The US and Israel still seem very interested in attacking Iran to keep them from having nuclear weapons. Most of the debate around this concerns whether Iran is using its nuclear technology to create harmless power or to create weapons. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the US and Israel can be complaining about anybody having nuclear weapons. These two countries have nuclear weapons in fantastical numbers. I might feel a little less confused about this if anyone could show me an instance where either country justified this hypocrisy, even if their justification makes no sense. But I guess since the US invaded Iraq without any such justification, I really shouldn't get my hopes up.
This is while Iran insists that it is conducting its nuclear program under the regulations of the UN nuclear watchdog and insists that its program is aimed at generating electricity for a growing population.
Israel, believed to be the sole possessor of 'at least 150 nuclear warheads' in the Middle East, seeks to persuade US President George W. Bush to halt Iran's nuclear program by military rather than diplomatic means before the end of his term in office.
This AP article lists violent incidents in Iraq for the week, including a remote-detonated truck bomb, a failed suicide bomb attempt by a female Iraqi, and a raid led by the US in which Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cousin was killed.
This last bit is the most interesting part because the US had previously agreed to hand over control of this area to Iraqi forces.
AP says:
Officials close to the prime minister said the killing enraged al-Maliki, who has been locked in negotiations in recent months over a long-term security agreement with the United States.
Al-Maliki demanded an explanation from the Americans, who promised an investigation into the incident, said the officials Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
Karbala Gov. Aqil al-Khuzaie said in a statement Saturday that the raid was a violation of an agreement signed with the U.S. last year that transferred Karbala to the control of Iraqi security forces.
This move may or may not have consequences for the US in Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet are working hard to destroy their image as Bush's lapdogs, beginning when they banned Blackwater mercenaries last September. And as they gain more and more control over their own security forces, the US will become more and more accountable for its actions.
Despite the cease fire, missiles are still being fired from Gaza, but not from Hamas this time. Now, al-Aqsa has a whole new beef with Israel. al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah offshoot, claims that the Israeli military has been behaving very badly in the West Bank and refuses to stop firing from Gaza until the cease fire is extended to the West Bank.
The first attack since the cease fire agreement was reached occurred on Wednesday, when two qassam rockets were fired into the Negev. al-Aqsa claimed responsibility and said it was in response to two people killed by the IDF in the West Bank city of Nablus. IDF officials claim the two men were planning a terrorist attack on Israel and that weapons and ammunition were found in their homes. Arabs claim the two men were students studying at the university in Nablus and were killed unjustifiably. No doubt the truth is somewhere in the middle, but meanwhile, Israel and the various Palestinian factions are playing the blame game.
Hamas is blaming the rocket attacks on Fatah (and al-Aqsa), al-Aqsa is blaming the IDF for West Bank killings, and the IDF is blaming Hamas for not stopping the missile fire. It's one big circle jerk, with innocent civilians not getting to have any of the fun.
The official terms of the cease fire are that Israel would open Gaza crossings, which has been delayed due to the rocket fire. World media, fueled by the UN, has been highly critical of Israel for keeping the Gaza borders closed despite the terms of the cease fire, but Israel's Haaretz News reminds readers that the IDF has not responded to the missiles with airstrikes, as they have in the past. Israel is under increasing pressure from its citizens to stop the missile fire and equal pressure from the rest of the world not to hurt Palestinians anymore.
Meanwhile, discussion of the theoretical cease fire continues. Israelis inch closer to the edge of their seats as the return of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit becomes more and more of a possibility. Haaretz says:
The London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al Hayat reported on Thursday that Egypt had given Israel a list of 1,000 prisoners Hamas wants freed in return for Shalit, but Israel objected to 75 percent of them. According to the paper's sources, the deal in the works is set to include the release of 150 Palestinian inmates in the first stage, in return for Shalit being transferred to Egypt, where his family will be able to visit him. On Shalit's return to Israel, 800 additional prisoners will be released in two stages.
800 prisoners for one man...even 10 for one, seems like a lopsided deal, but Yoel Marcus at Haaretz writes:
Since 1948, the number of Israeli prisoners held by the other side has been very small, compared with thousands in our hands over the years. The numerical formula, in other words, will always be lopsided. In a one-for-one exchange, we will still have thousands left over on our side. On top of that, we are talking about a deal between two sides that are unequal in many ways: Israel, a democratic country with organized procedures and a free, open press, versus organizations controlled by lone wolves, a decision-making process that is very different from our own, and a closed, censored media.
