Doc's Talk: Delegitimization delegation

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Delegitimization delegation

Israel is gearing up for the arrival of a number of new flotillas - representing the new strategy of using NGOs as a way of bringing down the state in the world's eyes.
By Amos Harel

Israeli authorities will spend this weekend awaiting the arrival of the next flotilla, either from Iran or, more likely, from Lebanon. Over the past few days, a few reservists from the naval commando unit have been called up for service.For the moment, the political echelon's directive to stop the ships remains in force. It took almost a year to organize the Turkish flotilla to Gaza. If Israel had not fallen into the trap set for it by the ships' organizers, they would probably not have had enough money available from donations to launch more ships so soon. The Lebanese who are behind the new flotilla have been disseminating misinformation in an effort to disrupt Israel's efforts to intercept the vessels. Looking a bit further ahead, Israel is concerned about the month of August, when Ramadan falls this year - a propitious time for flotillas to set sail from a number of countries.

The organizers have hit on an ideal concept, which not only promises to entangle Israel again and again but makes a meaningful contribution to the ongoing effort to delegitimize the country. If Israel enjoyed a brief golden age in terms of the attitude of the international community (after the Gaza withdrawal in 2005), since Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 we have been sliding down a slippery slope.

The sharp criticism coming from European quarters, and the almost total lack of patience for Israel's side, were this month reflected both in the flotilla incident and in the most recent responses to the Dubai assassination, following the arrest of an Israeli in Poland and the expulsion of a diplomat from the Israeli Embassy in Ireland.

Under the right-wing Netanyahu-Barak government there seems to be not even the semblance of a political peace process, so it's convenient for the Europeans to categorize the conflict here as a simple colonial confrontation in which Israel, the oppressor, is discriminating against innocent Palestinians and depriving them of their rights.

In the past few years, Israeli and foreign scholars have been engaged in describing and explaining the significant change that has occurred in how war is waged. In the Middle East, at least, it seems that in recent decades, states have retreated from direct confrontation, instead leaving that task to extremist organizations, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaida.

The delegitimization campaign may reflect another passing of the baton, this time to civilian NGOs. There was no point in looking for smuggled missiles aboard the Mavi Marmara. The most effective weapons on the ship were the cameras and the resulting images that were broadcast to the Muslim world and to Europe. This is a new form of struggle, and Israel still hardly knows how to cope with it.

The scholars speak enthusiastically about the Middle East as a fascinating laboratory of ideas. Somehow, the whole thing looks a bit less pleasant from the viewpoint of the guinea pigs.

The real inquiry

During the week, it became clear what type of deal Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak struck with the U.S. administration, in the wake of Israel's embroilment in the flotilla affair. Netanyahu and Barak fought like lions over the status and powers of the committee that has been appointed to examine the naval raid. The narrow mandate accorded the committee, with U.S. agreement, ensures that no harm will befall the two leaders.

In the second half of the deal, the security cabinet on Wednesday discussed a possible easing of restrictions on the importation of food and construction materials to the Gaza Strip. It turns out that maintaining the blockade, the essential mission that naval commandos were sent into the midst of a violent mob aboard the Marmara to protect, is no longer so essential.

Legal experts who are closely acquainted with Jacob Turkel, the retired Supreme Court justice chosen to head the committee of inquiry, say that if Netanyahu and Barak think he will be lenient with them, they are wrong. Another committee member, 93-year-old Prof. Shabtai Rosenne, also sounded lucid and articulate in a brief television interview he gave.

But how serious and thorough can Israel's decision to examine the flotilla episode be if the distinguished committee member is photographed in pajamas with a Filipino caregiver by his side?

Even after the committee's appointment, it is not fully clear whether the state will be able to prevent the use of testimony given to the Turkel committee, or to the military inquiry being headed by Maj. Gen. (res. ) Giora Eiland, against the witnesses themselves in an international forum.

As might have been expected, the state comptroller, Micha Lindenstrauss, plunged gleefully into the fray when he announced on Tuesday that he would conduct his own investigation into the raid.

With the large space that has been created between Turkel's dealing with the flotilla from the perspective of international law, and Eiland's focus on the Israel Defense Forces, Lindenstrauss may once again turn out to be the major concrete threat to the top ranks of the political and military echelons.

The state comptroller's inclination is not to launch his probe immediately, to keep witnesses from having to scurry from one forum to another. His examination of the decision-making process covers a broad swath that can include the highest levels of the IDF, should he so desire. After the Second Lebanon War, despite the appointment of the Winograd Committee, Lindenstrauss contributed significantly to clarifying the scale of the failure of the Olmert government and the IDF, in a report he drew up about the state of the home front. That report, which was far more complex than the current situation will demand, took six months to prepare; this time, the time frame is likely to be shorter.

The D'oh! Committee

The Israeli Movement for Freedom of Information has asked Turkel to ensure that the sessions of his committee will be open to the public and that its transcripts will be published. The Winograd panel fought a battle against similar requests, even against petitions by MKs to the High Court of Justice. Did the Winograd Committee live up to its commitment to the High Court to publish the testimonies it heard, after the deletion of sensitive security material?

The committee's official website carries only 30 of the 75 testimonies, and even those are heavily blue-penciled. But the site's domain name expired about a year ago. It was acquired by a group of activists conducting an online struggle against a range of phenomena, including the biometric database and harassment of children of migrant workers.

The official information from the Winograd Committee is still there, but the mode of its publication is almost entirely at the discretion of the new owners. One of the fine changes they introduced was the addition of Homer Simpson to the photograph of the Winograd Committee members. (Check it out at http://vaadatwino.co.il/ - Hebrew only. ) It's surprising that Netanyahu and Barak didn't have the same idea.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk