Al-Shabab Commander: Our Declaration of Allegiance to Al-Qaeda is 'a Key to Renewing the Caliphate, Expelling the Crusaders from the Muslim World, and Liberating Jerusalem'
In a new audio recording, the commander of the Somali jihad organization Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen, Mukhtar Abu Al-Zubair, declared that the Muslims' victory over the Crusaders is near, and that last month's London Conference on Somalia was aimed at erasing this country from the map of the world. He also expressed satisfaction over his organization's declaration of allegiance to Al-Qaeda, calling it "a key to renewing the Caliphate, expelling the crusaders from the Muslim world, and liberating Jerusalem." He urged all Muslims to join the jihad, for it is an individual religious duty incumbent upon every believer.
Al-Zubair's address was aired on Al-Shabab's radio station, Al-Andalus, on March 22, 2012, and a transcript was posted the same day on the jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam. The following are the main points of the transcript.
To read the full report, visit http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=5874¶m=GJN.
Showing posts with label terrorismo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorismo. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Al-Qaeda Video Traces Pakistan Army's Role 'Against Muslims' In Iraq, Palestine, Delhi, Pakistani Tribal Region, Bangladesh
Al-Qaeda Video Traces Pakistan Army's Role 'Against Muslims' In Iraq, Palestine, Delhi, Pakistani Tribal Region, Bangladesh
Al-Qaeda militant Sher Alam
A new video released by Al-Qaeda traces the Pakistan Army's role "against Muslims" over the past century in Iraq, Palestine, Delhi, Pakistani tribal region and Bangladesh, and accuses it of killing Muslims and causing wounds to the Muslim Ummah.
The video is produced by Al-Sahab, the media arm of Al-Qaeda, and was released in two parts on a jihadist internet forum. The video starts with an interview of a mother, whose son was kidnapped by the Pakistani intelligence agencies six years ago and about whom there are no reports available to the family members. Similar clips from Pakistani television channels showing the relatives of "missing persons" kidnapped and killed by Pakistan intelligence agencies are shown.
To read the full report, visit http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=5837¶m=UPP.
Al-Qaeda militant Sher Alam
A new video released by Al-Qaeda traces the Pakistan Army's role "against Muslims" over the past century in Iraq, Palestine, Delhi, Pakistani tribal region and Bangladesh, and accuses it of killing Muslims and causing wounds to the Muslim Ummah.
The video is produced by Al-Sahab, the media arm of Al-Qaeda, and was released in two parts on a jihadist internet forum. The video starts with an interview of a mother, whose son was kidnapped by the Pakistani intelligence agencies six years ago and about whom there are no reports available to the family members. Similar clips from Pakistani television channels showing the relatives of "missing persons" kidnapped and killed by Pakistan intelligence agencies are shown.
To read the full report, visit http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=5837¶m=UPP.
New Video Documents Siege by Bedouin on Multinational Force Mission in Sinai, Indicates Links to Salafi-Jihadis in Gaza
New Video Documents Siege by Bedouin on Multinational Force Mission in Sinai, Indicates Links to Salafi-Jihadis in Gaza
On March 9, 2012, the blog Ansar Al-Shari'a, which chiefly follows Salafi-jihadi activities in Egypt, reported that the same day, armed Bedouins had surrounded the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) base in Sinai and laid siege to it. According to the report, they blocked access to the base from all four directions, in an attempt to pressure Egypt's "apostate government" to release jihadis from its prisons, chiefly Muhammad Al-Raba', Younis Abu Jurair, Osama Al-Nakhlawi, and Muhammad Gaiz.
The following day, the jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam picked up the story, reporting that dozens of Bedouin were protesting on the roads leading to the base, blocking personnel and supplies from reaching the international forces there, and that they had even set up portable roadblocks, turning back anyone who was not a local resident. According to the report on Shumoukh,, the demonstration came in response to the Egyptian authorities' violation of a commitment to release jihadis from its prisons – a commitment made by the commander of the Egyptian 2nd Army during the Bedouin's previous round of demonstrations in late January 2012, in northern Sinai's Bir Lahfan area, in which they demanded, among other things, to halt natural gas exports to Israel and to release their prisoners.
To read the full report, visit http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=5852¶m=GJN.
On March 9, 2012, the blog Ansar Al-Shari'a, which chiefly follows Salafi-jihadi activities in Egypt, reported that the same day, armed Bedouins had surrounded the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) base in Sinai and laid siege to it. According to the report, they blocked access to the base from all four directions, in an attempt to pressure Egypt's "apostate government" to release jihadis from its prisons, chiefly Muhammad Al-Raba', Younis Abu Jurair, Osama Al-Nakhlawi, and Muhammad Gaiz.
The following day, the jihadi forum Shumoukh Al-Islam picked up the story, reporting that dozens of Bedouin were protesting on the roads leading to the base, blocking personnel and supplies from reaching the international forces there, and that they had even set up portable roadblocks, turning back anyone who was not a local resident. According to the report on Shumoukh,, the demonstration came in response to the Egyptian authorities' violation of a commitment to release jihadis from its prisons – a commitment made by the commander of the Egyptian 2nd Army during the Bedouin's previous round of demonstrations in late January 2012, in northern Sinai's Bir Lahfan area, in which they demanded, among other things, to halt natural gas exports to Israel and to release their prisoners.
To read the full report, visit http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/blog_personal.htm?id=5852¶m=GJN.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Spymaster: Meir Dagan on Iran's threat
The Spymaster: Meir Dagan on Iran's threat
Watch the Segment »
In a rare interview, ex-chief of Mossad Meir Dagan speaks out against a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities anytime soon. He says the Iranian regime is rational in its own way. Lesley Stahl reports.
(CBS News) Meir Dagan has been described as "hard-charging" and "stops at
nothing." For more than eight years, Dagan made full use of those qualities as
chief of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, where he focused on keeping Iran
from developing a nuclear weapon. When that job ended, Dagan did something
unheard of for an ex-Mossad chief: he spoke out publicly, voicing opposition to
Israel launching preemptive airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities anytime
soon. Dagan believes the Iranian regime is a rational one and even its
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who has called for Israel to be annihilated -
acts in a somewhat rational way when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Lesley Stahl reports.
The following script is from "The Spymaster Speaks" which aired on March 11, 2012. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Shachar Bar-On, producer.
When President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this past week, the subject was how, when and if to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu saying Israel can't afford to wait much longer; Mr. Obama arguing there's still time to let sanctions and diplomacy do the job. And he said some top intelligence officials in Israel side with him.