So the UN is pressuring Israel, Israel is pressuring Hamas, and Hamas is pressuring the underdog factions. In Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh uses the press to ask al-Aqsa and Islamic Jihad to knock it off:
"We expect everyone to respect the agreement so that the Palestinian people achieve what they look for, an end to this suffering and breaking the siege," he told reporters outside a Gaza mosque after Muslim prayers.
And who is listening to the underdog factions? Nobody.
Zochrot is a Hebrew word meaning the plural female form of “remembering,” which is fitting as this, and many other peace-focused organizations, is mainly staffed by women. The 2008 Zochrot conference was held June 22-24 at the ZOA house, headquarters of the Zionist Organization of America. It began with a speech by the organization’s chairman, Eitan Bronstein, wherein he outlined Zochrot’s goal and method of achieving that goal all in one sentence: “How can we talk about the return of Palestinians if we don’t understand we expelled them?” Zochrot is documenting stories and evidence of the Nakba to educate Jewish Israelis about this part of their history. With this evidence, they hope to gain support for the return of refugees. He then echoed the fears of many Israelis in regards to the return, “Are we going back to the countries we came from? Are we going to swim in the sea? What are we going to do?”
Answering these questions was the goal of the conference.
Norma Musih, also of Zochrot, shared another common Israeli concern: for how long, how many generations of Palestinian refugees should be compensated? The answer she proposed is: until they are no longer refugees.
Activist Yael Lerer noted a trend among young Israelis to return to their countries of origin. She said, “Israeli Jews want Polish citizenship, compensation from Germany. Nobody questions this, of course they deserve it.” These Israelis are acquiring citizenship in the country of their parents or grandparents. Many are returning to the cities and countries their ancestors fled as refugees. Why should Palestinians not do the same? The parallel between the right of return for Palestinians and Jews will become increasingly harder to ignore to those whose friends and family continue to emigrate back to Europe.
Architect Amnon Bar Or discussed realistically Israel’s status as a David surrounded by the Arab Goliath when he said, “We have to acknowledge that this is a small culture and with this modesty, adopt another.” This echoed the sentiment expressed by Zochrot member Esther when she compared Israel to a ghetto of European Jews. She said, “We are in the Middle East. We have to be a part of the Middle East. We are not in Europe anymore.” I responded by saying “This may be the first time in history that the Jews have not blended into the society in which they live…and maybe this is the problem?” Esther responded unequivocally, “It’s a big problem, yeah.”
Kibbutz member Einat Luzati, speaking only on her own behalf, told the audience that the return of refugees and the creation of one state would benefit Jews because everyone would finally find peace. And in a statement where she either indirectly shamed Israel for the treatment of Palestinians or was blissfully ignorant of the parallel, she said, “For me and my family, Israel is a haven. Here, there will be no holocausts. Here, there will be no pogroms.”
The conference did not only focus on what Jews would have to give up, but cited “the Palestine of the past” and acknowledged that Palestinians would have to give up this dream. In response to the common Israeli question of why Palestinians can’t make a home in the surrounding Arab countries, Wakim Wakim of ADRID said, “There is no Arab regime whose hands are not covered in Palestinian blood.” And, further emphasizing the idea that the refusal of return hurts Jews too, Wakim said:
Did Israel fulfill its promise to its people to provide freedom and security? Or did they turn the country into one big ghetto they cannot protect?
Whether or not the ideas expressed in this conference can be effective, thinking outside the box certainly cannot hurt. And I was struck by the audacity of many of the statements. These speakers are people not deterred by naysayers. When confronted with the ever-popular reaction that won’t work, they dare to ask why not? This sort of attitude brought to my mind the father of Zionism itself: Theodor Herzl. A man who so deeply believed in both the need for a Jewish state and its possibility that he grew the tree of Zionism from a tiny, laughable seed. A man who said things like:
Our opponents maintain that we are confronted with insurmountable political obstacles, but that may be said of the smallest obstacle if one has no desire to surmount it.
And
Those of us who are today prepared to hazard our lives for the cause would regret having raised a finger, if we were able to organize only a new social system and not a more righteous one.
And
But I am convinced that those Jews who stand aside today with a malicious smile and with their hands in their trousers' pockets will also want to dwell in our beautiful home.
Speakers at the conference echoed Herzl’s sentiments. Zochrot’s Norma Musih said, for example, “This requires a daring kind of act where Jews will be the minority.”
