In this edition of our monthly digest MEMO identifies five issues which received extensive media coverage in Britain throughout February; the verbal exchanges and threats between Israeli and Syrian officials; Mossad's murder of Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in Dubai and the resultant passport scandal; Israel's continued efforts to lobby for a change of British laws on universal jurisdiction (ostensibly to protect its officials); attempts by Israeli lobbyists to bar pro-Palestinian academics from speaking on British campuses; and the financial/sex scandal that engulfed the upper strata of the Palestinian Authority following disclosures by a former anti-corruption chief.
In addition, we take a look at how the New York Times has been covering events in Palestine-Israel, and focus on what the Israeli media reported - or chose not to report - to enlighten their readers, including the first known mainstream media reference to MEMO in the Zionist state. 
The 60 Year Face-off Continues; Renewed Tensions between Syria and Israel
Tensions between long time adversaries Syria and Israel came to a head this month following an outburst of incendiary remarks and threats by the ultra-nationalist Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. This development has led to speculation of the region being plunged into another war.
Commenting on the remarks Syria's foreign minister, Walid Moallem, stated that should war break out at this particular point in time, even if it were waged just against Syria or Southern Lebanon, it would become widespread.
Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in an apparent attempt to diffuse the situation asked all ministers to refrain from commenting on the Syrian issue. His office also released a statement reiterating Israel's interest in pursuing peace and carrying out diplomatic negotiations with Syria without preconditions. It also stated that Israel will continue to act decisively against any threats.
The recent spat has brought a number of key regional issues to the fore. Israel's political leadership and defence establishment are deeply divided over the methods of securing peace with Syria. While senior members in the military believe it can be achieved through a deal to include the return of Syria's Golan Heights and thereby remove it from its current alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, others, such as Avigdor Lieberman, are of the opinion that force should be used to break the alliance. Although the Prime Minister would like a peace deal, he does not want to return the Golan Heights. The alternative to a peace deal appears to be a very risky war for Israel on three fronts; Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Syria is prepared to go to the negotiating table with Israel providing it accedes to its demand but is equally prepared to go to war.
The Mossad Murder of Mabhouh & the Passport Affair
Hamas military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, 49, was murdered in his hotel room in Dubai on the 20th January. Though initially hailed as a success the operation has caused deep embarrassment for a number of western countries whose passports were used by the killers. Following weeks of investigation the gulf state authorities have announced their intent to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Israel's prime minister and head of its external intelligence agency, Mossad.
All the suspects named by the Dubai authorities used forged European travel documents and had left the UAE within 19 hours of their arrival, flying to locations across Europe and Asia. Austria has been suggested as the gangs "command center." Twelve of the assassins carried British passports, five had French documents and the remainder travelled using Irish, German and Australian documents. The conspirators also included two Palestinians who are currently in Dubai's custody and a potential third Palestinian along with 3 women.
The British response to this flagrant abuse of their passports, an important symbol of British sovereignty, has been lackadaisical to say the least. Despite a row with Israel over similar abuses in 1987 after which they pledged never to repeat such offences, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman was confident that Israel had no cause for concern and that British-Israeli relations would not be affected in spite of this gross violation of trust. Indeed, Britain stopped short of accusing Israel but did publicly summon its ambassador to London in order to "share information" to no avail. Reports suggest that Britain was tipped-off before hand and informed that the assassin would be traveling on British documents however this has been denied by Whitehall. The six British passports identified early in the investigation had all been issued by Britain and the names and numbers had not been altered, however, the photographs and signatures had been changed. Even though the Dubai authorities informed Britain of this passport scandal before going public with it, they failed to react to the information for almost a week. So far they have only been able to promise "a thorough investigation" involving the Special Organized Crime Association and perhaps beyond SOCA's remit. The EU has strongly condemned the use of European passports.
There have been calls inside Israel to investigate Mossad's use of stolen identities, and the head of the organization has been criticized and encouraged to step down over the clumsy operation that threatens to alienate its European allies who will now want answers. Yet, on the other hand, the Former Foreign Minister and current head of the opposition party, Tzipi Livni, who herself once worked for Mossad, has praised the killing and mocked European outrage over the misuse of their passports.
Al-Mabhouh's murder is but one example of Israel's catalogue of extra-judicial killings that stretches back decades and is based on motives of revenge and the maintenance of control by instilling deep fear. However, its methods now threaten to backfire spectacularly and to drag Britain, along with it, into a quagmire of murder, deceit, war crimes and oppression. 
