty report - and from Barghouti's public appearances.

Indeed it is intriguing to note striking similarities between the language used and the issues raised in the document produced by Amnesty and in the advance fliers publicizing the allegedly unconnected Barghouti appearances. Both, for example, state that Israel is using around 80% of the aquifer leaving the Palestinians "with what is left."

This assertion is factually accurate but meaningless in terms of its significance and misleading in terms of its presentation. For while is indeed true that Israel uses 80% of the waters of the aquifer today, in the pre-occupation times - before 1967 - it utilized 90% of these waters which flow naturally into the Coastal Plain and the Jezreel Valley. In other words, since the advent of occupation, there is actually more water available from the aquifer to the Palestinians - because of more efficient utilization and advances in irrigation techniques, increased use of recycled sewage and desalination by Israel.

Moreover while the A/B claims that per capita consumption of water by Israelis is much higher than that of the Palestinian population are true, this is principally a result of differences in demand (rather than supply) due to differences in lifestyles. Similarly, different rates of consumption occur between the Jewish and Arab populations within pre-1967 Israel - and between different socioeconomic groups within the Jewish population - without anyone raising the claim that this is the result of purposeful deprivation.
 

WITH REGARD to supply stoppages (which by the way also regularly occur in Arab capitals such as Amman and Damascus), it should be stressed that Israel does not supply final Palestinian consumers. Via its water utility Mekorot, Israel supplies Palestinian providers (such the PA, municipalities and local and private water companies). It is these entities which deliver the water to the final consumers, and it is they who initiate the overwhelming majority of stoppages. Typically these stoppages are due to theft, poor infrastructure maintenance or unpaid bills - a feature which even the Amnesty report is forced to grudgingly acknowledge.

Amnesty/Barghouti present a stream of amazingly similar heart-rending anecdotal evidence - typically presented without any independent corroboration - regarding the desperate distress of individual Palestinians, allegedly the victims of Israel's deliberate policy of deprivation. These, however, are indicative neither of the intentions nor the implications of overall policy. Significantly, an Israel response is seldom presented and when one is, it is laconically dismissed as untruthful by the author(s).

Moreover, even if there is some truth in these scattered accounts of local IDF abuse, they cannot be taken as representative of wider realities which the preceding figures clearly demonstrate. Indeed, little reflection is needed to realize the alleged destruction of individual cisterns and rooftop tanks would be a singularly ineffective method to use water as a depopulating technique when far more pervasive options are available.

In an incredibly mindless statement on its Web site, reflecting either immense ignorance or deliberate disregard of hydrological realities, Amnesty issues a demand which if ever implemented would spell certain doom for the aquifer - for Israelis and Palestinians alike: "Israel must... immediately lift all the restrictions it imposes on Palestinians' access to water..."

One can hardly wait for the next Amnesty report on inequitable use of shared water resources and for it to direct the same demands at, say, Egypt, whose coercive policy preventing making any upstream riparian use of the Nile flowing through their sovereign territory is causing widespread famine and starvation. This is especially acute in Ethiopia - which contributes most of the water to the Nile compared to Egypt's zero contribution.

One assumes that such a report must already be under preparation, for one can hardly believe that Amnesty would be guilty of applying a double standard to Israel, could one?

 

 

Martin Sherman

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Summary of Israel's Legal Rights to Judea and Samaria.

 

by Ted Belman

  

Background:

The Middle East was a part of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled it some 400 years when World War I  broke out. The Ottomans allied themselves with Germany. And so it was that, when the war ended, the Ottomans had lost their land. As part of the readjustments, the map of the huge area we call the Middle East was reconfigured. The original plan was to create a Jewish state in what the British called Mandatory Palestine (some 45,000 square miles on both sides of the Jordan river) and an Arab state in the rest of the region. In 1922, the British put the Hashemite family in charge of "administering" the area on the east side of the Jordan -- some 78% of the land destined to be the Jewish state -- leaving the Jews with some 8,840 square miles, 1/10 of 1% of the area of the Middle East, for a future homeland. The land holdings of the 22 Arab League countries, in contrast, is 6,145,389 square miles.

