Weathering the coming storm
By Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Israel is endangered today as it has never been before. The Turkish-Hamas flotilla two weeks ago precipitated a number of dangerous developments. Rather than attend to all of them, Israel’s leadership is devoting itself almost exclusively to contending with the least dangerous among them while ignoring the emerging threats with the potential to lead us to great calamities.
Since the Navy’s lethal takeover of the Mavi Marmara, Israel has been stood before an international diplomatic firing squad led by the UN and Europe and supported by the Obama administration. Firmly backed by European and largely unopposed by Washington, the UN is moving swiftly towards setting up a new Goldstone-style anti-Israel kangaroo court. That canned tribunal will rule that Israel has no right to defend itself and attempt to force Israel to end its lawful naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Fearing this outcome, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu bowed to US President Barack Obama’s demand that Israel set up an Israeli inquest of the Mavi Marmara takeover and permit foreigners to oversee its proceedings. Netanyahu also agreed to scale-back Israel’s blockade significantly, and allow international bodies to have a role in its far more lax enforcement. Netanyahu has made these concessions with the full knowledge that they will strengthen Hamas in the hopes that they would weaken the international onslaught against Israel.
Unfortunately, it took no time at all to see that his hopes were misplaced. Even before Netanyahu announced these concessions, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon already announced that they make no difference to him or to his friends in Washington and Brussels. They will move ahead with their plans to appoint a new kangaroo court charged with asserting that Israel has no right to defend itself.
As bad as all of this is, in truth, it is unimportant relative to the other consequences of the flotilla incident. The impact of the diplomatic campaign now being waged against Israel will be felt in the medium and long term. In the immediate term, Israel is facing two threats that dwarf what it faces from the UN.
Recent statements by the leaders of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah make clear that the members of the Iranian axis view the Mavi Marmara episode as a strategic victory in their ongoing campaign against Israel. The international stampede against Israel at the UN, the White House and throughout Europe exposed Israel’s Achilles heel. The Mavi Marmara demonstrated that on the one hand the IDF cannot enforce its blockade of Gaza without the use of force. On the other hands it taught Israel’s enemies that by forcing Israel to use force, Iran, Turkey and their allies incited a UN-EU-US lynch mob against Israel.
Iran, Turkey, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah are moving rapidly to exploit their new discovery. In the very near future, Israel will face off against Iranian, Lebanese, and Turkish ships complemented by ships full of Israel-hating German Jews and other Jewish and non-Jewish Hamas supporters.
The Mavi Marmara showed Iran and its allies hat they can win strategic victories against Israel by giving the IDF no option other than using force against them. This means that Israel can bank on the prospect that all the ships they are dispatching will be populated by suicide protesters. Indeed the Iranians have openly admitted this. Mohammad Ali Nouraee is one of the regime officials involved in dispatching the Iranian ships to the Gaza coast. In an interview this week with Iran’s official IRNA news agency Nouraee said that the passengers aboard the ships, “are willing to become martyred in this way.”
The Lebanese ships are being organized by Hizbullah-affiliated individuals and the Turkish ships are being organized by the IHH terror group that organized the Mavi Marmara. Hizbullah’s penchant for dispatching suicide squads is of course well known. And the IHH showed its devotion to suicide protests on the Mavi Marmara. So it is fairly clear that the passengers aboard the ships from both countries intend to force the IDF to kill them.
The intensification of the suicide protest campaign against Israel is dangerous for two reasons. First, it is a model that can be and in all likelihood will be replicated on air and land and it can be replicated anywhere. Israel can and should expect mobs of suicide protesters marching on Gaza to force Israel to surrender control over its borders. Israel can expect mobs of suicide protesters marching on Israeli embassies and other government installations around the world in an attempt to increase its diplomatic isolations.
In the air, Israel can expect charter flights to take off from airports around the world with a few dozen kamikaze protesters who will force the IAF to shoot them down as they approach Israeli airspace.
Iran and its allies have found a weak chink in Israel’s armor. They will use it any way they can. Israel needs to quickly develop tactics and strategies for contending with this.
The second and far more dangerous implication of Israel’s enemies’ aggressive adoption of suicide protests is that by ensuring violence will be used, they increase the chances of war. Indeed, Iran and its allies clearly believe that suicide protests are a vehicle for initiating a full-scale war against Israel on what they view as favorable footing. According to Bahrain’s al Wasat press service, Hussain Amir, Iran’s ambassador to Bahrain threatened this week that, “If the [Zionist] entity dares to direct any aggressive attack [against the Iranian ships] then it is certain that [Israel] will be met by a much stronger and firm blow.”
Syrian President Bashar Assad told the BBC Wednesday that the region is moving towards war. And the Turkish government is continuing to escalate its assaults on Israel. On Thursday Turkey threatened to cut off diplomatic relations with Israel if Israel does not issue a formal apology for its takeover of the Mavi Marmara and pay restitution to the families of the terrorists killed on board the ship.
Obviously the most disturbing aspect of the war threats is the specter of Turkish naval vessels attacking the Israeli navy. If Turkey — a NATO member — participates in a war against Israel, the repercussions for Israel’s relations with NATO member states, including the US, as well as the EU are liable to be unprecedented.
While going to war against Israel would be a major gamble for Turkey, in recent years it has not shied away from high stakes challenges to its NATO allies. Indeed, one of Turkey’s ruling AKP party’s first actions upon taking power in 2003 was to deny the US military the right to invade Iraq from its territory. The deleterious impact of Turkey’s refusal to come to the aid of its NATO ally at the time has been felt by US forces in Iraq ever since.
In the days and weeks to come, Israel’s political and military leaders must move resolutely to prepare to withstand these new threats that arisen in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara episode. To meet the expected deluge of suicide protesters on sea, land and air, Israel must immediately acquire non-lethal means to disperse these protests. This involves purchasing and producing tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and other non-lethal weaponry. These non-lethal weapons must be rapidly distributed to IDF units deployed along the frontier with Gaza and to the Navy. They must also be supplied to Israeli security teams tasked with protecting government installations worldwide. Forces must undergo intense and immediate training in crowd control and mob dispersal to be ready to meet what is clearly on the way.
Diplomatically, Israel needs to hold its new line on the Gaza blockade. Netanyahu’s buckling to US-EU-UN pressure has encouraged them to redouble their assault on Israel. The new line must be held at all costs. Otherwise, Israel will have no diplomatic line of defense as the approaching threats become reality.
Strategically, our leaders need to consider what our aims will be in the coming war. For instance, as far as Turkey is concerned, Israel’s aim will be to end the war as quickly as possible. Here the tools of diplomacy with NATO members and public diplomacy with the American people will be crucial to convincing Turkey to stand down. They must be aggressively and energetically utilized without delay.