Tzipi Livni and Attempts to Force Changes to British Law
The government has come under increasing pressure from groups campaigning to urgently change British Universal Jurisdiction laws before the next general elections. This push is specifically on account of the arrest warrant issued last December by Westminster Magistrates Court for the arrest of Israel 's Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who is accused of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity and as such cannot travel to the UK without fear of arrest. David Milliband has promised to 'fix' British law in her favour and more recently, Gordon Brown has also pledged his support for Livni and the government's commitment to find a solution to the issue.
In response to the possibility of being arrested in Britain, Livni was nonchalant and went so far as to arrogantly propose a visit simply to 'test' our process for issuing arrest warrants for alleged war criminals. She also said that Britain knew that they had to change their laws just as many other European countries had been forced to do. Her response to the recent events in Dubai and the associated passport scandal has been similarly derisive. She praised the killing and mocked the criticism Israel had come under from the international community for the assassination saying "what was disproportionate this time?" "Was there a disproportionate use of passports?" Her statements not only reveal a presumption of automatic immunity for Israelis, but they also underscore a blatant disregard for British sovereignty.
As such, proposals to change the law to suit Israeli dictates have justifiably come under fierce criticism from the general public and from prominent human rights lawyers and organisations as well as politicians on Labour's back benches. Therefore, to change the law at this time and for this purpose would be a travesty detrimental to British interests both at home and abroad. A change in the law in the wake of the passports murder scandal would suck Britain into the cauldron of the Middle East Conflict as active accomplices in Israel's campaign of violent international crime that threatens to spread to our shores. Britain should seriously reconsider its stance as an urgent matter of state security. 
Western Campuses and Protest
Middle Eastern politics threatened to spill over onto western university campuses this month when a row between campus supporters of the state of Israel began feuding with supporters of Palestinian human rights. The situation was exasperated through attempts to block open debate and stifle free speech in order to limit access to facts and ideas that are inconvenient to Israel.
The feud began when the Israel Society at Cambridge University cancelled an invitation it had extended to the rabidly racist and highly controversial "Islamophobic hate speaker" Benny Morris. Fellow students at the University had complained about the Israeli historian's visit which they felt was "insulting, threatening to Arab and Muslim students in particular and also goes against the spirit of CUSU's stated anti-Islamophobia policy." It was also asserted that to let Morris speak was to give racism a platform. However, Morris' invitation was part of a calculated strategy aimed at pre-empting visits to various university campuses around England by advocates of the Palestinian cause. Having withdrawn Morris' invitation, the Israel Society planned to demand the withdrawal of invitations by the Islamic Society to Dr. Daud Abdullah, an academic and Deputy Secretary General of MCB and Dr. Azzam Tamimi, Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London.
These underhanded tactics endeavoured to establish a bizarre link between advocates of Palestinian human rights and the likes of Benny Morris whose racist views on Palestinians stem from a belief in their genetic and cultural inferiority and who has justified and advocated their ethnic cleansing. Through the creation of such a link as well as making erroneous allegations, it was intended that the de-legitimisation of particular ideas and individuals could be quietly achieved while simultaneously suppressing the voice of the opposition.
Across the pond, Israel's U.S. Ambassador, Michael Oren, was heckled during a visit to the University of California where he was interrupted several times by individuals shouting "killers" and "how many Palestinians did you kill?" Students at the university publicly condemned the visit beforehand stating: "We resent that the Law School and the Political Science Department on our campus have agreed to cosponsor a public figure that represents a state that continues to break international and humanitarian law and is condemned by more UN Human Rights Council resolutions than all other countries in the world combined."
Such activities on university campuses, similar to those that took place in protest against the Apartheid regime in South Africa, reflect a deep disgust at the impunity afforded by many western governments to Israel and its plethora of crimes against human rights.
Sycophants, Sex Scandal and Calls to Bring Hamas into the Fold
Following the failure of the Camp David Talks in 2000, the US and the Knesset asserted that Yasser Arafat was an unsuitable partner for peace and needed to be replaced if the process was to move forward along given lines. Mahmoud Abbas, then Prime Minister, was suggested as a suitable replacement. His clean shaven and western-friendly visage was juxtaposed in the media against Yasser Arafat's revolutionary style; his army uniform, kaffiyeh headdress and unkempt beard were decried and thus Abbas was deemed more suitable. As Abbas just now arrives at the realization that Yasser Arafat had perhaps arrived at back then - the complete imbalance of the 'peace process', his ultra-western replacement waits in the wings.