 

1.  According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect. [1]

The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home [*] in what is now the Land of Israel.

1. The 1920 San Remo Resolution

This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East and giving its land to its original inhabitants.

The relevant resolution reads as follows:

"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

The San Remo Resolution also bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which declares that it is "a sacred trust of civilization" to provide for the well-being and development of colonies and territories whose inhabitants are "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." Specifically, a resolution was formulated to create a Mandate to form a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Professor Jacques Gauthier wrote that the San Remo treaty specifically notes that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - but says nothing about any "political" rights of the Arabs living there.[2]

2. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine

The League of Nations' resolution creating the Palestine Mandate included the following significant clause: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." No such recognition of Arab rights in Palestine was granted.

3. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

2. The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

3. The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded the and 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

4. In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

1. Drawing the borders of Palestine
2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide
3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

In November 2009, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law, as well as American law. OFICL directer Mark Kaplan said:

"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence, but the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum."

5. The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922, was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine — anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

6. Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.

7. Both the Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process (see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

8. The 1924 Anglo American Convention on Palestine included the whole text of the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate included the Balfour declaration preamble committing to reconstitute Palestine as a National homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and to recognize their historical connection to the land. It did not mention anything about creating an Arab State in Palestine. The Mandate explicitly prohibited ceding any land in Palestine to any foreign powers or changing the terms of the Mandate without the League's expressed permission. That permission had to be unanimously passed by all members. That never occurred.[3]

9. The significance of the above (see #8) is that no decision made by The US or Britain, may be in conflict with the terms of the Mandate or the Anglo American Convention. France, Italy and Japan sat on the San Remo Supreme Council - along with the US and Britain - approving the San Remo decision. After the Supreme Council approved the San Remo decision, the resolution was further approved by the League of Nations and its 51 members. This resolution became a binding international Treaty. The Treaty became Res Judicata. Consequently all the above noted countries are bound by their own approval. Thus they are prevented from changing their approval without Israel's consent.

10. No decision, policy or measure taken by subsequent American administrations may be in conflict with the Terms of the Palestine Mandate. (The sole purpose of the Mandate was-to reconstitute Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish People world-wide and recognize their historical connection with the land.) Under the Doctrine of Estoppels the US is estopped from making policies, taking any steps, measures, spending any monies on policies, which run contrary to its covenants and undertaking under the Anglo-American Convention of 1924, because among other things they are violating US Law.

11. Both their Excellencies, the Emir Faisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions. At different points in history, Emir Faisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim on both sides of the Jordan river and later Abdullah, agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The Supreme Council did not want to approve the final borders of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan until they had the approval of Emir Feisal.[4]

12. All rights emanating from the three international treaties were approved by the League of Nations and inherited by the United Nations. They did not expire. The United Nations had no right to vary them.

The UN has no right to pass a resolution which ran contrary to an existing earlier decision/ resolution on its books.

The UN or Britain are not sovereigns and had no right to change borders at its pleasure.

The same Supreme Council that drew the borders for Iraq Syria and Lebanon, gave Israel the right of to its borders from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This was approved by the League, its members Britain, France, Japan and Italy. They have no right to vary that which they had approved.

13. The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line [the armistice lines after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war], these borders would not have been legally enforceable.

14. The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.

• It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
• The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.
• The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. (Res Judicata). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
• The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.
• No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel were ever challenged or changed;
• In 1923 Britain - the Mandatory and Trustee of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, and of the British American Convention of 1924 - contrary to the explicit terms of the Mandate, ceded the Golan to Syria.[5]

"This treaty which was concluded by the principal powers, in affect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on the League, particularly after it approved it. The League cannot therefore change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that right)"[6]

OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor has stated, "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders. The UN partition plan [1967] was just that -- a plan."