From a military perspective, evasion is preferable to confrontation. This understanding must guide naval operations towards Turkish forces.
As for Iran, Israel’s aim must be to prolong the war as long as necessary to secure its strategic objective of denying Iran nuclear weapons. Moreover, it is important to use both kinetic and non-kinetic means to change the relative power balance between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime. While in all likelihood today the Iranian opposition green movement is unable to overthrow the regime, if Iran initiates a war against Israel, Israel must use the opportunity the war affords to change that balance of power.
Once Israel’s political and military leaders determine the strategic goals of a regional war, they must move swiftly to outfit and train the IDF to fight it. This war will certainly be different from its predecessors and Israel’s strategic goals — and the clear strategic and tactical preferences of its enemies — dictate the training that the IDF must initiate immediately.
The longer term lesson of the Mavi Marmara incident, and the threats that emerged in its wake is that war is too serious a subject to leave to generals. The IDF and the Defense Ministry clearly misunderstood the nature of the threat posed by the Turkish-Hamas flotilla. Indeed, recent reports that until the Mavi Marmara Israel wasn’t even collecting intelligence on Turkey despite its obvious, multiyear transformation from ally to enemy underlines the fact that the IDF is woefully incapable of assessing, understanding and preparing for the threats Israel faces.
In light of the IDF’s failure to understand Turkey’s transformation from ally to enemy in a timely manner, its incompetent planning for the Mavi Marmara takeover and its problematic performance in both Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War, Netanyahu must create an external body empowered to assess and dictate the means for preparing for emerging threats. This body can either be a new department in the Prime Minister’s Bureau or the National Security Council can be empowered to perform this function. While this is not the most urgent matter on the national agenda, the establishment of such a body should be a central mission of the government.
The Iranian ships are already en route, and the ships from Lebanon could appear at any moment. The mass demonstrations against Israel throughout the world and the threatened violence from the Hamas-supporting Israeli Arab leadership indicate that mobs of suicide protesters could appear anywhere with no prior warning.
Time is of the essence. No, Israel does not want another Goldstone kangaroo court. But right now, kangaroo courts are not our biggest problem.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Israel was the first victim but won’t be the last (National Post, Canada)
By Asaf Romirowsky and Nicole Brackman
Since 2007, Israel has maintained a legal maritime blockade around Gaza. Gaza is a territory ruled by a known terrorist organization — Hamas — whose explicitly stated goal is the elimination of Israel through violence. Past experience has proven that Hamas keeps its promises of terror, cravenly using its own citizens as civilian shields in order to launch attacks on Israelis.
Preventing this terror has been a full-time occupation for Israel, and the goal of the maritime blockade has been the protection of Israeli citizens. Keeping rockets and other weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while simultaneously letting food and other humanitarian aid in, is a constant exercise in measured risk. World media outlets have bought into the widespread Palestinian propaganda that the Gaza blockade is a humanitarian crisis — going so far as to conflate the situation in Gaza with a “holocaust” and comparing the Israelis to “Nazis” for failing to allow basic human services to reach Gazans.
This inflammatory language does get attention. It also effectively masks the reality on the ground — the fact that it is Hamas itself which blocks humanitarian aid from reaching its citizens, diverting funds and materiel instead to building arms caches. In what has become a brilliant public relations ploy, the Hamas leadership has managed again to use its civilians to shield its true intentions and actions.
Nearly half a decade ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to disengage from that territory and create a chance for peace. Hamas (a recognized terror organization by both the United States and Israel) took advantage of internecine Palestinian fighting and took control of Gaza. The putative “government” of Gaza is not one which values human life (at least not that of its citizens, much less Israelis); the civilian infrastructure in Gaza Strip has been exploited by Hamas to launch attacks — inviting Israeli response (which is then condemned as targeting civilians). By using hospitals, mosques and offices of international aid groups to conduct terrorist activity against Israel, Hamas is swaying public opinion in its favour.
Hamas found a willing and able partner in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It was UNRWA’s director of operations in Gaza, John Ging, who was quoted in The New York Times in early 2009 as saying that Israel’s blockade was choking off basic humanitarian supplies like medicine, clothing and blankets, as well as food supplies. Moreover, it was Ging who called upon the international community “to shoulder its responsibility on this issue” by “sending ships to break the siege.”
In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper in early May, Ging reportedly urged the world to send ships to the shores of Gaza. He added, “We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible.”
This was a leading official of a United Nations NGO acting in the capacity of his position. He was urging other non-governmental actors to engage in what is clearly an act of international war–invading the territorial waters of a United Nations member state and sovereign nation.
Israel seems to have been the only state to recognize this and, as was reported by Middle East Monitor, will make an official request to the United Nations for clarification of how an official representative of the United Nations could call for European countries to send ships to Gaza without authorization and prior co-ordination with Israel.
Though it is not surprising that this aspect of the issue went unreported in the world media, it is an extremely dangerous and discomfitingprecedent. UNRWAhaslongbeen a co-opted (and corrupted) actor on the Gaza scene; but as UNRWA is still under United Nations auspices, it retains the responsibility of at least pretending to act in a fair and objective manner. Ging’s actions belie any facade of accountability and teeter on the edge of outright incitement.
During the latest flotilla saga, Mr. Ging has continued to defend Hamas when questioned about the terror organization’s credibility regarding the allegations that they might misuse aid. According to Ging, Hamas does not steal and any aid delivered via UNRWA and the UN is respected by Hamas. As such, had the flotilla reached Gaza it would have alleviated the mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages which left four out of five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid — i.e. UNRWA facilities. Such a view is not only overly optimistic, but downright disingenuous. The boats’ cargo contained weapons as well as foodstuffs — and it was clear from the outset that the flotilla was meant as a provocation and a media stunt designed to challenge Israel and open a new route for weapons smuggling.
In inciting the flotilla, John Ging has dishonoured UNRWA and the United Nations. UNRWA itself should long ago have been absorbed into the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Now the matter is more urgent than ever.
Moreover, the hyper-sensitive focus on Israel by the global media outlets not only embarrasses Israel (an imperfect, yet law-abiding democracy); itactivelyencouragesHamas and other terror organizations. It is long past time for the media to examine its own role in sponsoring and promoting acts of violence against civilians, and in creating an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of said violence are rewarded by vast media coverage and heralded as “militants” rather than called out for their murderous actions.
The international community is also guilty. While rogue states like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and China (to mention just a few) wantonly engage in human rights abuses and abhorrent violence against civilians, it is Israel that brings the UN Security Council together for more commissions and inquiries than any other nation.