As was once the case with Abbas, current Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, is being assiduously courted by the western and Israeli media as the "internationally respected economist and politician." Lauded as someone with whom Israel 'can work', he is considered pragmatic, realistic and moderate. This is due is no small part to Fayyad having been educated in the US and worked for both the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and the World Bank later becoming the IMF representative to the PA. In addition he has no history of being involved in the revolutionary struggle and seems quite content with his role of institution building despite the impasse on the peace front. At the recent Herziliya conference, he took the opportunity to speak about steps the PA has made to ensure Israel's security and shook hands with Ehud Barak, a man considered by many to have perpetrated war crimes against Palestinians. Worse yet, Israelis have even likened him to Theodore Herzl and David Ben Gurion, not a comparison that would bode well with the general Palestinian population.
Efforts by the US and Israel to install a leader within the PA that will more readily do their bidding and serve their purpose not only strips the Palestinian people of strong legitimate leadership but can never result in a just and lasting peace.
Sex scandal
Footage of a nude Rafiq Husseini, top aide to President Mahmoud Abbas, was inappropriately aired on Israeli television station Channel 10 TV earlier this month amid uproar and outrage in conservative Palestinian society. It allegedly showed him attempting to trade his influence for sex. Former Palestinian intelligence officer, Fahmi Shabaneh, who was appointed by Abbas to investigate corruption in the PA, secretly filmed the footage in collaboration with Husseini's allegedly intended victim. Video equipment had been installed in the unidentified woman's bedroom when she complained of Husseini's inappropriate behavior after approaching him for help with a problem. During the interview with Channel 10 TV, Shabaneh stated that he had approached Abbas with the information but nothing had been done. He also produced documents allegedly showing that Palestinian officials close to Abbas, have stolen millions of dollars in public funds. There have been calls for Husseni to step down and Fatah have promised to look into the matter, however, it has been claimed that Husseini is the victim of a smear campaign by Israel to discredit Abbas. Shabaneh has been denounced as an Israeli collaborator.
Talk to Hamas
Arik Diamant and David Zonsheine, founders of Courage to Refuse, a movement of Israeli reserve soldiers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories, wrote an article in the Guardian this month outlining their arguments as to why they believe Israel should open dialogue with Hamas. They argue that in the wake of the failure of Operation Cast Lead whose aims, contrary to official lines, was to overthrow Hamas, it is Israel's interest to reassess its strategy of non-recognition and to enter into immediate talks with the group to negotiate both a ceasefire and the "core issues" as part of an end-of-conflict agreement.
This stance is based on the fact that Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza, that they have proven willing and capable of enforcing a truce as well as maintaining peace and that a prisoner exchange with them is the only chance of ensuring the safe return of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. They believe that Hamas is a powerful, pragmatic and well organized movement in whom Israel will find a worthy future partner for peace that cannot be ignored. In addition, to enter into negotiations with Hamas would have a pacifying effect on both people and would be an important step toward reconciliation.
The former Head of Near and North African Department of the FCO, Oliver Miles, expressed a similarly urgent need to enter into dialogue with Hamas as an essential part of any peace solution. He argued that the current refusal to accept them as a negotiator in the peace process unless they meet unrealistic preconditions echoes the situation and failures toward peace experienced in the time the PLO and threatens the achievement of any realistic proposals for a two-state solution. Miles argues that as with the PLO, Hamas has often hinted that some of their more unyielding positions toward Israel could change through negotiation.
US-Israeli relations: a belated reassessment on the horizon?
America's "sacrosanct" policy towards Israel has evolved over the years from the original sympathetic desire to help the survivors of Europe's anti-Jewish pogroms, to today's unusual bilateral relationship, which has had serious ramifications for America's international position. This "special" relationship has been manifested in a number of ways that have not only raised eyebrows worldwide but also has seen the growing influence of the Zionist lobby on US domestic and international policies.