Significant precedents:

1. The Vienna decision on treaties: According to Howard Grief:

Rights gained from Mandates don't cease at the expiration of the Mandate

The principle of law that rights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do not expire with the expiration of that treaty or instrument is now codified in article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Treaty on Treaties). This article states that "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty... does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination".

As a result, Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel remain in full force today under international law.

The South Africa decision on Mandates — Basically says the same thing — Rights gained by a country through a mandate don't expire at the expiration of the mandate.[7]

Article 80 of The UN charter: No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the expiration of the mandate.
 

 

End Notes

[*] Jewish National Home and "homeland for the Jewish people" were a less in-your-face way of saying "Jewish State."

[1] See, for example, this, this, this, this and this, for starters. Other articles can be retrieved by googling for "Howard Grief" and/or "Yoram Shifftan".

OFICL chairman Mark Kaplan has pointed out that IDF's presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.

"Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation. And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that's been out there. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention -- and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions."
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1259243026960&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull).

[2] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis Defense,
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/12/02/an-e-mail-that-is-about-jacques- gauthiers-phd-dissertation-on-the-legal-status-of-jerusalem-an- important-document-to-be-read-by-the-annapolis-process-and-the-un-lawyers/,

[3] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel, pg 204

[4] Jacques Gauthier re: minutes of San Remo Conference.
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/jerusalem-is-jewish-issue.html

[5] Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, pg 236.

[6]  Jacques Gauthier, Thesis, pg 404.

[7]  Jacques Gauthier.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/26079-israel-west-bank-settlements
 

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

In the Trenches: Useful idiots .

 

by David Harris

In 1933, shortly after Adolf Hitler became the German chancellor, the Oxford Union famously adopted a resolution which said "That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country." The measure was passed by a vote of 275 to 153.
 
Winston Churchill reacted by saying that "one could almost feel the curl of contempt upon the lips of the manhood of Germany, Italy, and France when they read the message sent out by Oxford University in the name of Young England."
 
Shortly afterward, his son, Randolph, tried to have the resolution stricken from the books, but the motion was resoundingly defeated by the Oxford Union.

In other words, otherwise bright students at a distinguished British university are capable of foolish things.  At least in this case, it must be said, "Young England" rose to the occasion six years later, when the Second World War began, and revealed its true colors of patriotism, courage and grit.

Recently, another British student union was presented with a controversial proposal. The London School of Economics (LSE) debated whether to seek the twinning of this world-renowned institution with the Islamic University of Gaza (IUG).

After a spirited discussion, the motion was carried by a vote of 161 to 133. The university administration distanced itself from the decision.

 As an alumnus of LSE, I am ashamed of the student action. Sure, LSE has a reputation for feisty politics, but this is taking it a bit far.

 IUG was established in 1978 by none other than Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Yassin, it will be recalled, was the founder of Hamas. In 2007, a New York Times reporter described IUG as "one of the prime means for Hamas to convert Palestinians to its Islamist cause." Indeed, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, IUG "has emerged as a training ground for the political and spiritual leadership of Hamas. Many Hamas leaders who are also academics have taught at the university...."

Yassin was hardly cast in the mold of a Western liberal educator. Among his many public utterances, he declared that "reconciliation with the Jews is a crime" and that "Israel must disappear from the map." He claimed that Israel is, in fact, Muslim land and is to be reserved for those of the faith "until Judgment Day."

And Yassin didn't just limit himself to rhetorical flourishes, either. He pursued "armed struggle" against Israel, targeting civilians and blessing suicide bombers. 

Moreover, in 2007, during the civil war in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah forces, the latter entered the university and found rocket-propelled grenade launchers, rockets, assault rifles and ammunition, all of which was subsequently shown on Palestinian television.

Two years later, Israel struck two IUG buildings which, according to military spokesmen, were used as "a research and development center for Hamas weapons, including Kassam rockets." Those rockets were used to attack indiscriminately Israeli towns and villages near the Gaza border, with the aim of killing and terrorizing residents.