Actually, you'll hear from one of them tonight: Meir Dagan, former chief of the Mossad, Israel's equivalent of the CIA. It's unheard of for someone who held such a high-classified position to speak out publicly, but he told us he felt compelled to talk, because he is so opposed to a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran anytime soon.
Dagan headed the Mossad for nearly a decade until last year. His primary, if not his only mission was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. And he says there is time to wait, perhaps as long as three years.
Lesley Stahl: You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you've ever heard. That's a direct quote.
Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.
Stahl: The dispute seems to come down, though, to whether you are at the end of everything that you can try or whether you have a lot of time left to try other things, which seems to be your position.
Dagan: I never said it's a lot of time but I think that-
Stahl: Well, more time.
Dagan: More time.
For nearly a decade buying more time was his job. The Iranians say Dagan dispatched assassins, faulty equipment and computer viruses to sabotage their nuclear program. All the while, he was poring over the most secret dossiers about the Iranian regime, gaining insights and a surprising appreciation.
Dagan: The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.
Stahl: Do you think Ahmadinejad is rational?
Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational.
Stahl: Do you think they're rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this?
Dagan: No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions.
Stahl: Other people think they're not going to really stop until they have this capability.
Dagan: They will have to pay dearly and all the consequences for it. And I think the Iranians, in this point in time, are going very careful in the project. They are not running in it.
Stahl: If they're that rational as you suggest and that logical, then why can't you, Israel, and the world live with a nuclear Iran?
Dagan: In the Israeli case, they have said they want to destroy Israel.
He says one sign of Iran's logical thinking is how they cunningly stall through diplomacy.
Dagan: I think that the Iranians are masters at negotiation. They invented of what I call the "bazaar culture" of how we are negotiating.
Stahl: So if there are negotiations, how concerned would you be that the Europeans, for example, would say, "Ah. We're talking. Let's weaken the sanctions"?
Dagan: I have to admit that's a concern. Yes.
Stahl: People are going to want to lessen the tension so that the oil prices will go back down.
Dagan: Do you think that Iran armed with a nuclear capability is going to create stability in the region? They have an interest, a basic interest to raise the prices of oil, cause this is the most important source of income for Iran. If Iran will be armed with a nuclear capability, their ability to create instability in the region, and by this indirectly to increase the price of oil, that'd be much worse than it is now.
Dagan says the best solution is to push the mullahs out by supporting Iranian students and minorities. According to a leaked State Department cable, he told his American counterparts as early as 2007, more should be done to foment regime change.
Dagan: It's our duty to help anyone who likes to present an open opposition against their regime in Iran.
Stahl: Has Israel done anything to encourage, help, support the youth opposition groups that have been marching against the regime?
Dagan: Let's ignore the question.
Dagan argues that a preemptive Israeli strike this year would be reckless and irresponsible. The Obama administration agrees that there's time to wait.
[Obama: Already there's too much loose talk of war.]
Dagan: I heard very carefully what President Obama said. And he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state.
Stahl: So let me try to sum up what I think you're now saying. And you're saying, "Why should we do it? If we wait and they get the bomb, the Americans will do it."
Dagan: The issue of Iran armed with a nuclear capability is not an Israeli problem; it's an international problem.
Stahl: So wait and let us do it.
Dagan: If I prefer that somebody will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it.
In his memoir, former Vice President Dick Cheney says that in 2007 Dagan came to Washington with intel to make the case for bombing the Syrian nuclear reactor that Israel later took out in a surprise attack. Syria did not retaliate. This time, Dagan thinks it'll be different. He worries about a rain of missiles which some estimate could be as many as 50,000.
Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.
We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.
Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.
Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.
Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.
Dagan: There are dozens of sites.
Stahl: Dozens?
Dagan: Dozens.
Stahl: Not four?
Dagan: Not four.
Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they'd have to have a dozen hits?
Dagan: You'll have to deal with a large number of targets.
Stahl: Here's something that I saw that you said. You said, "There's no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it."
Dagan: Yes, I agree.
It's ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan's expertise was, quote, "separating an Arab from his head."
Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.
Stahl: Here are some of the things that have been said and written about you. "Hard charging." "Stop at nothing." Somebody who, quote, "eats Arabs for breakfast."
Dagan: I am not responsible for what you are describing.
Stahl: But have you killed a lot of people?
Dagan: Unfortunately, I was involved in some engagement that people were killed.
Stahl: Any with your bare hands?
Dagan: Never. I know the stories. It's simply not true. Look, there is no pleasure in killing. There's no joy in killing people.
Sitting in his apartment, we were surprised that the walls were covered with pictures that he himself had painted.
Stahl: I see a lot of humanity in your paintings and I see paintings of Arabs.
Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.
His portrait is complex: he led a life of violence, but is a vegetarian. And in the background lies a haunting memory. This is a photograph of his grandfather moments before he was executed by the Nazis. Dagan would show it to his Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions.
Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.
We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.
Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.
Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.
Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.
Dagan: There are dozens of sites.
Stahl: Dozens?
Dagan: Dozens.
Stahl: Not four?
Dagan: Not four.
Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they'd have to have a dozen hits?
Dagan: You'll have to deal with a large number of targets.
Stahl: Here's something that I saw that you said. You said, "There's no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it."
Dagan: Yes, I agree.
It's ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan's expertise was, quote, "separating an Arab from his head."
Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.
Stahl: Here are some of the things that have been said and written about you. "Hard charging." "Stop at nothing." Somebody who, quote, "eats Arabs for breakfast."
Dagan: I am not responsible for what you are describing.
Stahl: But have you killed a lot of people?
Dagan: Unfortunately, I was involved in some engagement that people were killed.
Stahl: Any with your bare hands?
Dagan: Never. I know the stories. It's simply not true. Look, there is no pleasure in killing. There's no joy in killing people.
Sitting in his apartment, we were surprised that the walls were covered with pictures that he himself had painted.
Stahl: I see a lot of humanity in your paintings and I see paintings of Arabs.
Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.
His portrait is complex: he led a life of violence, but is a vegetarian. And in the background lies a haunting memory. This is a photograph of his grandfather moments before he was executed by the Nazis. Dagan would show it to his Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions.
Stahl: It's a very sad picture. And that's propelled you?
Dagan: I think that should propel everyone in this country.
Stahl: When the Iranians, when Ahmadinejad talks about wiping Israel away, this is what you're thinking?
Dagan: No doubt that I have to take into consideration a scenario that a majority of Israelis are going to be killed if they're going to use a nuclear capability against Israel.