Of course, the stark contrast is nothing new. It’s much easier to target Israel than it is to address the entrenched violence and inhumanity perpetrated in so many other United Nations member states. And, more recently, focusing on Israeli “sins” diverts attention from the real threat — a nuclear Iran. Iran’s recent announcement that it now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs was completely obscured by the media frenzy surrounding the Gaza flotilla
Israel may be the first country to have been directly challenged by an open act of war in this flotilla episode. But if other nations think they are exempt or immune, they are wrong. Terrorists and those who sponsor them have taken notice of the world’s response. And they are nothing if not emboldened.
Since 2007, Israel has maintained a legal maritime blockade around Gaza. Gaza is a territory ruled by a known terrorist organization — Hamas — whose explicitly stated goal is the elimination of Israel through violence. Past experience has proven that Hamas keeps its promises of terror, cravenly using its own citizens as civilian shields in order to launch attacks on Israelis.
Preventing this terror has been a full-time occupation for Israel, and the goal of the maritime blockade has been the protection of Israeli citizens. Keeping rockets and other weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while simultaneously letting food and other humanitarian aid in, is a constant exercise in measured risk. World media outlets have bought into the widespread Palestinian propaganda that the Gaza blockade is a humanitarian crisis — going so far as to conflate the situation in Gaza with a “holocaust” and comparing the Israelis to “Nazis” for failing to allow basic human services to reach Gazans.
This inflammatory language does get attention. It also effectively masks the reality on the ground — the fact that it is Hamas itself which blocks humanitarian aid from reaching its citizens, diverting funds and materiel instead to building arms caches. In what has become a brilliant public relations ploy, the Hamas leadership has managed again to use its civilians to shield its true intentions and actions.
Nearly half a decade ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in order to disengage from that territory and create a chance for peace. Hamas (a recognized terror organization by both the United States and Israel) took advantage of internecine Palestinian fighting and took control of Gaza. The putative “government” of Gaza is not one which values human life (at least not that of its citizens, much less Israelis); the civilian infrastructure in Gaza Strip has been exploited by Hamas to launch attacks — inviting Israeli response (which is then condemned as targeting civilians). By using hospitals, mosques and offices of international aid groups to conduct terrorist activity against Israel, Hamas is swaying public opinion in its favour.
Hamas found a willing and able partner in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It was UNRWA’s director of operations in Gaza, John Ging, who was quoted in The New York Times in early 2009 as saying that Israel’s blockade was choking off basic humanitarian supplies like medicine, clothing and blankets, as well as food supplies. Moreover, it was Ging who called upon the international community “to shoulder its responsibility on this issue” by “sending ships to break the siege.”
In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper in early May, Ging reportedly urged the world to send ships to the shores of Gaza. He added, “We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible.”
This was a leading official of a United Nations NGO acting in the capacity of his position. He was urging other non-governmental actors to engage in what is clearly an act of international war–invading the territorial waters of a United Nations member state and sovereign nation.
Israel seems to have been the only state to recognize this and, as was reported by Middle East Monitor, will make an official request to the United Nations for clarification of how an official representative of the United Nations could call for European countries to send ships to Gaza without authorization and prior co-ordination with Israel.
Though it is not surprising that this aspect of the issue went unreported in the world media, it is an extremely dangerous and discomfitingprecedent. UNRWAhaslongbeen a co-opted (and corrupted) actor on the Gaza scene; but as UNRWA is still under United Nations auspices, it retains the responsibility of at least pretending to act in a fair and objective manner. Ging’s actions belie any facade of accountability and teeter on the edge of outright incitement.
During the latest flotilla saga, Mr. Ging has continued to defend Hamas when questioned about the terror organization’s credibility regarding the allegations that they might misuse aid. According to Ging, Hamas does not steal and any aid delivered via UNRWA and the UN is respected by Hamas. As such, had the flotilla reached Gaza it would have alleviated the mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages which left four out of five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid — i.e. UNRWA facilities. Such a view is not only overly optimistic, but downright disingenuous. The boats’ cargo contained weapons as well as foodstuffs — and it was clear from the outset that the flotilla was meant as a provocation and a media stunt designed to challenge Israel and open a new route for weapons smuggling.
In inciting the flotilla, John Ging has dishonoured UNRWA and the United Nations. UNRWA itself should long ago have been absorbed into the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Now the matter is more urgent than ever.
Moreover, the hyper-sensitive focus on Israel by the global media outlets not only embarrasses Israel (an imperfect, yet law-abiding democracy); itactivelyencouragesHamas and other terror organizations. It is long past time for the media to examine its own role in sponsoring and promoting acts of violence against civilians, and in creating an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of said violence are rewarded by vast media coverage and heralded as “militants” rather than called out for their murderous actions.
The international community is also guilty. While rogue states like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and China (to mention just a few) wantonly engage in human rights abuses and abhorrent violence against civilians, it is Israel that brings the UN Security Council together for more commissions and inquiries than any other nation.
Of course, the stark contrast is nothing new. It’s much easier to target Israel than it is to address the entrenched violence and inhumanity perpetrated in so many other United Nations member states. And, more recently, focusing on Israeli “sins” diverts attention from the real threat — a nuclear Iran. Iran’s recent announcement that it now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs was completely obscured by the media frenzy surrounding the Gaza flotilla
Israel may be the first country to have been directly challenged by an open act of war in this flotilla episode. But if other nations think they are exempt or immune, they are wrong. Terrorists and those who sponsor them have taken notice of the world’s response. And they are nothing if not emboldened.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Canadian TV Blasted for Fake Gaza Mortality Rate
Media watchdog groups have criticized Canada's CBC for wrongly implying that Israel's policy vis-a-vis Gaza has led to unusually high infant mortality. In a June 1 report, CBC correspondent Peter Mansbridge spoke of the closure of Israel's Gaza borders and stated that Gaza currently has “an infant mortality rate among the highest in the world.”
Not only is Gaza's infant mortality rate not among the highest in the world, it's actually lower than that of many Middle Eastern countries, political commentor Barry Rubin noted in his blog. Infant mortality is significantly lower in Gaza (17.71 per 1,000 live births) than in Iran (34.7), Turkey (24.8), Libya (20.87), Iraq (43.16), and Egypt (26.2), and only slightly higher than that of Jordan (17.03), Syria (16.14), and Lebanon (16.4).
Accurate information on mortality in Gaza and elsewhere is easily available from the CIA World Factbook, published online, Rubin noted.
In response to an inquiry from the watchdog group Honest Reporting, a CBC editor said Mansbridge's statement was “an error.” The station rejected charges that the statement reflected anti-Israel bias.
A CBS anchor later read a correction, which stated that Gaza's infant mortality rate is actually ranked 109 out of 224 countries and regions worldwide.