When I first heard the news that the LSE Student Union voted to twin with IUG, I was speechless.

How could students at a world-class university that celebrates the open and respectful exchange of ideas find common cause with the academic standard-bearer of Hamas, a Sharia-based, obscurantist, violent group?

How could they claim solidarity with an institution that is actively involved in a long-term campaign to destroy a neighboring nation - and a democratic one at that?

How could they, living in a world of pluralism, gender equality and sexual freedom, join themselves at the hip to such a regressive, repressive social environment as IUG?

How could they, students of a university which was one of the stepping stones in British society for Jews to gain equality, identify with a school that preaches hatred of Jews and celebrates their murder? 

The answer, I fear, is the bizarre alliance that has emerged in the UK between the keffiyeh-worshiping far left and Islamic extremists.

When neo-fascists come along spouting reactionary slogans about women and gays, the far left unhesitatingly denounces them. But when misogyny and homophobia emanate from the lips of Islamists, they're likely to get a deferential pass from the suddenly culturally-sensitive. 

Ken Livingstone, former London mayor, and George Galloway, Member of Parliament, are two prime examples of what the communists referred to as "useful idiots" - those who, in their ultimate naiveté, would help the extremists ascend to power, only to be the first in line for destruction once the goal was attained. In the case of Livingstone and Galloway, they've rarely met a Middle Eastern radical with whom they couldn't agree. And, of course, they have their counterparts at LSE and on other university campuses, in trade unions and in the media.

The LSE Student Union vote was a sad day for the British academy. It betrays all the values that have made Britain a beacon of liberty and enlightenment. 

One can only hope that this decision will follow the path of the 1933 Oxford Union resolution - and make its way to the dustbin of history as rapidly as possible.

 

David Harris
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Chaos over West’s Iran policy: US intelligence stutters over nuclear programme and Iran rejects uranium exchange proposal.

 

by  Robin Shepherd

US led efforts to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons descended into chaos today as it emerged that Iran had rejected proposals to ship enriched uranium out of the country to prevent Tehran from processing it to weapon's grade and the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) indicated a merely partial reversal of its infamous 2007 "estimate" that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

Iran's rejection of the uranium plan was conveyed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna while developments at the NIC emerged from an exclusive report by the Reuters news agency which quoted unnamed officials as saying they now believed that Iran was researching a nuclear weapons programme but not necessarily developing one:

"Basically, we're talking about research (resuming) — not about the Iranians barrelling full steam ahead on a bomb program," a U.S. official was quoted by Reuters as saying on condition of anonymity.

Taking these two developments together, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Western policy on Iran's nuclear programme has all but fallen apart.

Against the background of a US president whose foreign policy smacks of weakness to every dictatorship in the world, Ahmadinejad and company must now be laughing their socks off. Every broken promise on their nuclear programme has elicited next to nothing in terms of meaningful sanctions, and the leading US intelligence gatherers are telling the president that there's no real urgency about a weapons programme in any case.

At this stage in the game this is no laughing matter. The nuclear ambitions of an Islamist despotism which has genocidal intentions against Israel, which is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, which has hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East and which poses a long term threat to the security of the wider West are simply being allowed to press forward without threat or hindrance.

There are no easy solutions to this problem. But the way things are going, it looks more and more certain that we are now sleep walking our way to a nuclear armed Iran.

 

Robin Shepherd

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

When the Resistance Passes It's Expiry Date.

 

by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

At the UNESCO palace in Beirut, Arab resistance groups were reunited, and each resistance leader was able to recall his heroism [during the Forum of Arab and International Support for the Resistance]. The leader of Lebanese resistance, [Hezbollah chief] Hassan Nasrallah attended the conference via a video-link, while Iraqi resistance leader Sheikh Harith al-Dari, and Palestinian resistance leader Khalid Mishal attended in person, along with other figures such as [Lebanese politician] Selim al-Hoss, whose resistance affiliated is not yet known.