He came to Mossad with the Holocaust motto of "never again" on his mind. Soon after, Iranian cargo planes started falling from the sky, nuclear labs were catching fire, centrifuges were malfunctioning. And then, one by one, Iranian nuclear scientists started disappearing and getting killed, blown up by shadowy men on motorcycles. But no matter how hard we tried, whenever we asked about any of this, he stonewalled.
Dagan: I'm not going to discuss anything about this issue.
Stahl: Okay, but that's pretty well known.
Dagan: Nice try.
Stahl: Nice try! That must kill you not to take credit for it. I mean, even in the Arab world, do you know what they call you? They call you Superman!
Dagan: I don't have my costume.
In Superman's time, Mossad was credited with a string of daring, exquisitely executed, covert missions and assassinations from Damascus to Sudan.
But glory turned to scorn at a Dubai hotel in 2010 during an operation to kill a top arms courier for Hamas.
What the 27 Mossad agents didn't know was that the hotel was full of security cameras and while they succeeded in the assassination, the whole world got to watch their comings and goings including the two agents who conspicuously hung around the elevator in their tennis shorts. Pictures of the "secret agents" were on front pages around the world.
Stahl: This is considered kind of a disaster for the Mossad.
Dagan: I never heard that any Israeli was arrested.
Stahl: No, but the chief of police in Dubai called for your arrest. He challenged you to, quote, "be a man and take responsibility."
Dagan: What do they want? That I really would take seriously what the chief of police of Dubai is saying?
Stahl: I wonder if it is the reason that you are no longer at the Mossad. That it was seen as such a botched operation, that that basically ended your career.
Dagan: First of all, not true. I was requesting the prime minister to leave my office. After more then eight years, I believed it's enough.
Dagan says he retired, but it's widely believed in Israel that Netanyahu refused to renew his term and that's one reason Dagan has broken the Mossad code of silence to criticize the prime minister's stand on Iran.
Stahl: This is payback.
Dagan: Payback? It's not even serious that I will reply. I have really the great admiration for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak. I'm not sharing their point of view. But it's not a payback. I don't see it as a personal issue.
Stahl: I've heard of talk that people want to put you on trial. They think what you're doing is treasonous.
Dagan: Let them put me on trial. I'll be very happy to go on trial. It'll be fun.
But we wondered if he had any regrets about not completing his mission at the Mossad.
Stahl: So you were dealing with the possibility of Iran getting a bomb for eight years.
Dagan: More than eight years.
Stahl: More than eight years. Did you fail?
Dagan: I could say one thing that when I ended my role in Mossad, they still didn't have a bomb.
So now the spymaster who spent his entire career in the shadows is out in the open as a public figure and a businessman.
Stahl: So you travel? You travel all the time?
Dagan: A lot, yes.
Stahl: Do you travel freely? Do you use your own passport with your name on it?
Dagan: Yes.
Stahl: Do you ever look over your shoulder?
Dagan: Never.
Stahl: You don't think there's a target on you? Do you think you're recognized?
Dagan: I'm assuming theoretically that there are a few groups of people around this world who will be happy to see me perish. But I'm not going to provide them the pleasure of doing so.
The following script is from "The Spymaster Speaks" which aired on March 11, 2012. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Shachar Bar-On, producer.
When President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this past week, the subject was how, when and if to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Netanyahu saying Israel can't afford to wait much longer; Mr. Obama arguing there's still time to let sanctions and diplomacy do the job. And he said some top intelligence officials in Israel side with him.
Actually, you'll hear from one of them tonight: Meir Dagan, former chief of the Mossad, Israel's equivalent of the CIA. It's unheard of for someone who held such a high-classified position to speak out publicly, but he told us he felt compelled to talk, because he is so opposed to a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran anytime soon.
Dagan headed the Mossad for nearly a decade until last year. His primary, if not his only mission was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. And he says there is time to wait, perhaps as long as three years.
Lesley Stahl: You have said publicly that bombing Iran now is the stupidest idea you've ever heard. That's a direct quote.
Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.
Stahl: The dispute seems to come down, though, to whether you are at the end of everything that you can try or whether you have a lot of time left to try other things, which seems to be your position.
Dagan: I never said it's a lot of time but I think that-
Stahl: Well, more time.
Dagan: More time.
For nearly a decade buying more time was his job. The Iranians say Dagan dispatched assassins, faulty equipment and computer viruses to sabotage their nuclear program. All the while, he was poring over the most secret dossiers about the Iranian regime, gaining insights and a surprising appreciation.
Dagan: The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.
Stahl: Do you think Ahmadinejad is rational?
Dagan: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rationale, but I think that he is rational.
Stahl: Do you think they're rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this?
Dagan: No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions.
Stahl: Other people think they're not going to really stop until they have this capability.
Dagan: They will have to pay dearly and all the consequences for it. And I think the Iranians, in this point in time, are going very careful in the project. They are not running in it.
Stahl: If they're that rational as you suggest and that logical, then why can't you, Israel, and the world live with a nuclear Iran?
Dagan: In the Israeli case, they have said they want to destroy Israel.
He says one sign of Iran's logical thinking is how they cunningly stall through diplomacy.
Dagan: I think that the Iranians are masters at negotiation. They invented of what I call the "bazaar culture" of how we are negotiating.
Stahl: So if there are negotiations, how concerned would you be that the Europeans, for example, would say, "Ah. We're talking. Let's weaken the sanctions"?
Dagan: I have to admit that's a concern. Yes.
Stahl: People are going to want to lessen the tension so that the oil prices will go back down.
Dagan: Do you think that Iran armed with a nuclear capability is going to create stability in the region? They have an interest, a basic interest to raise the prices of oil, cause this is the most important source of income for Iran. If Iran will be armed with a nuclear capability, their ability to create instability in the region, and by this indirectly to increase the price of oil, that'd be much worse than it is now.
Dagan says the best solution is to push the mullahs out by supporting Iranian students and minorities. According to a leaked State Department cable, he told his American counterparts as early as 2007, more should be done to foment regime change.
Dagan: It's our duty to help anyone who likes to present an open opposition against their regime in Iran.
Stahl: Has Israel done anything to encourage, help, support the youth opposition groups that have been marching against the regime?
Dagan: Let's ignore the question.
Dagan argues that a preemptive Israeli strike this year would be reckless and irresponsible. The Obama administration agrees that there's time to wait.
[Obama: Already there's too much loose talk of war.]
Dagan: I heard very carefully what President Obama said. And he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state.
Stahl: So let me try to sum up what I think you're now saying. And you're saying, "Why should we do it? If we wait and they get the bomb, the Americans will do it."