The conference provided only a hint of a practical solution despite one of the panel titles, “Practicalities of Return.” What it did provide was a list of questions that should be asked. A place to begin. Perhaps if these opinions weren’t held by only a small minority, they would have gotten further in their quest to answer some of the most pressing and complicated questions of our time. But they have the courage to ask them, while others pretend there is no question.
Like a monster hiding under your bed, the answers they imagine lay waiting for them are too terrifying to contemplate. But just like anything one doesn’t understand, if you bring the monster into the light, you’ll find there’s nothing there.
Zochrot’s ideas may be far ahead of their time: a one-state solution is not going to happen within this generation. Not just because the majority of Israelis and Palestinians are against it, but because it will not be possible before a two-state solution has been in effect for some time. The two peoples cannot come together without being equals. And Palestinians will not be equals without autonomy.
The 2008 Zochrot conference was held June 22-24 in Tel Aviv at the ZOA House. The Zionist Organization of America was an ironic place to host a conference focused on the return of Palestinian refugees. But what was even more entertaining was the graffiti that was painted all over Ibn Gvriol Street and the ZOA house prior to the conference.
Theodor Herzl, considered the father of Zionism, tirelessly campaigned all over Europe and the Middle East in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for a Jewish homeland. He felt that something bad was in the works for Jews in Europe. At first he met with mostly resistance and disbelief. Nobody believed his idea would work. But he said, "If you will, it is no dream." Every Israeli child grows up learning this Herzl quote, and many others, as well as seeing Herzl's ubiquitous photograph.
Which is why seeing this graffiti outside the ZOA house and Right of Return conference was so funny:
It says literally, "If you don't want, there's no need." But it's a figure of speech and in English we would say, "If you don't want, so nevermind."
Author's Note: it was rather difficult to get this to be funny with the translation and the lack of context and blah blah blah for those who aren't familiar, so thanks for bearing with my explanation.
“The Internationals,” we were called. A strange amalgamation of foreigners who arrived on one of the hottest days of the year, so far, to protest the existence of the wall at Bil’in, in the West Bank. We were German, American, French, English, Irish, and Canadian. Our presence did two things: we provided cover for the Palestinian protesters, and we drew the attention of the media. The presence of the media offered additional protection to the protesters, although the filming of the soldiers does not always stop violent attacks.
This protest occurs every Friday in Bil’in. At last week’s protest, local Ibrahim Bornat was shot in the thigh. Video of this event can be seen here. Ibrahim’s brother Rani was also shot by an Israeli sniper at another protest eight years ago, and remains paralyzed from the neck down.
Before the protest began, the Internationals were given a short speech about what to expect and how to stay safe. We were advised that the IDF first uses sound grenades, then tear gas, then rubber bullets, and finally, live fire. The most severe of these counter measures are reserved for those who throw stones, so we were advised not to stand between stone throwers and the IDF. We were also asked not to throw stones ourselves because the non-Palestinians in charge of our group strictly believed in non-violent protest. However, it was acknowledged that several young Palestinians stay after the Internationals have gone to throw stones at the soldiers.
Most of these counter measures are employed to keep people away from the fence and the 50 feet and five layers of barbed wire that separate the Israeli military from the unarmed protesters.
It all went as planned. We marched to the wall together, some marching up front to see “the action,” some staying in the back to be safer. When we reached the first layer of the fence, we stopped. Most people had stopped much farther back than this and only a small mixed cluster of Palestinians and Internationals came all the way to the edge. The media took their position on the top of the hill. The protesters chanted and banged rocks against the fence. An ear-piercing squeal was emitted from the IDF that lasted about ten minutes. Some people plugged their ears, some kept banging rocks on the fence.
After this, the first of the sound grenades was launched. They caused only a small boom, comparable to the missiles that fell on Ziqim, but without the explosion. By this time the protesters had opened two of the gates leading to the Israeli side but had not crossed over. They were still 50 feet from the closest Israeli and less than ten from where they’d started. But this was far enough for the IDF. They began, as we were warned, to launch tear gas canisters, which landed unpredictably throughout the landscape. Sometimes only one or two at a time. Sometimes they came down in thick volleys, their smoke trails in the air looking like dancers perfectly in tune to each other.
Everyone tried to avoid the gas clouds as best as they could, except the most die-hard protesters, who stayed behind in the thickest smoke, perhaps immune to its potency after so long.