Honest Reporting expressed satisfaction with the correction, but at the same time, was concerned by what CBC did not say. “There was no indication given about how this error had occurred... what was the source of this original erroneous information?” the organization asked on its blog. The group also wished to know why the CBC referred to Gaza, Judea and Samaria as “Palestine” despite the fact that no such country exists.
Not only is Gaza's infant mortality rate not among the highest in the world, it's actually lower than that of many Middle Eastern countries, political commentor Barry Rubin noted in his blog. Infant mortality is significantly lower in Gaza (17.71 per 1,000 live births) than in Iran (34.7), Turkey (24.8), Libya (20.87), Iraq (43.16), and Egypt (26.2), and only slightly higher than that of Jordan (17.03), Syria (16.14), and Lebanon (16.4).
Accurate information on mortality in Gaza and elsewhere is easily available from the CIA World Factbook, published online, Rubin noted.
In response to an inquiry from the watchdog group Honest Reporting, a CBC editor said Mansbridge's statement was “an error.” The station rejected charges that the statement reflected anti-Israel bias.
A CBS anchor later read a correction, which stated that Gaza's infant mortality rate is actually ranked 109 out of 224 countries and regions worldwide.
Honest Reporting expressed satisfaction with the correction, but at the same time, was concerned by what CBC did not say. “There was no indication given about how this error had occurred... what was the source of this original erroneous information?” the organization asked on its blog. The group also wished to know why the CBC referred to Gaza, Judea and Samaria as “Palestine” despite the fact that no such country exists.
Turkey closes airspace to Israel Air Force, Jerusalem declares IHH terrorists
Turkey launched a plan Wednesday night (June 16) to campaign on all fronts for a worldwide boycott of Israel and decided to introduce sanctions leading to the severance of bilateral relations. Its pretext was the absence of a formal apology from Jerusalem for the naval commando raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara ("Blue Marmara"), which left 8 activists dead, and its rejection of an international inquiry of the incident.
In Washington, early Thursday morning (June 17), Democratic and Republican members of Congress announced at a press conference that there would be price to pay if Ankara continued its hate campaign against Israel and tight ties with Tehran.
Rep. Mike Pence, the third-highest ranking Republican, said: "There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading of growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the state of Israel." Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel called Turkey's actions "disgraceful."
DEBKAfile's sources in Washington note that while the House and the Senate are getting ready for an active response against Turkey for its deteriorating relations with Israel, the Obama administration is standing still, possibly tied down by friendship with the two contestants in Jerusalem and Ankara. The president may also be influenced by some of his closest aides, who are sympathetic to the policies pursued by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and support his aspirations in the Middle East and in the Muslim world.
The most prominent member of the pro-Erdogan faction ion the White House is the president's personal adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who does not share the conviction that the Turkish aid society, the IHH, is in fact a terrorist organization, as Israel declared Thursday, June 17 - although more than one European terrorist expert is of that opinion.
The way this declaration was aired by the Netanyahu government was harshly criticized by Israel's security and intelligence sources as too hesitant and uncertain to attract notice, DEBKAfile's sources in Jerusalem report. It was not sourced to any defense ministry official and only appeared in a low spot on a local Channel 2 TV news bulletin.
"If Israel accuses an organization of terrorism, it should do so loud and clear," they said. "We must offer the kind of proof that reverberates strongly around the world. Instead, the information was released almost by stealth and therefore ignored by the international media."
In fact, DEBKAfile's intelligence and counter-terror sources stress the inconspicuous news item was pretty sensational. By listing as terrorists the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), a key component of Erdogan's pro-Islamic AKK government's support system, Israel henceforth defines the group as a target for Israel's covert and military operations and exposes its leaders to retaliation for continuing violence against Israel and its interests.
IHH activists were responsible for the violence aboard the Turkish ship leading the blockade-busting flotilla on May 31. Wednesday, IHH headquarters in Istanbul scheduled the launch of an even bigger flotilla for Gaza some time in July. Its new designation empowers Israel's covert agencies and navy to go for its members and ships - at sea and in Turkish ports.
Still hesitant, Israel has started hitting back at Turkey by escalating its military and intelligence responses to Erdogan's provocations.
The day before, the level of confrontation was ramped up by several notches in Ankara, when the Turkish Defense Industry Implementation Committee – SSIK, in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Erdogan, decided to freeze 16 security and military agreements signed with Israel.
They include permission for Israel warplanes to use Turkish airspace and apply to intelligence-sharing arrangements and cooperation in combating terrorism and suspend the longstanding, close military and intelligence cooperation between Turkey and Israel.
The two erstwhile allies are left glaring at each other as antagonists, just one step short of declared enemies.
Ankara nonetheless left a narrow opening - whether to appease the military for its loss of a valued strategic partner or to tempt Israeli leaders to continue to delude themselves that Turkey is not a write-off.
Thursday morning, in a briefing to Turkish journalists, sources close to the Turkish prime minister and the SSK exhibited a very long list of the Israeli and Turkish military projects they had cancelled, including the purchase of advanced Israeli Arrow anti-missile missiles. However, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul commented: "Despite the fact that the decision on the shelving of military agreements had been left to the command of the Foreign Ministry, it would not be proper for the ruling administration to decide on the actions of military companies in both countries."
By this remark, the Turkish defense minister left a small gap for the Turkish government to review each contract separately and to decide whether to implement or revoke it depending on the needs of the Turkish army.
In Washington, early Thursday morning (June 17), Democratic and Republican members of Congress announced at a press conference that there would be price to pay if Ankara continued its hate campaign against Israel and tight ties with Tehran.
Rep. Mike Pence, the third-highest ranking Republican, said: "There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading of growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the state of Israel." Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel called Turkey's actions "disgraceful."
DEBKAfile's sources in Washington note that while the House and the Senate are getting ready for an active response against Turkey for its deteriorating relations with Israel, the Obama administration is standing still, possibly tied down by friendship with the two contestants in Jerusalem and Ankara. The president may also be influenced by some of his closest aides, who are sympathetic to the policies pursued by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and support his aspirations in the Middle East and in the Muslim world.
The most prominent member of the pro-Erdogan faction ion the White House is the president's personal adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who does not share the conviction that the Turkish aid society, the IHH, is in fact a terrorist organization, as Israel declared Thursday, June 17 - although more than one European terrorist expert is of that opinion.
The way this declaration was aired by the Netanyahu government was harshly criticized by Israel's security and intelligence sources as too hesitant and uncertain to attract notice, DEBKAfile's sources in Jerusalem report. It was not sourced to any defense ministry official and only appeared in a low spot on a local Channel 2 TV news bulletin.
"If Israel accuses an organization of terrorism, it should do so loud and clear," they said. "We must offer the kind of proof that reverberates strongly around the world. Instead, the information was released almost by stealth and therefore ignored by the international media."