Critical debates about Israel have usual emerged from Arab, European and even South American states; it is only recently that a serious debate has now started where it really matters for this issue: in the USA. Political observers and humanitarian activists are used to being confronted with the unconditional support given to Israel from most American politicians, academics and the media. Post-Gaza invasion, however, we are beginning to see more condemnatory voices emerging across North America. Public debates have taken place questioning the relationship that has often sidelined US domestic policies and national interests for those of the state of Israel; such debates are frequently ignored by Israeli commentators.
One that took place was Intelligence squared debate at New York University where the panel debated whether "the US should step back from its special relationship with Israel". At the start of the debate the audience was 33% in favour of pulling back on the special relationship; by the end the side arguing for a pullback won with 49% in favour of the motion. This may not be representative but it is an indication of the change that is happening where it matters most.
Israeli commentators, wary of this movement, have tried to reaffirm their country's special relationship with the US. Articles portraying a business-as-usual, rosy bilateral partnership are common. For example, one commentator on Ynet News suggested that the visit to Israel of the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in February "sheds light on the larger context of US-Israel relations, which transcends the Arab-Israeli conflict, leverages Israel's unique capabilities, and benefits both the US and Israel. The visit reaffirms that US policy toward Israel is based, primarily, on regional and global strategic interests and not on domestic politics. US-Israel relations do not resemble a one-way-street (the US gives and Israel receives), but a mutually-beneficial two-way street." Who is he trying to convince?
As the debate continues, the Palestinian struggle for justice in their land occupied by the Zionists continues to strengthen those ready to stand up and be counted as defenders of human rights. The US shift is slow but long overdue; America should distance itself from Israel.
Apartheid Israel continues policy of Judaisation of Islamic and Christian sites.
Palestine is home to the three Abrahamic faiths, which have shared historical and religious links to the Holy Land. In particular, Jerusalem and Bethlehem are of great importance to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, despite which plans are in place to promote and protect only Jewish heritage sites. Even worse, the city of Jerusalem and other Palestinian cities have been going through a severe "Judaisation" process that has destroyed sites important to Muslims and Christians. This month the UN special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process issued a "special" statement condemning the Israeli cabinet's decision to declare the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem "Israeli national heritage sites". This follows on from plans for the inappropriately-named 'Museum of Tolerance' to be built on the site of the Mamilla Muslim Cemetery in Jerusalem. Moreover, excavation continues to threaten the foundations of Al-Aqsa Mosque in the heart of Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.
In a damning report published on Al Jazeera English, Dr Daud Abdullah, Director of MEMO, highlighted Israel's deliberate policy to "obliterate" the Islamic identity of Palestine. Over the past 60 years many mosques have been converted into museums, night clubs and restaurants. The Zionist Occupation hopes that the elimination of all signs of Islam from Palestine will add legitimacy to their claim as a "Jewish state". But Dr Abdullah reminds us, "The presence of the Palestinian population in Hebron and Jerusalem represent the greatest obstacle to the process of annexation and Judaisation", making the long the struggle of the rightful heirs of Palestine invaluable.
Follow-up on the Goldstone report: MEMO's exclusive interview with Colonel Travers
In February, MEMO came of age and caused ripples in the Israeli media by publishing an exclusive interview with Colonel Desmond Travers, a leading military expert and one of the contributors to the UN's Goldstone Report. Although crimes against humanity may have been committed by both sides, Travers commented on the wanton Israeli destruction of Gaza using military tactics including, according to Colonel Travers, "hostage taking, felling of houses, destruction of the judicial police infrastructure, destruction of hospitals and the medical infrastructure, destruction of the agricultural, water and sewage infrastructure."
The Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs highlighted the Travers interview in its subsequent report, and on 10 February, the current head of JCPA, Dore Gold, convened a press conference "specifically to address Travers' contribution to the report, as well as comments he has made to the media." As usual with critics of the Zionist state, accusations of "anti-Semitism" abounded; Gold claimed that Travers was "fundamentally biased" and the MEMO interview had "anti-Semitic overtones'. He went on to raise "serious questions about the reliability of the whole military analysis in the [Goldstone] report."
During the MEMO interview, Travers also challenged claims made by Colonel Tim Collins on BBC Newsnight that a mosque had been used to store weapons. Travers asserted: "No self-respecting insurgent with abundant hideaways in the labyrinthine alleyways of Gaza would dare store anything in an open building like a mosque." Photographic "evidence" of such weapons stores was "spurious", he added.