We retreated slowly, only going far enough to be out of smoke range. But then they would fire more tear gas and we would be pushed still farther away.
After almost everyone had begun the trek back to the village, we stragglers noticed a few fires burning in the olive grove closer to the wall. Someone yelled, “Help me! Help me put them out!” But the IDF was firing tear gas heavily into the area on fire, which made it difficult to get close enough to put the fire out. Not that we had any realistic way of doing this.
We pushed slowly toward the fire anyway, and the soldiers on the other side of the fence yelled in Hebrew, “If you come any closer to the fence, we’ll shoot.” One man yelled back in English, “We’re not! We’re trying to put out the fire!” and followed with a string of obscenities in Arabic. But at that point we couldn’t turn back anyway. The IDF had begun to drop tear gas behind us. We were completely surrounded by white clouds of gas and the gray smoke from the fire was actually a welcome contrast to the stinging of the tear gas.
The fire had a woody smell, like a fireplace, because the olive trees were burning. Somewhere in the distance another fire was burning, this one with thick, black smoke. Nobody knew where or why.
I was one of the last to reach the crest of the hill, over which I could not see the wall anymore. I left behind me only the teenage boys who halfheartedly threw stones and yelled their anger to soldiers who did not respond.
Two days later, as I reflect on this event, I think what was the result? It’s possible that the media presence prevented violence this time, but what about next time? The residents of Bil’in and similar villages live with this every day. They struggle to maintain dignity in the face of near total domination.
The action of the Israeli Army against the whole of Palestinian Society betrays their rhetoric about security as the purpose of their occupation and instead shines light on what seems to be their true aim; the slow removal of the Palestinian people from their land by any means possible. This includes terrorizing the population through forced transfers, economic starvation, house demolitions, unwarranted arrests, and unchecked killing of the civilian population. This ethnic cleansing is cemented as a reality through the Israeli policies of land confiscation, settlement expansion, and the control of water resources which are the true aims of the Apartheid wall and system of occupation.
I am finally reading the last chapter of The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan. An incredibly well researched and historically accurate account of the history of Arab-Israeli conflict.
This chapter is about the security wall constructed by Israel beginning in 2002. The wall is electrified in some places and covers over 400 miles, cutting off some parts of the West Bank from others. According to Tolan's research, Israel declared, '"The sole purpose of the fence is to provide security' in response to 'the horrific wave of terrorism emanating from the West Bank.'" Presidential candidate John Kerry called it, "a legitimate act of self defense." Palestinians call it apartheid. They accuse Israel of using the opportunity to get more land, since the wall does not follow the Green Line of 1967.
It think it's both. And I'll tell you why.
It is the best way Israel could think of to stop the horrendous acts of terrorism that were (and are) killing civilians on buses and planes, in shops, and walking the street. It was the most human and non-violent way to deal directly with the terrorism.
The reason the security fence will not work is that terrorism is not the problem but the symptom of the problem. Building the security fence is like giving aspirin to someone with a broken leg.
Terrorism is a symptom of prolonged and insoluble anguish. Of helplessness and anger. Just like early Jewish militias Irgun and The Stern Gang, Palestinian terrorists are responding to their belief that there is no other way to be listened to and respected. And Israel proves over and over that they are right.
Until Israel learns to deal with their neighbors with respect and compassion, terrorism will continue, no matter what walls they build.
In 2004, the UN's International Court of Justice declared the wall unlawful. Israel responded by saying, "If there were no terror, there would be no fence."
And as the chicken-or-egg question rages on, I must look outside the box and think, well they both exist now so what difference does it make who started it?
In case anybody missed the memo, I've now written for something besides my own blog. Which means that actual editors requested my writing. And then approved it after it was written. You can read my super fun and light article about Israeli culture here.
I spent five days at kibbutz Ziqim, which is located just North of the Gaza border. Kibbutz Ziqim is bombed regularly by Hamas, and hiding from missile fire has become a way of life for them. This kibbutz is known for being very left wing politically, despite the constant attacks.
I made a movie in two parts. Part one was filmed during a period when there were no bombs for seven days, which is very unusual. Residents Rueven and Ora discuss politics during this relative period of peace and quiet.
Part two was filmed during and after a heavy missile attack. 20 qassam rockets fell inside the kibbutz over about 30 minutes, which is also very unusual. When I questioned the residents about why they thought the missile fire was resumed so heavily, they surmised that the period of quiet was actually a chance to stockpile more weapons, not Hamas' acceptance of a cease-fire agreement, which they originally thought.