The word resistance has become obsolete with time and as a result of misuse, and so this word has lost its sanctity. How can someone respect the resistance in Iraq when witnessing thousands of innocent victims killed as a result of the deliberate targeting of schools, markets, residential areas, and civilian and governmental areas? How can the resistance be sacred in Palestine when on the one hand the Palestinians are fighting against one another, whilst at the same time [one Palestinian faction] is guarding the Israeli borer against infiltration by other resistance elements? Why is it that today in Lebanon, the resistance is not playing this role, but is ruling the people of Lebanon by force, and this is almost nine years after Israeli troops withdrew from the country?

This is the state of the resistance today. This is the state of any type of resistance that passes its expiry date, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon whose resistance became an internal problem after the movement was practically transformed into a local militia [following the Israeli withdrawal]. The resistance is just a title, and it seems that its real job is to dominate the internal situation through force of arms and by silencing the opposition in the name of confronting the enemy. In Palestine, where there is occupation and an armed enemy, some resistance factions have become foreign tools.

They now seem to epitomize retired war generals in their military uniform and with their medals. Those active in the resistance know that this word lost its sanctity after it lost its job. In fact the meaning of this word had reversed and now has bad connotations when it is purposefully imposed as is the case with Hezbollah today which has become a movement that signifies sectarianism, or the Senior Council of Islamic Scholars, which is not a Council and has no scholars, but in fact is a façade to justify violence in Iraq.

Let's take the Algerian resistance for example, this ended in all practicality in 1962 after a ceasefire agreement was signed with the French, however the resistance leaders considered themselves to be above the fray. The resistance continued to remind the public of its efforts to win them liberation, therefore allowing it to rule the country and enjoy special privileges even 30 years after the country was liberated from French colonial rule. Nobody dared to voice opposition to this until the early 90s following the initiation of a political open-door policy. I have heard criticism against the privileges enjoyed by resistance members, such as a monopoly on certain jobs, like taxi driving, as well as monthly expenses between $80 and $800. Criticism of this reached the point that doubts were cast on the veracity of resistance members and it was rumored that some resistance members only entered the records [as being resistance fighters] after the war ended. After this, resistance fighters had to have three witnesses if they wanted to be included on the governmental list, which is an attractive prospect due to the financial privileges offered to resistance members.

The Palestinian resistance in Lebanon, like Hezbollah today, was also like something sacred that could not be criticized. However the opposite applies today and the Lebanese leadership raced to warn against the Palestinian presence in Lebanon, regardless of whether these Palestinians are armed or unarmed.

 

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Israel is Not Responsible for the "Siege" on Gaza.

 

By Avi Tarengo  

 

Amnesty International has called on Israel to end “the siege on the Gaza Strip”. The problem with this is that one word, “Egypt”, is missing. According to Amnesty, the Gaza Strip has no opening to the world other than the border with Israel. The timing of the campaign is not coincidental: “The Mubarak Line” which is being established on the Egypt-Gaza Strip border is an excellent opportunity to place responsibilities towards the civilian population of Gaza on Israel’s shoulders.

 

 Does Israel have any policy regarding the Gaza Strip? Meaningful policy is supposed to take into account Israel's long-term interests, including its perception by the world. Five years ago, Israel vacated its citizens and army and left Gazans a well-developed economical and agricultural infrastructure. Since the disengagement, Israeli “policy” towards the Gaza Strip has been outlined by a series of symbolic and random decisions, most of them contradicting one another. The indecision regarding Israel’s position in the Gaza Strip can be expressed by the lack of an answer to this simple question: Is Israel still the “occupying force” in the Gaza Strip? The lack of a clear policy is what allowed Judge Goldstone to place the responsibility on Israel as the “occupying force” which is supposed to take care of all the needs of the Strip’s residents.