Early in February, Israel delivered a 46-page report to the UN Secretary-General in response to the 576-page Goldstone Report. It documented steps the Occupying state had taken into the allegations of war crimes during the invasion of Gaza. The Israelis revealed that "disciplinary action had been taken against two top officers... for permitting artillery fire near a UN compound..." In the attack on 15 January 2009, the UN compound was attacked with white phosphorous shells. However, the report did not allude to the use of white phosphorous, on the numerous other occasions highlighted in the damning original report, such as the white phosphorous attacks in Beit Lahiya (crowded urban area in the north), in other rural areas and the attack on Al-Quds Hospital.
The groundbreaking Goldstone report will continue to play a significant role in bringing the Israeli occupying authorities to justice in years to come.
American media on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The month got off to a somewhat radical start in the New York Times, with an article by Yossi Alpher which called for dialogue with Syria and Hamas as part of a "radical change" of approach to peacemaking by President Obama. Calling the Israeli invasion of Gaza a year ago "devastating for [Israel's] international image", Mr. Alpher pointed out that talking directly to Hamas has already been suggested by several ex-heads of Israeli intelligence. Opening serious discussions with Syria with the aim of "reducing Iran's penetration of the Levant" as he suggests may, however, have been overtaken by events, with Iran's President Ahmedinejad visiting Syria for talks with President Bashar Al-Asad in what one correspondent to MEMO has called a "war council". One wonders if Alpher's predictions in the rest of his article will disappear in the same way.
The NYT tackles the main Israel-Palestine topics as covered elsewhere, which have been dominated this month by the fallout from the murder of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai by, it is widely believed, Mossad. However, in Isabel Kershner the paper has a correspondent who seeks to get behind the headlines in a way that is surprising for an American newspaper. For example, she covered Palestinian Authority corruption and the sex scandal that hit the PA during the month and the plan by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to build a museum on the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem. Both items were covered comprehensively by MEMO.
In blog contributions by readers, Ms. Kershner's impartiality was questioned in a debate about the potential for bias of a New York Times reporter who has a son in the Israeli military. The contributor suggests that Isabel Kershner's background as a "(Jewish) Israeli citizen" may hinder her efforts to report without bias, as does the fact that "the [New York] Times doesn't have any reporters in 1967 occupied territory". This particular blogger, from Los Angeles, addeds, "It is high time that the [New York] Times at least makes an attempt to report the conflict in an objective manner", which just goes to show that you can't please all of the people all of the time; the next contributor writes, "For most of the Times readers, 'fair' coverage of the Middle East, consists of blaming Israel for everything", while a third asks for each article to be judged on its merits, regardless of who the journalist is and claims, "Reporting in the US is biased towards Israel. The Times is no different". That could be said about most Western media.
And in other news…
- British academics ask Elton John to read the Goldstone report: The British Committee for Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) sent an open letter in early February asking Elton John to cancel his concert in Israel this summer. The letter said, "…we're struggling to understand why you're playing in Israel… You may say you're not a political person, but does an army dropping white phosphorus on a school building full of children demand a political response?... You're behaving as if playing in Israel is morally neutral - but how can it be?" One academic activist indicated that a similar initiative resulted in the cancellation of guitarist Santana's Israel show about two weeks ago. Prof. Bresheeth, who spearheaded the demand to have an academic boycott of Israel added, "We did not succeed in convincing Paul McCartney to cancel his concert, but we will continue to take similar action in order to prevent these respectable artists from arriving in an occupying country that breaks international law."
- A Palestinian arrest so ridiculous even the Israeli judges smiled: In Haaretz, Amira Hass wrote about the arrest of 12 year old Bassam who caused two Israelis to smile... "not as being disparaging or arrogant" but rather the smile of two military judges realising "how ridiculous the situation was".
- Israel turns down bid to teach Palestinian poems in schools: Israel's Education Ministry decided not to publish an academic paper recommending that high school students study both Jewish and Palestinian poems about Jerusalem. The paper argues that teachers (Jewish and Arab) have to develop a method by which to encourage their students to be more open-minded and inclusive. "The purpose of education is to encourage the student to deal with varied worldviews," wrote authors Dr. Lea Baratz and Dr. Roni Reingold of the Achva College of Education. "This cannot be done by way of ignorance. Those who believe their views are objective absolute truths become dogmatic, ignorant and narrow-minded. It is our duty to present our students with how 'the others' relate to Jerusalem."
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
0 Comments