As the dust settled, so to speak, on this whole matter, several facts came to light. The first news about the barrage was released barely an hour after it ended and stated that the heavy missile fire was designed to distract Israel so that a "heavy vehicle" which approached the border at "alarming speed" could carry out "a major terror attack."
Israel's Haaretz news says:
The IDF said that Gaza militants were planning to use the heavy barrage as a diversion in order to carry out a massive attack at the border fence between Israel and the Strip.
A heavy vehicle approached IDF troops stationed at the Gaza border fence at an alarming speed, the IDF described the attempted attack. The soldiers opened fire and forced the vehicle to stop. The IDF said that it was the soldiers' quick response that likely prevented a serious attack.
Could this be any more vague? Given that a major terror attack was carried out in the form of qassam rockets, it's understandable that Israel was desperate for news about the event, what caused it, and what the results were. But I'm left wondering where this information came from since it differs so drastically from later news reports.
A report released later said the missile attack was in retaliation for the destruction a Hamas member's house and the deaths of those inside:
The intense shelling was probably the result of an explosion in an apartment building in the town Beit Lahiya in the northern Strip yesterday afternoon, killing seven Palestinians and injuring dozens. Most of those killed were Hamas activists, and the two-story building and several other homes in the town were destroyed.
And then:
Hamas, which initially accused Israel of causing the explosion in the home of a Hamas man, later toned down its accusations after Israel firmly denied any involvement in the incident. Israeli sources said the incident was probably caused by Palestinians making a bomb.
If you look up "knee jerk reaction" in the dictionary, you will read a description of these events. If a Hamas member's house exploded, obviously it's because Israel bombed it. Or wait, if a Hamas member's house exploded, obviously it's because he was making a bomb.
You started it! No you started it! No, you! I'm telling mom!
The above article also states that, despite the attack, Israel is still pursuing a cease fire agreement with Hamas and is not seriously planning to attack Gaza.
And the latest update from Haaretz says that Israel is even planning to let the issue of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit drop for the time being, although this information, as usual, is not straight from the horse's mouth.
An Egyptian source said that Israel has agreed not to condition a cease-fire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip on the release of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported on Saturday.
If this last information is true, it marks a turning point in Israel's attitude toward Gaza and toward a cease-fire. Which is not surprising after the damage caused on Thursday. The question remains whether Israel will still be so flexible after the dust has settled and the people are not so rattled.
Left wing Israelis favor securing Shalit's release, even if it means putting up with more rocket fire until a peace agreement can be reached. Right wing Israelis, especially those in Sderot, where the damage is the worst, favor a major Gaza operation, even if it means Shalit's death. It seems that, in the long run, this soldier's life depends upon which side is more vocal and who the government is listening to.
A letter from Shalit to his family was released Wednesday, wherein he revealed knowledge of current events. Which means he knows that he is the center of these negotiations and that no matter the result people are dying. Either from missile attacks or in a battle in Gaza.
And what of the supposed terror attack attempted at the border?
The IDF foiled a large-scale terror attack yesterday when Palestinian militants attempted to bring an apparently booby-trapped bulldozer close to the border fence. Israeli soldiers fired anti-tank missiles at the bulldozer and stopped it. The militants jumped off and fled back to the Strip.
The IDF said that Gaza militants had been planning to use the heavy barrage as a diversion while carrying out the attack with the bulldozer near the fence.
Apparently? Booby trapped? Bulldozer???
Everything about that news snippet is bizarre. Just...everything. I have so many questions.
Where did they get a bulldozer? What were they going to do with it? In what way was it "booby trapped"? How did they jump off and run away after their bulldozer was hit with anti-tank missiles?
UPDATE: Alternative sources (my Israeli friends who can translate the tv news for me) reveal that the bulldozer was outfitted with heavy armor and that, actually, the one man inside the bulldozer stopped his vehicle 100 meters from the border fence and ran away before the IDF fired on him. As he ran away though, they did shoot at him. And kill him. The IDF then shot at the bulldozer, at which time it exploded.
New developments in the Hamas-Israel cease fire have hinted again at both sides' unwillingness to make a deal. Israel has, throughout the negotiations, insisted that the release of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit be part of a cease fire. Hamas' biggest request is the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange. Both sides have now conceded at least part of the other's request, but yet both sides still maintain the other is not willing to compromise.