Dagan: The issue of Iran armed with a nuclear capability is not an Israeli problem; it's an international problem.
Stahl: So wait and let us do it.
Dagan: If I prefer that somebody will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it.
In his memoir, former Vice President Dick Cheney says that in 2007 Dagan came to Washington with intel to make the case for bombing the Syrian nuclear reactor that Israel later took out in a surprise attack. Syria did not retaliate. This time, Dagan thinks it'll be different. He worries about a rain of missiles which some estimate could be as many as 50,000.
Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.
We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.
Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.
Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.
Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.
Dagan: There are dozens of sites.
Stahl: Dozens?
Dagan: Dozens.
Stahl: Not four?
Dagan: Not four.
Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they'd have to have a dozen hits?
Dagan: You'll have to deal with a large number of targets.
Stahl: Here's something that I saw that you said. You said, "There's no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it."
Dagan: Yes, I agree.
It's ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan's expertise was, quote, "separating an Arab from his head."
Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.
Stahl: Here are some of the things that have been said and written about you. "Hard charging." "Stop at nothing." Somebody who, quote, "eats Arabs for breakfast."
Dagan: I am not responsible for what you are describing.
Stahl: But have you killed a lot of people?
Dagan: Unfortunately, I was involved in some engagement that people were killed.
Stahl: Any with your bare hands?
Dagan: Never. I know the stories. It's simply not true. Look, there is no pleasure in killing. There's no joy in killing people.
Sitting in his apartment, we were surprised that the walls were covered with pictures that he himself had painted.
Stahl: I see a lot of humanity in your paintings and I see paintings of Arabs.
Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.
His portrait is complex: he led a life of violence, but is a vegetarian. And in the background lies a haunting memory. This is a photograph of his grandfather moments before he was executed by the Nazis. Dagan would show it to his Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions.
Dagan: We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it.
We went outside and looked out from his balcony at the bright lights of the very prosperous, modern city of Tel Aviv.
Stahl: If Israel does strike Iran, the retaliation would probably take place right here. Hezbollah could come from the north; Hamas could fire from the south.
Dagan: It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time.
Dagan's other concern is that a bombing attack would not be effective. It's been widely reported that there are four main, heavily fortified, nuclear facilities dispersed across Iran. He says it's more complicated than that.
Dagan: There are dozens of sites.
Stahl: Dozens?
Dagan: Dozens.
Stahl: Not four?
Dagan: Not four.
Stahl: So if Israel were to go and have their strike, they'd have to have a dozen hits?
Dagan: You'll have to deal with a large number of targets.
Stahl: Here's something that I saw that you said. You said, "There's no military attack that can halt the Iranian nuclear project. It could only delay it."
Dagan: Yes, I agree.
It's ironic that the man arguing that Israel show restraint, built his reputation on brute force. Dagan is legendary in Israel with a 44-year resume as an effective killing machine. Before Mossad, he ran undercover hit squads, executing PLO operatives in Gaza, then Shiite militias in southern Lebanon. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say Dagan's expertise was, quote, "separating an Arab from his head."
Dagan: I never ever killed nobody or we were engaged in killing somebody who was unarmed.
Stahl: Here are some of the things that have been said and written about you. "Hard charging." "Stop at nothing." Somebody who, quote, "eats Arabs for breakfast."
Dagan: I am not responsible for what you are describing.
Stahl: But have you killed a lot of people?
Dagan: Unfortunately, I was involved in some engagement that people were killed.
Stahl: Any with your bare hands?
Dagan: Never. I know the stories. It's simply not true. Look, there is no pleasure in killing. There's no joy in killing people.
Sitting in his apartment, we were surprised that the walls were covered with pictures that he himself had painted.
Stahl: I see a lot of humanity in your paintings and I see paintings of Arabs.
Dagan: I know it would sound anti-Semitic if I said some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of Arabs.
His portrait is complex: he led a life of violence, but is a vegetarian. And in the background lies a haunting memory. This is a photograph of his grandfather moments before he was executed by the Nazis. Dagan would show it to his Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions.
Stahl: It's a very sad picture. And that's propelled you?
Dagan: I think that should propel everyone in this country.
Stahl: When the Iranians, when Ahmadinejad talks about wiping Israel away, this is what you're thinking?
Dagan: No doubt that I have to take into consideration a scenario that a majority of Israelis are going to be killed if they're going to use a nuclear capability against Israel.
He came to Mossad with the Holocaust motto of "never again" on his mind. Soon after, Iranian cargo planes started falling from the sky, nuclear labs were catching fire, centrifuges were malfunctioning. And then, one by one, Iranian nuclear scientists started disappearing and getting killed, blown up by shadowy men on motorcycles. But no matter how hard we tried, whenever we asked about any of this, he stonewalled.
Dagan: I'm not going to discuss anything about this issue.
Stahl: Okay, but that's pretty well known.
Dagan: Nice try.
Stahl: Nice try! That must kill you not to take credit for it. I mean, even in the Arab world, do you know what they call you? They call you Superman!
Dagan: I don't have my costume.
In Superman's time, Mossad was credited with a string of daring, exquisitely executed, covert missions and assassinations from Damascus to Sudan.
But glory turned to scorn at a Dubai hotel in 2010 during an operation to kill a top arms courier for Hamas.
What the 27 Mossad agents didn't know was that the hotel was full of security cameras and while they succeeded in the assassination, the whole world got to watch their comings and goings including the two agents who conspicuously hung around the elevator in their tennis shorts. Pictures of the "secret agents" were on front pages around the world.
Stahl: This is considered kind of a disaster for the Mossad.
Dagan: I never heard that any Israeli was arrested.
Stahl: No, but the chief of police in Dubai called for your arrest. He challenged you to, quote, "be a man and take responsibility."
Dagan: What do they want? That I really would take seriously what the chief of police of Dubai is saying?
Stahl: I wonder if it is the reason that you are no longer at the Mossad. That it was seen as such a botched operation, that that basically ended your career.
Dagan: First of all, not true. I was requesting the prime minister to leave my office. After more then eight years, I believed it's enough.
Dagan says he retired, but it's widely believed in Israel that Netanyahu refused to renew his term and that's one reason Dagan has broken the Mossad code of silence to criticize the prime minister's stand on Iran.
Stahl: This is payback.
Dagan: Payback? It's not even serious that I will reply. I have really the great admiration for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak. I'm not sharing their point of view. But it's not a payback. I don't see it as a personal issue.
Stahl: I've heard of talk that people want to put you on trial. They think what you're doing is treasonous.
Dagan: Let them put me on trial. I'll be very happy to go on trial. It'll be fun.