 

 Unlike Israel, Egypt administrates a clear policy, which slowly but consistently advances Egypt towards achieving its goals. “The Mubarak Line” is not meant to serve Israel’s interests nor is it meant to stop the smuggling of rockets to the Gaza Strip, as Egyptian ambassador Al Hadidi explained so well to the Turks (who complained of the difficulties in transferring aid to the Gaza Strip through Egypt): “Our goal is to prevent the detachment of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank. The Gaza Strip must remain under the status of Territory considered occupied by Israel, and the humanitarian aid must come from there - not from Egypt. Recognizing Gaza as an independent entity will damage Palestinian unity and will harm the Palestinians’ cause – remove it from the world’s agenda.”

 

The Egyptian ambassador is very much aware of what he is saying: When two weeks ago a “supply convoy” by activists making its way to the Gaza Strip was blocked in Egypt, it did not lead to angry articles in the world press. This is in contrast to a nonstop worldwide protest about how Israel is supposedly imposing a “siege”. The world press considers any difference in opinion between Egyptian authorities and Hamas authorities as an internal Arab issue, one of many local conflicts which are not worthy of coverage by the international press - and this is precisely what Egypt is worried about: That the split between Hamas’ regime in the Gaza Strip and the Fatah’s regime in the West Bank will allow Israel to reduce it's assistance to the Gaza Strip which would naturally impose this burden on Gaza southern neighbor – Egypt.

 

It is surprising that the Egyptians attribute to Israel the ability to administrate a policy. Had they checked, they would have found that the issue of completing the civic disengagement from Gaza has been routinely removed from Israeli government agenda due to constrains placed by economic interests.

 

 

Rice Yes, Pasta No

 

Although Israel is proud of the fact that the scope of aid to the Gaza Strip has increased by a whopping 28% during 2009, the worldwide press and even the American senate are complaining about the decision to allow rice into the Strip but to disallow the transfer of pasta. This way, the worldwide press can write about the “Israeli siege” (which naturally leads to the reversal of this specific decision).

 

In response to the criticism, Israel is now opening the passageways in order to import strawberries from the Gaza Strip (imports which will add foreign currencies to Hamas’ regime), allows export of flowers from Gaza to Europe and increases the transfer of funds in cash from the EU into Gaza bank accounts. At the same time, individuals with economical interests in Israel continue to profit by transferring apples and fuel to the Gaza market as well as profiteering from monetary transactions with Gaza banks.

 

Mubarak and Aboul Gheit can stop worrying - Israel's policy consists of an attempt to imagine that we are the Gaza Strip’s “Big Brother”, to “show Hamas” and the entire world that "we are still in control", although this statement has absolutely no bearing in facts or create any meaningful political gain for Israel.

 

For this purpose, Israel continues to maintain the “customs envelope” which is common to Israel and Gaza, and the Bank of Israel takes care in preventing the collapse of the banks in Hamastan by regular infusion of cash – cash which actually finances the booming tunnel trade.

 

 

Hamas - A Member Group of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

The construction of the Mubarak Line was intended to serve an additional Egyptian interest: In Egypt, Mubarak knows well how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood and keep it under a tight leash (Why doesn't Amnesty focus on the question of how Egypt deals with in-house opposition?). But to deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Egypt must apply external control: The Mubarak Line gives Egypt the opportunity to use a carrot and stick approach by modulating the amount of materials smuggled. Whenever Hamas’ policy is not to Egypt’s liking, Egyptian police tightens the screws, conducts operations to seize goods and the Gaza economy is pressured. The pressure is only removed when Hamas understands the message and straightens itself according to Egyptian policy. The smuggling tap is slowly opened. Egypt would never fully close or fully open the smuggling tap: The modulation is a key to effective external control over Hamas and directing it to operate according to Egypt desire.