Hamas yesterday released a letter from Shalit to his family in which he states he is being treated well but he wants the government to secure his return as soon as possible. Hamas released a statement today saying that Israel should, in turn, release some Palestinian prisoners as a show of good faith. Hamas leaders suggested releasing women prisoners or minors as a compromise and step toward a truce. Israel has not responded to that request.
A defense source involved in the efforts to gain Shalit's release said Tuesday that the letter Hamas delivered to Shalit's family, via the Carter Center in Ramallah, was not related to the attempts to conclude a truce, and its timing was coincidental. "The letter was delayed for some time for a variety for reasons," the source said.
He added that the talks with Hamas over a prisoner exchange are at an impasse because of the group's unwillingness to be flexible.
On the other side of the fence, Hamas has created a list of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners to be released as part of a cease-fire agreement. It has not confirmed that Shalit would be released in return. Israel has approved 70 names on that list, but Hamas has still not returned reassurances that Shalit will be traded for these prisoners. Israel has denied the release of the other prisoners on the list "because they were directly responsible for the murder of Israelis."
The sheer number of prisoners on the wish list brings up some questions and concerns. Firstly, what are the other 70 guilty of that they could all be released in exchange for one man? It brings to mind a statistic: 40% of the adult male Palestinian population has seen the inside of a prison. And by "adult" I mean post-pubescent, not the traditionally acceptable boundary of 18 years or older. This statistic makes it abundantly clear that Israel is a bit jail-happy. They don't need much of a reason to throw Arabs in jail, and keep them there. So their willingness to release 70 convicted criminals makes me wonder what exactly those criminals were convicted of. Perhaps throwing stones. Perhaps organizing a political movement. Perhaps associating with members of Hamas, Fatah, or Hezbollah. The bottom line is that, by Israel's own admission, they are not responsible for any deaths.
But as missiles continue to be fired into Israel from Gaza on a daily basis, the people responsible for Israeli deaths will be a government which does not take any and all steps necessary to secure a cease-fire.
But instead, Olmert and his cronies are trying to drum up support for a sweeping Gaza operation that will mean the deaths of far more Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians than have been killed by Hamas' rockets.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with the heads of the defense establishment Tuesday in preparation for today's diplomatic-security cabinet meeting. No details of their meeting were released, as Olmert and Barak said they would prefer to keep Israel's intentions secret from Hamas.
"We must not talk very much," Barak told the full cabinet Tuesday. "When the moment is right, we will take action. It is important that the cabinet listen well to what the army says can be achieved, and what cannot be achieved, via an operation in the Gaza Strip."
Israel has discussed a third option: resuming assassinations of Hamas' leaders, which would pressure the group to accept Israel's terms for the cease-fire.
Iraq's president, Nouri al-Maliki, made another visit to Iran yesterday to discuss the two countries' relationship and ask for Iran's help in supplying electricity. Guess what else happened yesterday. Another suicide truck bomb blew up, this time on a US patrol base in eastern Iraq. Weird that al-Maliki's visits with Ahmadinejad keep coinciding with suicide truck bombs, the reported hallmark of al-Qaida.
A crackdown on Iraqi militias in March revealed "very, very significant amounts" of Iranian weaponry, which led Iraqi leaders to question Iran about what, exactly, its intentions are (source). However, this most recent meeting could mark a turning point in Iraq-Iran relations, with the possibility of Iran supplying electricity to the Southern Iraq city of Basra.
Despite these attacks of suspected Iranian origin being on Iraqi soil, it is the US that has been most hurt by the truck bombs and other militia attacks. And it has been the US that has been most vocal about Iran's guilt in supplying weapons to insurgents and creating nuclear weaponry. Nevermind that US intelligence reports disproved this suspicion a while ago.
And in light of Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's recent meetings, wherein they discuss the prospect of attacking Iran, it seems the US has a boner for Iran and will recruit whatever allies necessary, or whatever "evidence" necessary, to make that attack happen.
Unfortunately for Bush, his puppet Iraq is starting to make decisions for itself, which may leave him without key support in completing his conquest of the Middle East.
But Peace and Freedom has learned independently that the nuclear research labs of Iran are so many and so disbursed that the Israeli Air Force would have difficulty "servicing the entire target list" we were told by an IAF officer.
There is speculation among military analysts that the United States would have to assist the IAF in any full-scale effort to neutralize Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
One specialist told us, "We foresee a scenario where Israel initiate action and the U.S. cleans up."