But we wondered if he had any regrets about not completing his mission at the Mossad.
Stahl: So you were dealing with the possibility of Iran getting a bomb for eight years.
Dagan: More than eight years.
Stahl: More than eight years. Did you fail?
Dagan: I could say one thing that when I ended my role in Mossad, they still didn't have a bomb.
So now the spymaster who spent his entire career in the shadows is out in the open as a public figure and a businessman.
Stahl: So you travel? You travel all the time?
Dagan: A lot, yes.
Stahl: Do you travel freely? Do you use your own passport with your name on it?
Dagan: Yes.
Stahl: Do you ever look over your shoulder?
Dagan: Never.
Stahl: You don't think there's a target on you? Do you think you're recognized?
Dagan: I'm assuming theoretically that there are a few groups of people around this world who will be happy to see me perish. But I'm not going to provide them the pleasure of doing so.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
New radar systems introduced to secure Gaza border
New radar systems introduced to secure Gaza border
Number of attempted and successful border infiltrations have dropped significantly since introduction of new systems Date: 18/03/2012, 11:24 AM Author: Florit Shoihet
The unique qualities of the new radars, “Baron” and “Baroness”, are thanks to a revolutionary new scanning technology. The radars are equipped with a wide view scanner, allowing them to view an entire area without rotating like traditional radars, eliminating blind spots. The new radar can scan an entire section of the border, tracking multiple targets simultaneously without rotating and leaving an area vulnerable. The radar is also sensitive to objects moving at low speeds, able to pick up lizards and trees waving in the breeze.
The radar, made by Elta Systems, is based on technology that allows it to both detect and track targets while continuously monitoring the area at the same time - offering an unprecedented level of control. The “Baron” and “Baroness” radars will be deployed around the Gaza Strip. Differences between the two models include range and angle of detection. Their primary use will be to detect hazards approaching the border fence, locating targets both on foot and in vehicles and continuing to track their progress.
An additional advantage to the new systems is their exceptionally high resolution. These improvements will allow for an accurate assessment of terrorists approaching the border.
Officials from the Southern Command have stated that since the new system’s integration it has been placed along the border and has been dramatically proving its usefulness. According to the Southern Command, since the deployment of the radars, both attempted and successful border penetrations have dropped 70-80%. In addition, the radar provides excellent coverage of operational areas, assisting troops in the field. Officers involved with the new system have said it is a system “that has proven itself.”
The radar, made by Elta Systems, is based on technology that allows it to both detect and track targets while continuously monitoring the area at the same time - offering an unprecedented level of control. The “Baron” and “Baroness” radars will be deployed around the Gaza Strip. Differences between the two models include range and angle of detection. Their primary use will be to detect hazards approaching the border fence, locating targets both on foot and in vehicles and continuing to track their progress.
An additional advantage to the new systems is their exceptionally high resolution. These improvements will allow for an accurate assessment of terrorists approaching the border.
Officials from the Southern Command have stated that since the new system’s integration it has been placed along the border and has been dramatically proving its usefulness. According to the Southern Command, since the deployment of the radars, both attempted and successful border penetrations have dropped 70-80%. In addition, the radar provides excellent coverage of operational areas, assisting troops in the field. Officers involved with the new system have said it is a system “that has proven itself.”
Op-Ed: MUST READ: Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria
Op-Ed: MUST READ: Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria
Published: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:37 AM
Part I: Yesha is ours. Important summary of facts and law in support of Israel's lawful exercise of sovereignty over East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
Wallace Edward Brand, JD
At least three nation-states, the UK, the US and Canada allow evidence of legislative purpose to be admitted to show the meaning of a statute that is ambiguous.
What follows is a necessary minimum of that evidence to show the purpose of the Balfour Declaration that was adopted by the WWI Allies at San Remo that established the International Law provided by that Agreement and the British Mandate for Palestine.
It is widely accepted, but not correct, that the West Bank belongs to the local Arabs in Palestine who in 1964, at the suggestion of the Soviet dezinformatsia, decided to call themselves "Palestinians.” [1]
These "invented people" [2] also pretend they had long had a passion for self government. [3] The full extent of Israel’s claim of sovereignty has not recently been stated. At most, it is said by the Israeli government that no one has sovereignty over the West Bank, but that Israel has the better claim. [4]
A better view is that the Jews obtained a beneficial interest in sovereignty over all of Palestine in the 1922 enactment of the British Mandate for Palestine, that entrusted exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to Britain in trust for the benefit of the Jews that later matured into a legal interest on the abandonment of the trusteeship by Britain and the attainment of the Jews of a majority population.
The trusts or guardianships were to be called "mandates”.
It was in 1919 that Jan Smuts submitted a memorandum to the League, which later became Article 22. The Council of Ten drafted for the League of Nations as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles [5], an Article 22 providing for trusts and guardianships for the areas in The Middle East and North Africa captured by the WWI Allies from the Ottoman Empire. This concept was later applied to other areas. Article 22's first two paragraphs provided a reasonably clear showing that a mandate was based on the longstanding British legal concepts of trusts and guardianships.
In 1917, in advance of the end of WWI, the British had drafted and published a policy for the disposition of the captured Ottoman lands in Palestine. [6] Britain and France were at that time following the “secret’ Sykes-Picot Agreement in their disposition of Ottoman Lands. But in recognition of the historic association of the Jews with Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, a British Policy approved it its Cabinet, provided for exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to be granted to the Jews.
The 1920 agreement of the WWI Allies at San Remo, on the terms of the Mandate turned what had been only a British Policy approved by the Cabinet, into International Law. Under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, the rights were to be provided in trust, [7].
We know this because the Balfour policy had been attacked as antidemocratic, as giving sovereignty to the Jewish people who constituted only 60,000 of the total population of 600,000 in Palestine as of 1917.
In Jerusalem, the Jews had had a plurality of the population since 1845 and a majority since 1863, but in all of Palestine, in 1917 they constituted only 10% of the population. Even US President Woodrow Wilson was advancing that argument that award of sovereignty to a minority population was inconsistent with his 14 points that provided, among other things, for majority control.
To counter this argument, which they conceded was a good one, Arnold Toynbee and James Namier in the British Foreign Office, in a memorandum of September 19, 1917 [8] said the problem of control by a minority was "imaginary" because they predicted that the grant would be placed in trust and would not vest sovereignty in the Jews until the Jews fit to govern it on modern European state.