In fact, DEBKAfile's intelligence and counter-terror sources stress the inconspicuous news item was pretty sensational. By listing as terrorists the IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), a key component of Erdogan's pro-Islamic AKK government's support system, Israel henceforth defines the group as a target for Israel's covert and military operations and exposes its leaders to retaliation for continuing violence against Israel and its interests.
IHH activists were responsible for the violence aboard the Turkish ship leading the blockade-busting flotilla on May 31. Wednesday, IHH headquarters in Istanbul scheduled the launch of an even bigger flotilla for Gaza some time in July. Its new designation empowers Israel's covert agencies and navy to go for its members and ships - at sea and in Turkish ports.
Still hesitant, Israel has started hitting back at Turkey by escalating its military and intelligence responses to Erdogan's provocations.
The day before, the level of confrontation was ramped up by several notches in Ankara, when the Turkish Defense Industry Implementation Committee – SSIK, in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Erdogan, decided to freeze 16 security and military agreements signed with Israel.
They include permission for Israel warplanes to use Turkish airspace and apply to intelligence-sharing arrangements and cooperation in combating terrorism and suspend the longstanding, close military and intelligence cooperation between Turkey and Israel.
The two erstwhile allies are left glaring at each other as antagonists, just one step short of declared enemies.
Ankara nonetheless left a narrow opening - whether to appease the military for its loss of a valued strategic partner or to tempt Israeli leaders to continue to delude themselves that Turkey is not a write-off.
Thursday morning, in a briefing to Turkish journalists, sources close to the Turkish prime minister and the SSK exhibited a very long list of the Israeli and Turkish military projects they had cancelled, including the purchase of advanced Israeli Arrow anti-missile missiles. However, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul commented: "Despite the fact that the decision on the shelving of military agreements had been left to the command of the Foreign Ministry, it would not be proper for the ruling administration to decide on the actions of military companies in both countries."
By this remark, the Turkish defense minister left a small gap for the Turkish government to review each contract separately and to decide whether to implement or revoke it depending on the needs of the Turkish army.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Iranian threats over Gaza keep USS Truman carrier in Mediterranean
The USS Harry S. Truman carrier, complete with its strike group of 60 warplanes and 6,000 seamen, has been ordered to turn course from the Persian Gulf and deploy with the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean for the time being, debkafile's military and Washington sources report. The administration's decision was prompted by incoming intelligence attesting to heightened marine and military tensions between Israel, Turkey and Iran, in the wake of the Turkish premier Recep Erdogan's determination to give his screws on Israel another turn - or two.
He was solidly backed up from Tehran Wednesday, June 16, by parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani, who threatened military retaliation against Persian Gulf and Mediterranean shipping for any interference with the vessels Iran was sending to the Gaza Strip. He did not specify what kind they were.
In Jerusalem, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman asserted that Israel would no longer respect these vessels as promoted by aid agencies because they were obviously dispatched by outright enemies with hostile intent thinly disguised as humanitarian efforts.
Erdogan is planning more provocative sea convoys for Gaza and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Ankara has set its face implacably toward a full rupture and is determined to breach Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip by force, regardless of the relaxations on the siege restrictions ceded by Israel in consultation with Washington.
Israeli ministers met Wednesday, June 16, to approve these relaxations. The broke for lunch without a decision. Some ministers maintained Israel's ambassador from Ankara should be recalled forthwith without waiting for the Erdogan government to break off ties.
-DEBKA FILE
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
THE TOP TEN ANTI-ISRAEL LIES
1. Israel was created by European guilt over the Nazi Holocaust. Why should Palestinians pay the price?
hree thousand years before the Holocaust, before there was a Roman Empire, Israel’s kings and prophets walked the streets of Jerusalem. The whole world knows that Isaiah did not speak his prophesies from Portugal, nor Jeremiah his lamentations from France. Revered by its people, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures 600 times
- but not once in the Koran. Throughout its 2,000-year exile there was continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land, with the modern rebirth of Israel beginning in the 1800s. Reclamation of the largely vacant land by pioneering Zionists blossomed into a Jewish majority long before the onset of Nazism. After the Holocaust, nearly 200,000 Shoah survivors found haven in the Jewish State, created by a two-thirds vote of the UN in 1947. Soon 800,000 Jews fleeing persecution in Arab countries arrived. In ensuing decades, Israel absorbed a million immigrants from the Soviet Union
and thousands of Ethiopian Jews. Today, far from being a vestige of European guilt or colonialism, Israel is a diverse, cosmopolitan society, fulfilling the age-old dream of a people’s journey and ‘Return to Zion’- their ancient homeland.
2. Had Israel withdrawn to its June 1967 borders, peace would have come long ago.
Since 1967, Israel has repeatedly conceded, “land for peace.” Following Egyptian President Sadat’s historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem and the Camp David Peace Accords, Israel withdrew from the vast Sinai Peninsula and has been at peace withEgypt ever since. In 1995, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel but neither the Palestinians nor 21 other Arab states have done so. In 1993, Israel signed the Oslo Accords ceding administrative control of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority (formerly the PLO). The PA never fulfilled its promise to end propaganda attacks and drop the Palestinian National Charter’s call for Israel’s destruction. In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered Yasser Arafat full sovereignty over 97% of the West Bank, a corridor to Gaza, and a capitol in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Arafat said NO. In 2008, PA President Abbas nixed virtually the same offer from Prime Minister Olmert. In 2005, Prime Minister Sharon unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Taken over by terrorist Hamas, they turned dismantled Jewish communities into launching sites for suicide bombers and 8,000+ rockets into Israel proper. In 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu renewed offers of unconditional negotiations leading to a Palestinian State, but Palestinians refused, demanding more unilateral Israeli concessions, including a total freeze of all Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
3. Israel is the main stumbling block to achieving a Two-State solution.
The Palestinians themselves are the only stumbling block to achieving a Two-State solution. With whom should Israel negotiate? With President Abbas, who, for four years, has been barred by Hamas from visiting 1.5 million constituents in Gaza? With his Palestinian Authority, which continues to glorify terrorists and preaches hate in its educational system and the media? With Hamas, whose Iranian-backed leaders deny the Holocaust and use fanatical Jihadist rhetoric
to call for Israel’s destruction? Today, it is a simple fact that while the State of Israel is prepared to recognize all Arab States, secular or Muslim, these states adamantly refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish State and demand “the right
of return” of five million so-called Palestinian “refugees” – a sure guarantee for Israel’s demise.