And by "clean up" they mean "reorganize the government and install leaders that pander to our interests." Which is a disaster in the making because, as the wife one Iraqi politician said back in 2005, “George Bush can say what he likes, but he cannot control the situation.”
I spent the day with two women from Machsom Watch, an organization that observes Israeli soldiers at checkpoints inside the West Bank and reports their findings to prevent human rights abuses. Machsom Watch was founded by, and is primarily run by, women as it is assumed that the feminine presence deescalates aggression on both sides.
As we arrived, Fatchiah, an Arab Israeli and member of Machsom Watch, talked to the men hanging around the Hawara checkpoint, outside of Nablus. They were taxi drivers and vendors of food and drink. They told her that the commander of the checkpoint had forbidden them to sell near the exit, which they are usually allowed to do.
The rules of each checkpoint are subject to each day’s commander, a man or woman who most likely graduated high school two or three years ago. This is characteristic of the Israeli military. Men and women, during their mandatory military service, are put in positions of authority and leadership very early in their careers by necessity. Career officers are few and far between. This is one reason why human rights abuses still do occur. These soldiers are young, angry, and mostly unmonitored. They have grown up hearing stories of their grandparents’ suffering in the Holocaust, as well as the suffering caused by terrorist attacks that still occur. They watch their friends die. And then they are given guns and thrust into service with too little guidance.
After discussing the day’s events with the vendors, Fatchiah asked to speak with the commander. When he appeared, I was incredulous. This boy couldn’t be more than 19 or 20. But he was affecting the posture and tone of a seasoned veteran. When she questioned him about why he revoked the men’s privileges, he said that they were making a mess and he needed to teach them a lesson. Losing a day’s wages would do the trick. This is also common at the checkpoints. Miriam, a member of Machsom Watch for five years, cites the common practice of “educating the Palestinians” as if they were children. Later, this same commander confiscated the identification papers of four taxi drivers. He returned three but kept the fourth man’s papers without giving him a reason. When Fatchiah questioned him about this, he responded, “It is none of your concern.”
It seemed to me that he was not a figure to be despised, but rather, a little boy wearing his father’s shoes. He has so little experience in his field, but with no one to defer to, he was forced to make tough decisions anyway. I felt the same amount of empathy for him and for the taxi driver. They are both victims of a system they did not design.
Part deux of my History of the Conflict is as follows. Let me remind my readers once again that this blog is designed to be an introduction to the Middle East for people who know little or nothing about the situation. This is because I am also just beginning to educate myself about it. So my musings are not meant to be the definitive word on anything, nor am I claiming to have all the information about this or any other event.
Hhhhhhanyway...
Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN mediator between Israel and Palestine, was assassinated in the fall of 1948 by the Stern Gang, an extremist Jewish militia. In their statement claiming responsibility for the assassination, which occurred the day after Bernadotte issued his recommendation, they called the UN "members of foreign occupation forces."
The recommendation called for the following resolutions:
Palestine would come under King Abdullah's control
al-Ramla and Lydda, as well as other large parts of the Negev, would be returned to Arab hands
Jews would keep control of the Galilee and Haifa
Jerusalem would be controlled by the UN
Arab refugees would be allowed to return to their homes or would be compensated financially if they did not wish to do so.
David Ben Gurion detained, disarmed, and virtually disbanded the Stern Gang and Irgun militia after this. Nevertheless, Bernadotte's plan was ignored.
In contemplating the concept of "the right to return" and why it has been refused by Israel, one must not only consider the ramifications for the displaced, but also the reasons for the continued displacement. Whether Israel is right or wrong, one can certainly not pass judgment without first understanding.
It seems that originally Ben Gurion would not allow refugees to return to conquered villages because he was afraid an Arab presence in his newborn country would undermine Jewish authority. And why have successive leaders also denied this right? Even now that Israel is a world power? I can only speculate at this point.
Besides the fact that these homes are, and have been, occupied by Jewish families since 1948, what I speculate is that there is an unpublicized long-term plan to dodge the issue of return until all those displaced in 1948 are dead. At this time, those still fighting for return will not only lack the resources to accomplish it, but they will have lost substantial desire to do so. It's one thing to want to return to your own home, but to want to return to a place you've never been is a difficult dream to keep alive.