In my view these included attainment of a majority population, defined boundaries, unified control over all within the boundaries, etc.. Providing a National Home for Jews in Palestine with the British running the government until the Jews could attain a majority status based on favored immigration from the Jews in the Diaspora would be a temporary measure and not antidemocratic. [9]
The statement of the purpose of the British Mandate for Palestine in its Preamble and Article 2 is entirely consistent with this view although not express. [10]
What was the National Home, a reconstituted state? No, it was a place for the Jewish people to feel at home while the immigration was going on that would ultimately give the Jews a majority of the population and a reconstituted state. So that the staff of the British Mandatory Power, will know how to do that: Article 4 provides for the Zionist Organization to advise the mandate government staff. Part of Article 6 requires the staff of the Mandatory Power for The Administration of Palestine, to facilitate immigration of Jews. The Mandate does NOT provide that immigration of any other peoples is to be facilitated. (emphasis added) Article 5 provides that none of the land is to be ceded to a foreign power.
Who were the beneficiaries of the trust? Only the Jews, both those already in Palestine and many more scattered worldwide in the Diaspora since the time of the Roman Empire conquest of Palestine.
Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with specially. [11]The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their civil and religious rights are to be protected.
Because Article 22 of the League Covenant defined the relationship of Britain and the Jews as trustee and guardian with Jews in effect being beneficiaries and ward the Mandate essentially provided for a Jewish National Home that would be supervised by the British until its ward was capable of exercising sovereignty, including helping it attain a majority of population it needed to do that. It was charged with facilitating such immigration.
All this purpose was not expressed very clearly in the Mandate, likely to avoid stirring up the Arabs in time of war that might bleed off troops to maintain stability in Palestine. But the Arabs did understand that this was the case.
After the war, the Arabs were told by Winston Churchill that the request for self government by the inhabitants of Palestine would be denied until such time as the Jews had attained a majority of the population. They made that understanding clear in their arguments against Partition in the UNSCOP hearings in 1947. [12]
The Arabs argued in 1947 "It was clear from the beginning that if Palestine were to be turned into a Jewish national home, this would involve the indefinite denial of self-government until such time as the Jews were strong enough to take over the government; that pending such time, Palestine would have to be subjected to a foreign administration [of England] which had no basis in the consent of the population and of which the policy would be determined, not by consideration of the welfare of the population, but by the desire to assist in the settlement of an alien group; and that to make such a settlement possible the country would have to be cut off from the surrounding Arab lands by artificial frontiers, would be given a separate system of law, administration, finance, tariffs, and education and would thus inevitably lose some if not all of the Arab character."
But that is what the grantors had in mind and the Arabs knew it when they argued against Partition in 1947. [13] They had learned after WWI from Winston Churchill this was their intention.
"As the first Arab delegation to England stated in the course of its correspondence with Mr. Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, 'we are to understand ...that self-government will be granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by it, and not before.' "[14]
Prior to the publishing of the British Mandate the French attached a "proce’s verbal" in French shown only in the French Version. [15] This was their agreement only on their stated understanding that the Mandate would not eliminate any existing rights of the non-Jews in Palestine. The League had no objection to the process verbal.
The Mandate expressly preserved existing civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. It could not preserve their political rights because they had never had any. The preservation of their civil rights only protected their individual political rights, ie. their electoral rights. It did not protect their collective political rights or national rights, the right of sovereignty and political self-determination.
The Arabs in Palestine had always been ruled from afar. So the Mandate carried out the “process verbal”
Why, in 1917, did Britain establish a policy that gave a preference to the Jews? There were several reasons.
1. Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration was David Lloyd-George. Later, in 1923, he was the author of an article "The Jews and Palestine" [16] In it he revealed his view that the Arabs under Ottoman Rule had turned Palestine, the Biblical land of milk and honey into a malarial wasteland. He believed it could be remedied under a reconstituted Jewish State.
2. There was considerable sympathy among many Christian Evangelicals in England who thought the Jews should be restored to Palestine to flee from the pogroms of Russia and Poland. This sympathy did not extend to receiving them in England. British workmen had complained that Jews were flooding in to England and taking their jobs and working for less. This led to the Aliens Act of 1909 restricting Jewish immigration into England.
But the British recognized that the oppression of the Jews in Russia and Poland was very bad and they needed some place to go. [17]
3. Chaim Weismann, an ardent Zionist and also a good chemist, had helped Britain in the war by developing an inexpensive method of manufacturing acetone used in cordite for munitions and had given it to the British. It was a great help to the British war effort. [18]
4. And England, according to Winston Churchill, also desired to win over the Jews in Russia, many of them in the Bolshevik government, so that they might influence the new Marxist government to remain in battle with the Germans and Ottomans in WWI on the side of the Allies. He thought that the Balfour Declaration could sway them in British favor. [19]
There came a time after WWII that the British decided their effort to be trustee was simply costing it too much. They tried to obtain some funding from the United States, but the United States declined to do so. Britain finally decided to abandon its trusteeship and guardianship in 1948.
On the abandonment of its trusteeship by Britain in 1948, political rights that were the "trust res" (the thing put in trust) devolved to the Jews as beneficiaries or wards of the trust and vested in them the political rights permitting them to exercise sovereignty. These rights had survived the demise of the League of Nations by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter. [20] It should be expressly noted that the Jews did not receive these rights from the Partition Resolution.
By that time the Jewish population had increased significantly. In 1947 the UN General Assembly had recommended that the Jews give up some of its rights in an attempt to avoid violence that had been threatened by the Arabs if the Jews were to reconstitute their state in Palestine. The Jews agreed to give up some of the land over which they were to have political rights, but the Arabs rejected the recommendation and commenced a war.
It was by the Arabs starting a war that led to a Jewish population majority. Some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled the country before even seeing an Israeli soldier. The wealthy left first, at the first foreshadowing of war. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Mahmoud Abbas wrote this in the official organ of the PLO, “Filanstin”, most of the rest left at the request of the Arab Higher Committee that wanted to get them out of the way of the Arab armies in the surrounding states. [21]
Many left because of a false report that the Irgun had committed a massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, that the Haganah, their political enemies did not dispute. A BBC program based on an interview of an Arab radio commentator at the time revealed he had been pushed into designating a hard fought battle as a massacre so as to provide an excuse for the invasion of surrounding armies. [22]
Many Arabs local to Palestine left; some remained.
But those that left could not go back because the Arab Armies did not prevail
In 1948 Israel declared Independence and vindicated its claim by force of arms against the assault of other Arab states surrounding it. It established an orderly unified stable control of its territory except for Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem which had been invaded and occupied by the Arab Legion in the East. This British supplied and led organization became the Army of Jordan. [23] In the South, the Egyptian Army was able to maintain its occupation of the Gaza Strip.