4. Nuclear Israel not Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability.
Though never acknowledged by Jerusalem, it is generally assumed that Israel has nuclear weapons. But unlike Pakistan, India, and North Korea, Israel never conducted nuclear tests. In 1973, when its very survival was imperiled by the
surprise Egyptian-Syrian Yom Kippur attack, many assumed Israel would use nuclear weapons--but it did not. Contrary to public condemnations, many Arab leaders privately express relief that Israeli nuclear deterrence exists. While Israel
has never threatened anyone, Tehran’s mullahs daily threaten to “wipe Israel from the map.” The U.S. and Europe can afford to wait to see what the Iranian regime does with its nuclear ambitions. But Israel cannot. She is on the front lines and remembers every day the price the Jewish people paid for not taking Hitler at his word. Israel is not prepared to sacrifice another six million Jews on the altar of the world’s indifference.
5. Israel is an Apartheid State deserving of International Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns.
On both sides of the Atlantic, church groups, academics and unions are leading deceitful and often anti-Semitic boycott
campaigns demonizing what they call the Jewish “apartheid” State. The truth is that unlike apartheid South Africa, Israel is a democratic state. Its 20% Arab minority enjoys all the political, economic and religious rights and freedoms of citizenship, including electing members of their choice to the Knesset (Parliament). Israeli Arabs and Palestinians have standing before Israel’s Supreme Court. In contrast, no Jew may own property in Jordan, no Christian or Jew can visit Islam’s holiest sites in Saudi Arabia.
6. Plans to build 1,600 more homes in East Jerusalem prove Israel is ‘Judaizing’ the Holy City.
Enemies of Israel, exploit this phony issue. Jerusalem is holy to three great faiths. Its diverse population includes a Jewish majority with Muslim and Christian minorities. Since 1967, for the first time in history, there is full freedom of religion for all faiths in Jerusalem. Muslim and Christian religious bodies administer their own holy sites. Indeed, the
Waqf is allowed to control Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, even though it rests on Solomon’s temple and is holy to BOTH Jews and Muslims. Meanwhile, Jerusalem’s municipality must meet the needs of a growing modern city. The unfortunately-timed announcement during U.S. Vice President Biden’s visit of 1600 new apartments in Ramat Shlomo, was not about Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, but for a long established, heavily populated Jewish neighborhood in Northern Jerusalem, where 250,000 Jews live (about the same population as Newark, N.J.) -- an area that will never e relinquished by Israel.
7. Israeli policies endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The charge that Israel endangers U.S. troops in Iraq or the AF-Pak region is an update of the old “stab in the back” lie that Jews always betray their own friends, and the libel spouted by Henry Ford and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that “Jews are the father of all wars.” U.S. General Petraeus has stated he considers Israel a great strategic asset for the U.S. and that his earlier remarks linking the safety of U.S. troops in the region to an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal (which 2/3 of Israelis want) were taken out of context. A resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would benefit everyone, including the U.S. But an imposed return to what Abba Eban called “1967 Auschwitz borders” would endanger Israel’s survival and ultimately be disastrous for American interests and credibility in the world.
8. Israeli policies are the cause of worldwide anti-Semitism.
From the Inquisition to the pogroms, to the 6,000,000 Jews murdered by the Nazis, history proves that Jew-hatred existed on a global scale before the creation of the State of Israel. In 2010, it would still exist even if Israel had never
been created. For example, one poll indicates 40% of Europeans blame the recent global economic crisis on “Jews having too much economic power,” a canard that has nothing to do with Israel. The unsettled Palestinian-Israeli dispute
aggravates Muslim-Jewish tensions, but it is not the root cause. During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a notorious Jew-hater, helped the Nazis organize the 13th SS Division, made up of Muslims. Unfortunately, in addition to respectful references to Jewish patriarchs and prophets, the Koran also contains virulent anti-Semitic stereotypes that are widely invoked by Islamist extremists, including Hezbollah (whose agents blew up the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994), to justify murdering Jews worldwide. The disappearance of Israel would only further embolden violent Jew-haters everywhere.
9. Israel, not Hamas, is responsible for the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Goldstone was right when he charged that Israel was guilty of war crimes against civilians.
The Goldstone Report on Israel’s defensive war against Hamas-controlled Gaza, from which 8,000 rockets were fired after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005, is a biased product of the UN’s misnamed Human Rights Council. The UNHRC is obsessed with false anti-Israel resolutions. It refuses to address grievous human rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and beyond. Faced with similar attacks, every UN member-state including the U.S. and Canada would surely have acted more aggressively than the IDF did in Gaza. Yet, Richard Goldstone, a South African Jewish jurist, signed a document prepared by investigators whose main qualification was rabid anti-Israel bias. He accepted every anonymous libel against the IDF. But he insisted that hearings in Gaza be televised, guaranteeing that fearful Palestinians would never testify about Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields and their hiding of weapons in mosques and hospitals. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz denounced Goldstone’s Report as a modern “blood libel” accusing Israeli soldiers of crimes they never committed.
10. The only hope for peace is a single, bi-national state, eliminating the Jewish State of Israel.
The One-State solution, promoted by academics, is a non-starter because it would eliminate the Jewish homeland. However, the current pressures on Israel are equally dangerous. In effect, the world is demanding that Israel, the
size of New Jersey, shrink further by accepting a Three-State solution: a PA state on the West Bank and a Hamas terrorist state controlling 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. All this, as Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, stockpiles
50,000 rockets, threatening northern and central Israel’s main population centers. In 2010, most Middle East experts believe that the only hope for enduring peace is two states with defined final borders. But too many diplomats, pundits, academics and church leaders ignore the fact that current polls show that whmost Israelis favor a Two-State solution, most Palestinians continue to oppose it.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Canada and the Palestinian Authority
Canada's Foreign Policy Misled by PA:
Canadian funding conditions consistently violated
More than a year after the Annapolis conference,
the Palestinian Authority continues to mislead donor countries.
In English, it talks peace, but in Arabic, it:
· denies Israel's existence
· incites hatred
· promotes terror and glorifies terrorists
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Executive Summary
The Annapolis Conference in November 2007 created hope for the renewal of a peace process after years of Palestinian Authority (PA)-supported terror. PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas assured Israel and the world in English that there had been a sincere change.
However, in Arabic the Palestinian Authority, Fatah leaders and the Abbas-controlled official PA media are no more peaceful towards Israel than they were during the Arafat era. In fact, during the 12 years of PMW's existence, there has never been a period of such intense demonization of Israel, continuous hate promotion, terror glorification, and open denial of Israel's existence by the PA (Fatah) and the Abbas-controlled media than what we have witnessed in 2008 - 2009.