History is full of displaced ethnic groups who have quietly blended into their new surroundings within the course of one or two generations. Chief among them, the Jews. One could argue even that the reason the Jewish faith and culture has survived so long despite never having an empire is that they became adept at practicing the customs of the larger society no matter where they were. Another example is the plight of Native Americans. They put up quite a fight, but once European settlers had become the dominant group, this fight died within a generation, along with countless aspects of their culture. And how about the story of Africa and the slave trade. Imported slaves also adopted most aspects of the larger culture while practicing their tribal beliefs in secret, also for one generation. And the Zulu in South Africa. The list goes on.
All these stories are similar in that they were displaced peoples overtaken by a dominant culture. But they are different in how those dominant cultures have dealt with them. Native Americans have been assigned plots of land and will receive government aid as long as they exist. The descendants of African slaves attained the same legal rights as whites in the 1960s but are still largely economically disadvantaged. South African apartheid ended in 1990 amidst a buzz of wide-ranging emotions.
And what of the Jews in history? They have experienced everything from enslavement in Egypt, to a warm welcome in Bulgaria. We already know history repeats itself, but which way will it repeat itself in this case?
Soldiers routinely fill the train stations all over Israel- usually returning from leave. Or...leaving....for leave. But usually they wear uniforms. Or carry...equipment. Or something.
Joschka Fischer, the former Foreign Minister of Germany, published an article Friday in which he outlined the events in the Middle East of late and made predictions for the near future. He wrote that Bush's recent visit to Jerusalem was less to congratulate Israel on its 60th birthday and more to give it the go ahead to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Fischer writes:
Bush's central topic, including his speech to Israel's Knesset, was Iran. Bush had promised to bring the Middle East conflict closer to a resolution before the end of his term this year. But his final visit to Israel seemed to indicate that his objective was different: he seemed to be planning, together with Israel, to end the Iranian nuclear program - and to do so by military, rather than by diplomatic, means.
Fischer specifically highlighted that this military action is likely to take place before the end of the Bush administration because it is unclear what the next administration's strategy would be. Most likely, no matter who is elected they won't be as much of a warhawk as Bush.
And sixth, with the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty about his successor's policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action is seen as potentially closing.
It's like when you know mommy won't let you have an ice cream so you ask daddy instead.
Is Bush high? Are we not already involved in another war? One that was also prompted by supposed weapons of mass destruction. He's like a little boy, going around blowing the tops off anthills with firecrackers. Further, and as I have mentioned before, Ahmadinejad is not stupid. If he were planning a covert attack on any country he would not give them warning beforehand. That tells me he is not about to attack Israel or the US or anyone else with the capability to fight back. He's going to goad whomever he likes into a fight, and then use their own momentum to push their faces in the dirt. And we are falling for it.
Almost a year ago, Israel announced its plan to boost tourism by changing Israel's image from a purveyor of holy relics to a purveyor of sexy girls. This plan was aimed mainly at American tourists. For anyone who's been to Israel, it's no secret the country is filled with beautiful girls. But the media image of Israel--smashed windows, bombs, sirens--has become so well entrenched in the worldwide consciousness that the Israeli Ministry of Tourism knew they would have to come up with an alternate campaign more attractive than bloodshed. And what is the one idea more attractive to Americans than violence? Sex.
The campaign featured female IDF soldiers in bikinis who posed for Maxim magazine and was officially backed by the Israel Ministry of Tourism.
When the numbers came out in January of this year, the plan proved effective. The second half of 2007 saw more American (and Canadian) visitors ever in the history of Israel.
Personally, I prefer them in their uniforms. You can see girls in bikinis in any country.
Three people were injured today by the Qassam rockets that are fired daily from Gaza into neighboring areas of Israel. At the same time, residents of the areas being bombed gathered near the Sufa Gaza-Israel crossing to protest the shipments of food Gaza is receiving from the Israeli government. They insist the food shipments should stop as long as rocket fire continues. Protesters blocked the road to keep trucks full of food from passing and held signs that said, "DO NOT FEED TERROR."
The political-security cabinet was due to vote Sunday on whether to agree to an Egyptian-mediated cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak canceled the meeting, citing the "vagueness" of Hamas' position. The cabinet meeting will be postponed until the following Sunday.
It's like when you have a test at school so you tell your mom you're sick and you don't want to go.
al-Qaida's signature suicide car bomb made another appearance today, this time in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. That makes three al-Qaida bombings in three countries in the last two weeks. One might think they were spreading themselves too thin if one didn't already know they were the disposable pawn of Iran's great mastermind.