In 1920 the Ottoman Empire in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres,had ceded its sovereignty in Palestine, which had been undisputed for 400 years, to a Mandatory Power in trust for a National Homeland for the Jews. [24] The Sevres Treaty was never ratified by the Turks who were concerned over Turkey’s boundaries in Europe and in adjacent areas in Asia, not in the Middle East and North. But these issues were finally settled in 1923 in the Treaty of Lausanne that left the agreements in the Middle East unchanged.
The trustee selected by the League of Nations at San Remo was Great Britain; the US had been another possibiility. Sovereignty, i.e. political rights, over the other 99% of the lands captured from the Ottomans in the Middle East was allocated to Arab and Muslim majorities in some 20 areas such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq but as in the case of Palestine, in mandates of guardianship as the inhabitants had had no prior experience in self rule.
While it was expected in 1920 that the Jewish Homeland would eventually become a state when immigration gave the Jews a majority of the population, at the time the Jews were incapable of exercising sovereignty although the "Jewish Agency" was exercising administrative authority of wide scope.
End Notes
1. Brand, Soviet Russia, The Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People, http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html
2. Newt Gingrich, Campaign speech, 2012 Republican Primary
3. Brand, Was there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period? http://www.think-israel.org/brand.palnationalism.html
[4] Danny Ayalon, Israel's current Deputy Foreign Minister, The Truth About the West Bank /News/News.aspx/145836
[5] See the original documents in the Avalon Project at Yale University. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/versailles_menu.asp
[6]The Balfour Declaration Text http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E210CA73E38D9E1D052565FA00705C61
[7] See the first two paragraphs of Article 22
[8] Mueller, Editor, Churchill as a Peacemaker, Feith, p. 224 n. 36 citing Sir Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return, p. 111-12
[9] Charles Hill, Trial of a Thousand Years, World Order and Islamism
[10] San Remo Convention Text of the Mandate
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention
[11] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 36
[12] The Future of Palestine" by Musa Alami with a foreword by Mr. Alami. Hermon Press, Beirut, London (1970)
[13] Id
[14] Id
[15] Salomon Benzsimra, Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel, n. 68 See below
[16] David Lloyd George, The Jews and Palestine, http://einshalom.com/archives/210
[17] Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, A history of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1983) p. 90-94
[18] High Walls at 189
[19] Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews,Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war,. . . http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_1/churchill_international_jews_and_the_holocaust.php
[20]http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art80
[21] Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003)
[22]http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion
[24] http://athena.hri.org/docs/sevres/part3.html
What follows is a necessary minimum of that evidence to show the purpose of the Balfour Declaration that was adopted by the WWI Allies at San Remo that established the International Law provided by that Agreement and the British Mandate for Palestine.
It is widely accepted, but not correct, that the West Bank belongs to the local Arabs in Palestine who in 1964, at the suggestion of the Soviet dezinformatsia, decided to call themselves "Palestinians.” [1]
These "invented people" [2] also pretend they had long had a passion for self government. [3] The full extent of Israel’s claim of sovereignty has not recently been stated. At most, it is said by the Israeli government that no one has sovereignty over the West Bank, but that Israel has the better claim. [4]
A better view is that the Jews obtained a beneficial interest in sovereignty over all of Palestine in the 1922 enactment of the British Mandate for Palestine, that entrusted exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to Britain in trust for the benefit of the Jews that later matured into a legal interest on the abandonment of the trusteeship by Britain and the attainment of the Jews of a majority population.
The trusts or guardianships were to be called "mandates”.
It was in 1919 that Jan Smuts submitted a memorandum to the League, which later became Article 22. The Council of Ten drafted for the League of Nations as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles [5], an Article 22 providing for trusts and guardianships for the areas in The Middle East and North Africa captured by the WWI Allies from the Ottoman Empire. This concept was later applied to other areas. Article 22's first two paragraphs provided a reasonably clear showing that a mandate was based on the longstanding British legal concepts of trusts and guardianships.
In 1917, in advance of the end of WWI, the British had drafted and published a policy for the disposition of the captured Ottoman lands in Palestine. [6] Britain and France were at that time following the “secret’ Sykes-Picot Agreement in their disposition of Ottoman Lands. But in recognition of the historic association of the Jews with Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, a British Policy approved it its Cabinet, provided for exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to be granted to the Jews.
The 1920 agreement of the WWI Allies at San Remo, on the terms of the Mandate turned what had been only a British Policy approved by the Cabinet, into International Law. Under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, the rights were to be provided in trust, [7].
We know this because the Balfour policy had been attacked as antidemocratic, as giving sovereignty to the Jewish people who constituted only 60,000 of the total population of 600,000 in Palestine as of 1917.
In Jerusalem, the Jews had had a plurality of the population since 1845 and a majority since 1863, but in all of Palestine, in 1917 they constituted only 10% of the population. Even US President Woodrow Wilson was advancing that argument that award of sovereignty to a minority population was inconsistent with his 14 points that provided, among other things, for majority control.
To counter this argument, which they conceded was a good one, Arnold Toynbee and James Namier in the British Foreign Office, in a memorandum of September 19, 1917 [8] said the problem of control by a minority was "imaginary" because they predicted that the grant would be placed in trust and would not vest sovereignty in the Jews until the Jews fit to govern it on modern European state.
In my view these included attainment of a majority population, defined boundaries, unified control over all within the boundaries, etc.. Providing a National Home for Jews in Palestine with the British running the government until the Jews could attain a majority status based on favored immigration from the Jews in the Diaspora would be a temporary measure and not antidemocratic. [9]
The statement of the purpose of the British Mandate for Palestine in its Preamble and Article 2 is entirely consistent with this view although not express. [10]
What was the National Home, a reconstituted state? No, it was a place for the Jewish people to feel at home while the immigration was going on that would ultimately give the Jews a majority of the population and a reconstituted state. So that the staff of the British Mandatory Power, will know how to do that: Article 4 provides for the Zionist Organization to advise the mandate government staff. Part of Article 6 requires the staff of the Mandatory Power for The Administration of Palestine, to facilitate immigration of Jews. The Mandate does NOT provide that immigration of any other peoples is to be facilitated. (emphasis added) Article 5 provides that none of the land is to be ceded to a foreign power.
Who were the beneficiaries of the trust? Only the Jews, both those already in Palestine and many more scattered worldwide in the Diaspora since the time of the Roman Empire conquest of Palestine.
Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with specially. [11]The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their civil and religious rights are to be protected.