Canadian Funding of the Palestinian Authority
Canada halted funding for the Palestinian Authority after the January 2006 Palestinian Authority general elections led to the formation of a Hamas government:
"Canada became the first donor to suspend aid to the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday, saying the new Hamas-led government had failed to give assurances that it would recognize Israel's right to exist." [Reuters, March 29, 2006]
Canada reinstituted funding for the PA in July 2007 after the split between Fatah and Hamas. On Dec. 17, 2007, at the Conference of Donors for the Palestinian Territories, Canadian Foreign Minister Bernier announced:
"Canada is increasing support to the peace process through additional assistance to Palestinian reform and development... Canada will commit $300 million over the next five years to build security, governance and prosperity."
This commitment included a clear stipulation of specific expectations:
"Our funding is not unconditional," said Minister Bernier... "This contribution will be conditional on progress in negotiations and Palestinian reforms. In every facet of our work, we will devote special attention to the issues of hatred and incitement of violence."
(News Release, Dec. 17, 2007 Website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada International.gc.ca)
To this day, Canada continues to fund the Palestinian Authority based on the English- language assurances by PA leader Abbas that he accepts Israel's right to exist, rejects terror, and does not incite to hatred and violence.
This report shows that in its own Arabic media, aimed at a Palestinian audience, the Palestinian Authority violates all these conditions.
1. Denial of Israel's existence, calls for Israel's destruction:
Examples:
a. Muhammad Dahlan, a senior PA official, stated plainly on official PA TV: " I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today." [PA TV March 17, 2009]
b. A PA TV educational geography program has been broadcast regularly since August 2007, and most recently in January 2009, teaching there is no Israel and all of Israel is "Palestine:"
"... another section in Palestine ...Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port... To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberius, near a famous lake, the lake of Tiberius [Kinneret- Sea of Galilee]. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to the world."
Note that all of these are Israeli cities, spread over the entire country.
c. Official PA schoolbooks describe a Middle East without Israel:
"Coastal states differ in terms of their access to water sources, such as...: states located on sea coasts with accesses to two seas, for example: Palestine and Egypt to the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea."
[Physical Geography and Human Geography, Grade 12, p. 105]
"Palestine has a long coast facing the Mediterranean sea and a short coast on the Gulf of Aqaba."
[Health and Environment Studies, Grade 8 (2003), p. 130]
Note that the Israeli city of Eilat is on the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba).
"... The Tiberias Lake [Sea of Galilee], in Palestine"
[Physical Geography, Grade 5, p. 25]
Israel is painted over in the colors of the PLO flag in PA government Census Bureau announcements. These announcements were aired on PA TV (Fatah) - often several times a day - during and after the Annapolis conference at the end of 2007. Maps similar to this one continue to appear on official web sites in 2009 [see below].
2. Hatred is actively promoted as policy for children and adults. Hate videos, libels and lies remain a backbone of PA TV.
Examples:
a. The official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, has propogated a long-standing blood libel against Israel, falsely accusing Israel of conducting horrific Nazi-like medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners:
"Many of the male and female inmates received injections from needles they had not seen before, and which caused their hair and facial hair to fall out permanently ... others lost their sanity, or their mental condition is constantly deteriorating... and some are suffering from infertility." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 4, 2008]
b. Another wild accusation concerns the deployment of "supernatural rats" against Arab residents of Jerusalem's Old City:
"... [Israeli] settlers have been bringing chests filled with rats and releasing them in the Old City's [Arab] neighborhoods... the [Arab] residents' efforts to counter this infestation have failed, especially since cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity... All of the conventional efforts to kill them have not succeeded... which compels Jerusalem's [Arabs] today to face the dangers of settlement and the infestation of rats..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 18, 2008]
c. PA TV has been broadcasting a music video from 2007 to February 2009, with the repeated refrain, "My enemy, my enemy." Israel is called a "snake, coiled around the land." The hate video denies Israel's right to exist and anticipates Israel's destruction: "You have no choice, O enemy, but to leave my country."
3. The PA openly glorifies not only past but current terrorists, venerating terrorist murderers - even those who have murdered since Annapolis.
Examples:
a. The suicide terrorist in the Israeli city of Dimona, the killer of the eight Jerusalem yeshiva students, arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh and other terrorists were all glorified as Palestinian heroes in official PA newspapers and television in 2008.
b. In February 2009 the PA glorified the terrorist who murdered three civilians and seven Israeli soldiers in a 2002 ambush. The terrorist and his action were praised as "the hero of the Intifada... [doing] what tens of brigades and platoons, and hundreds of missiles and heroic stories, failed to do."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 17, 2009]
c. On March 11, 2009, PA TV broadcast a special program commemorating and celebrating the 30th anniversary of the most deadly terror attack ever carried out in Israel - a bus hijacking that left 37 civilians dead. The program opened with the narrator glorifying this attack as "one of the most important and most prominent special operations, executed by the Palestinian revolution by sea, on the coast between Haifa and Tel Aviv. This operation, carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi... ."
4. Far from distancing itself from earlier Arafat ideologies, the PA leadership continues to advocate Israel's destruction.
Example:
PA Fatah MP: "It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [i.e. destroy Israel], but in our current political program, we [Fatah] say we want a state on the 1967 borders..."
[PA TV Aug. 25, 2008]
Contrary to the perception that Hamas alone preaches terror, violence and denial of Israel's right to exist, this PMW Special Report documents that the PA-Fatah leadership and media promote the same message. In contrast to the moderate message that it conveys to the English-speaking world, the Palestinian Authority's Arabic-language world continues to be imbued with hate promotion and promises of Israel's expected destruction.
Canada is directly funding
the responsible government frameworks.
The report
1. Denying Israel's right to exist, rejecting Israel's existence and advocating its destruction
2. Hate promotion and demonization for children and adults - PA Hate Media
2.1 Libels and lies
2.2 Hate through videos and demonization
3. Honoring and glorifying terror
3.1 Murderers since Annapolis deemed heroic
3.2 Other past terrorists - likewise deemed heroic
3.3 PA lauds terrorist-mass murderers as heroes
4. PA Political and Religious Leaders - hatred in Arabic
4.1 PM Mahmoud Abbas - in Arabic
4.2 Other PA political and religious officials (MPs, party leaders, etc.)
5. Conclusions
UNDERSTANDING THE MIDDLE EAST - Brief History of the Region
Israel is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, and speaks the same language, that it did 3,000 years ago. The more facts you know about the history of Israel, the better an advocate you will be. Often, foreign journalists assigned to Israel arrive with very little background of Israel's history. Without context, it is impossible to report fairly on the Middle East. Much has been written about the history of the modern state of Israel. Here is a short summary of the basic info every activist should know.
From a Dream to Reality
The 2,000 year-old Jewish desire to return to the land of Israel was given international recognition by the Balfour Declaration and the United Nations partition vote.
1917: British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour makes the following declaration in a letter to Lord Rothschild:
"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object."
1922: The U.S. Congress passes a resolution supporting the Balfour Declaration.