 

The Egyptians use similar tactics regarding the opening of the Rafah border: Using an excuse that The PA (so called "President Abu Mazen’s”) forces are the only force allowed to operate border passport control, Egypt has refused to open the border for the past three years (causing some to point the blame at Israel). Of course this creates an impossible situation, so to alleviate the "humanitarian situation" Egypt opens the border for Gazans who are "stranded" at the border. Such openings are done almost every week but are described by Egypt as “one-time only” – to justify the fact that the opening takes place without the presence of the PA forces.

 

The result is that thousands of Gazans pass through the crossing every month, but only when Egypt coordinates this “abnormally” with Hamas’ Interior Ministry. The crossing opens and closes at Egypt’s will. How does Amnesty call this phenomenon, which repeats itself every week for the past 36 months? “The Israeli Siege on Gaza”.

 

 

Avi Tarengo is an Israeli researcher and journalist, and an expert on terror financing.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Earthquake in Massachusetts.

 

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

 

Scott Brown's victory constitutes an unprecedented earthquake in US politics.

 

If a Massachusetts Senate seat is not safe, then no House, Senate or White House seat is safe anymore!

 

Scott Brown's victory dealt a severe blow to the Democratic Party in its own Flag Ship, Massachusetts, the state of the Kennedy family and Tip O'Neil, the state which introduced the health care reform, the only state which voted for McGovern in 1972, the state which had not elected a Republican Senator since Ed Brooke in 1972, the state which accorded President Obama a 26% margin in 2008, a state where only 12% of the registered voters are Republicans.

 

Brown's election highlights a victory of the unique US democracy, which evolves around constituents and not around the President, Congress or political parties.  Massachusetts voters supported Brown in defiance of the Republican machine, which did not consider him a worthy candidate at the beginning of the race, and in defiance of the Democratic machine, which attempted to discredit him.

 

Brown's victory is an indicator of Obama's desertion by Independents, who represent 51% of the Massachusetts electorate and 33% of US voters. From a 31% deficit 45 days ago, Brown surged ahead by 4% due to the Independent bloc, which voted Obama in 2008, was frustrated by Obama's performance in 2009 and considers Scott Brown an effective venue to send a loud warning to the White House.

 

Brown's victory will cause after-shocks throughout the USA in general and in the White House, 100 Senate offices and 435 House offices in particular.  The victory has adrenalized Republicans, ahead of the spring 2010 primaries and the November 2010 congressional and gubernatorial election.  It entices better candidates to enter the Republican primaries and generates more campaign contributions to Republican war chests.  On the other hand, it is already causing sleepless nights for Democratic incumbents and increases the potential for retirement and possible switchovers among moderate and conservative Democrats. The closer they get to November, the closer they get to their constituents, and therefore the farther away they may want to get from the President.

 

Brown's victory – on the day of Obama's first Presidential anniversary – confirms that the November 2009 election was indeed a validation of Obama's collapse in public opinion, of the growing public disappointment in Obama's character and capabilities and of Obama's increasing vulnerability at home and abroad.  Brown targeted for criticism Obama's domestic and international policies.  The Senator-elect represents the majority of the US public, which suspects – rightly or wrongly - that Obama is about to defy an American ethos by increasing taxes, exacerbating the budget deficit and expanding government involvement in the economy.  Brown has also criticized the White House soft position on Islamic terrorism and harsh attitude toward the CIA: "The President should bolster the armed forces and not bolster legal defense of terrorists." 

 

Brown's victory was achieved in spite of – and due to – the intense involvement of White House Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel, in Obama's policy-making and in the Massachusetts election.  Once again, it was evident that – in the US political arena - arrogance, rudeness, scorn and aggression drive voters away from elected officials.  It constitutes a lethal boomerang.

 

Brown's election represents the victory of mainstream America's worldview over the worldview of President Obama. Brown represents non-apologetic patriotism, belief in liberty for the people and checks and balances for the government, Judeo-Christian values, pride in the moral, military, technological and economic US exceptionalism, reservations about the UN and the European state-of-mind, determination to defeat – and not to engage – rogue regimes, supporting mutually-beneficial cooperation with allies, which are bonded by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

 

 

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.