1922: Great Britain administers the area referred to as "Palestine" – which includes present day Jordan – following the defeat of Turkey in the First World War.
1922-1946: Great Britain divides Palestine in two, intending for the territory west of the Jordan River to be a Jewish state and the area east to be an Arab state.
1947: The United Nations approves by a 2/3 majority the British proposal to create a Jewish and an Arab State. However, unlike the original British proposal, the Jewish State would only exist in a fraction of the land west of the Jordan and the Negev Desert. Jerusalem was designated as an "International City."
1948 The Creation of the State of Israel, a Fight for its Life
The Zionist movement accepted the U.N. plan to divide the area historically referred to as "Palestine" into a Jewish and an Arab nation. The Arabs rejected the plan and immediately attacked Israel.
1948: Israel proclaims its independence. Within 24 hours, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq attacked. The newly formed, poorly equipped Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repulses the invaders in fierce intermittent fighting, which lasts some 15 months and claims over 6,000 Israeli lives (nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time).
1949: Fighting ends. According to the resulting armistice agreements, the coastal plain, Galilee and the entire Negev falls within Israel's sovereignty. Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) come under Jordanian rule, and the Gaza Strip comes under Egyptian administration. The international community refuses to recognize Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Jerusalem is divided, with Jordan controlling the eastern part, including the Old City, and Israel the western sector. (The line demarcating the Arab and Jewish cease-fire positions is today referred to as the "Green Line." It was never intended to serve as an international border.)
1949-1956: The 1949 armistice agreements are constantly violated by the surrounding Arab nations. Israeli shipping is prevented from passing through the Suez Canal; the blockade of the Straits of Tiran tightens; incursions into Israel by terrorist squads from neighboring Arab countries occurs with increasing frequency; and the Sinai peninsula is the scene of a huge Egyptian military build-up.
1955: Egypt seals off access to the Israeli port of Eilat, effectively stopping Israel's sea trade with much of Africa and the Far East. On July 26, 1956 Egyptian President Nasser announced Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal, most of whose shares were held by Britain and France. Britain, France, and Israel launch a military operation in the Sinai Peninsula. Four and a half months later, on March 16, 1957, Israel withdraws her troops from the Sinai and Gaza Strip after receiving international reassurances that Israel's vital waterways would remain open. 3,300 United Nations troops replace them. Despite Israel's withdrawal, the Egyptians refuse to open the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping.
1967 The Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars: Israel Survives and Ends Up in Control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights
Faced with imminent attack and actions that legally constituted acts of war, Israel was forced to take preemptive action against numerically superior forces. The result was that Israel ended up in military control of Jerusalem and many areas that had never been part of any state.
1967: Israel is faced with Arab terrorist raids across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, persistent Syrian artillery bombardment, and massive military build-ups by the neighboring Arab states. Egypt moves troops into the Sinai desert, expels the UN peacekeeping forces, blockades the Straits of Tiran and enters into a military alliance with Jordan. In response, Israel launches preemptive strikes against Egypt and then Syria. Despite Israeli pleas, Jordan belatedly joins Egyptian and Syrian war efforts. When the war is over, Israel controls Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Jerusalem, divided since 1949, is reunified under the Israeli flag.
1968: Egypt initiates a 'war of attrition', with sporadic, static actions along the banks of the Suez Canal, which escalates into full-scale, localized fighting, causing heavy casualties on both sides. Hostilities end in 1970 when Egypt and Israel accept a renewed cease-fire along the Suez Canal.
1973: On Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Egypt and Syria launch a coordinated surprise assault against Israel. In three weeks, the Israel Defense Forces turn the tide of battle and repulse the attackers, crossing the Suez Canal into Egypt and advancing to within 20 miles of Damascus. After two years of negotiations, a cease-fire was agreed upon and Israel withdraws from parts of the territories captured during the war.
Israel Strives for Peace with Arab States and Palestinians.
Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO that were supposed to permanently end the Arab-Israel conflict. There has never been any serious attempt by any Palestinian leader to reign in terrorist groups.
1977: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visits Jerusalem. The visit was followed in 1978 by the Camp David Accords. The accords brought the 30-year state of war between Israel and Egypt to an end. In accordance with the terms of the treaty, Israel withdraws from the Sinai Peninsula, exchanging former ceasefire lines and armistice agreements for mutually recognized international boundaries.
1982: The Palestine Liberation Organization perpetrates repeated terrorist actions against northern Israel from Lebanon. The Israel Defense Forces cross into Lebanon ("Operation Peace for Galilee"). The defeated PLO is forced to relocate to Tunisia.
1987: The PLO launches the first Intifada. Over the next four years, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. Under Arafat's direction, the violence eventually turned inward against suspected "collaborators." Nearly 1,000 Palestinians were killed by PLO-inspired violence during this period.
1993: "Oslo" Accords. Declaration of Principles (DOP) between Israel and the PLO signed in Oslo. The PLO renounces the use of terrorism, pledges to invalidate those articles in its Covenant denying Israel's right to exist and commits itself to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In return, Israel recognizes the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and begins withdrawing military forces from the main Palestinian population centers.
1994: Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan signed in the presence of U.S. President Bill Clinton.
1995: Beginning of a wave of suicide bomb attacks which claim hundreds of lives throughout Israel.
2000: Israel completes withdrawal of all military forces from the Security Zone in Southern Lebanon.
2000: President Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat attend a summit at Camp David in July 2000 to resume peace negotiations. Barak offers to withdraw from most of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem. Arafat rejects Barak's offer and makes no counter-proposal.
2000: Under Arafat's leadership, the Palestinians initiate a new Intifada, a campaign of indiscriminate terror and violence, causing heavy loss of life and suffering to both sides. Numerous efforts to end the violent confrontation and renew the peace process fail due to the ongoing and escalating Palestinian terrorism supported by the Palestinian Authority.
2003: Israel accepts the "Road Map to Peace", accompanied by comments that Israel considers integral to its implementation and a U.S. commitment to address these comments.
Lacking Palestinian "Peace Partner", Israel Takes Unilateral Steps to Achieve a Separation Between Israelis and Palestinians.
2003: Israel begins to construct a security barrier to prevent terrorist infiltration.
2005: Israel withdraws from all settlements in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the northern West Bank. Israeli military forces are completely removed from Gaza.
2005-2006: Hundreds of Kassam rockets are fired from land Israel handed over to the Palestinians in Gaza.
2005: Iranian President threatens to "wipe Israel off the map." Affirms that Iranian nuclear program will continue in the face of international opposition.
2006: Hamas Terrorist Organization wins elections for Palestinian Authority legislature. Pledges not to recognize Israel or halt violent attacks. Vows to create Islamic society to liberate all of Palestine. Embraces Iran.
Copyright notice ©2009 HonestReporting Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)