Because Article 22 of the League Covenant defined the relationship of Britain and the Jews as trustee and guardian with Jews in effect being beneficiaries and ward the Mandate essentially provided for a Jewish National Home that would be supervised by the British until its ward was capable of exercising sovereignty, including helping it attain a majority of population it needed to do that. It was charged with facilitating such immigration.
All this purpose was not expressed very clearly in the Mandate, likely to avoid stirring up the Arabs in time of war that might bleed off troops to maintain stability in Palestine. But the Arabs did understand that this was the case.
After the war, the Arabs were told by Winston Churchill that the request for self government by the inhabitants of Palestine would be denied until such time as the Jews had attained a majority of the population. They made that understanding clear in their arguments against Partition in the UNSCOP hearings in 1947. [12]
The Arabs argued in 1947 "It was clear from the beginning that if Palestine were to be turned into a Jewish national home, this would involve the indefinite denial of self-government until such time as the Jews were strong enough to take over the government; that pending such time, Palestine would have to be subjected to a foreign administration [of England] which had no basis in the consent of the population and of which the policy would be determined, not by consideration of the welfare of the population, but by the desire to assist in the settlement of an alien group; and that to make such a settlement possible the country would have to be cut off from the surrounding Arab lands by artificial frontiers, would be given a separate system of law, administration, finance, tariffs, and education and would thus inevitably lose some if not all of the Arab character."
But that is what the grantors had in mind and the Arabs knew it when they argued against Partition in 1947. [13] They had learned after WWI from Winston Churchill this was their intention.
"As the first Arab delegation to England stated in the course of its correspondence with Mr. Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, 'we are to understand ...that self-government will be granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by it, and not before.' "[14]
Prior to the publishing of the British Mandate the French attached a "proce’s verbal" in French shown only in the French Version. [15] This was their agreement only on their stated understanding that the Mandate would not eliminate any existing rights of the non-Jews in Palestine. The League had no objection to the process verbal.
The Mandate expressly preserved existing civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. It could not preserve their political rights because they had never had any. The preservation of their civil rights only protected their individual political rights, ie. their electoral rights. It did not protect their collective political rights or national rights, the right of sovereignty and political self-determination.
The Arabs in Palestine had always been ruled from afar. So the Mandate carried out the “process verbal”
Why, in 1917, did Britain establish a policy that gave a preference to the Jews? There were several reasons.
1. Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration was David Lloyd-George. Later, in 1923, he was the author of an article "The Jews and Palestine" [16] In it he revealed his view that the Arabs under Ottoman Rule had turned Palestine, the Biblical land of milk and honey into a malarial wasteland. He believed it could be remedied under a reconstituted Jewish State.
2. There was considerable sympathy among many Christian Evangelicals in England who thought the Jews should be restored to Palestine to flee from the pogroms of Russia and Poland. This sympathy did not extend to receiving them in England. British workmen had complained that Jews were flooding in to England and taking their jobs and working for less. This led to the Aliens Act of 1909 restricting Jewish immigration into England.
But the British recognized that the oppression of the Jews in Russia and Poland was very bad and they needed some place to go. [17]
3. Chaim Weismann, an ardent Zionist and also a good chemist, had helped Britain in the war by developing an inexpensive method of manufacturing acetone used in cordite for munitions and had given it to the British. It was a great help to the British war effort. [18]
4. And England, according to Winston Churchill, also desired to win over the Jews in Russia, many of them in the Bolshevik government, so that they might influence the new Marxist government to remain in battle with the Germans and Ottomans in WWI on the side of the Allies. He thought that the Balfour Declaration could sway them in British favor. [19]
There came a time after WWII that the British decided their effort to be trustee was simply costing it too much. They tried to obtain some funding from the United States, but the United States declined to do so. Britain finally decided to abandon its trusteeship and guardianship in 1948.
On the abandonment of its trusteeship by Britain in 1948, political rights that were the "trust res" (the thing put in trust) devolved to the Jews as beneficiaries or wards of the trust and vested in them the political rights permitting them to exercise sovereignty. These rights had survived the demise of the League of Nations by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter. [20] It should be expressly noted that the Jews did not receive these rights from the Partition Resolution.
By that time the Jewish population had increased significantly. In 1947 the UN General Assembly had recommended that the Jews give up some of its rights in an attempt to avoid violence that had been threatened by the Arabs if the Jews were to reconstitute their state in Palestine. The Jews agreed to give up some of the land over which they were to have political rights, but the Arabs rejected the recommendation and commenced a war.
It was by the Arabs starting a war that led to a Jewish population majority. Some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled the country before even seeing an Israeli soldier. The wealthy left first, at the first foreshadowing of war. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Mahmoud Abbas wrote this in the official organ of the PLO, “Filanstin”, most of the rest left at the request of the Arab Higher Committee that wanted to get them out of the way of the Arab armies in the surrounding states. [21]
Many left because of a false report that the Irgun had committed a massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, that the Haganah, their political enemies did not dispute. A BBC program based on an interview of an Arab radio commentator at the time revealed he had been pushed into designating a hard fought battle as a massacre so as to provide an excuse for the invasion of surrounding armies. [22]
Many Arabs local to Palestine left; some remained.
But those that left could not go back because the Arab Armies did not prevail
In 1948 Israel declared Independence and vindicated its claim by force of arms against the assault of other Arab states surrounding it. It established an orderly unified stable control of its territory except for Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem which had been invaded and occupied by the Arab Legion in the East. This British supplied and led organization became the Army of Jordan. [23] In the South, the Egyptian Army was able to maintain its occupation of the Gaza Strip.
In 1920 the Ottoman Empire in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres,had ceded its sovereignty in Palestine, which had been undisputed for 400 years, to a Mandatory Power in trust for a National Homeland for the Jews. [24] The Sevres Treaty was never ratified by the Turks who were concerned over Turkey’s boundaries in Europe and in adjacent areas in Asia, not in the Middle East and North. But these issues were finally settled in 1923 in the Treaty of Lausanne that left the agreements in the Middle East unchanged.
The trustee selected by the League of Nations at San Remo was Great Britain; the US had been another possibiility. Sovereignty, i.e. political rights, over the other 99% of the lands captured from the Ottomans in the Middle East was allocated to Arab and Muslim majorities in some 20 areas such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq but as in the case of Palestine, in mandates of guardianship as the inhabitants had had no prior experience in self rule.
While it was expected in 1920 that the Jewish Homeland would eventually become a state when immigration gave the Jews a majority of the population, at the time the Jews were incapable of exercising sovereignty although the "Jewish Agency" was exercising administrative authority of wide scope.
End Notes
1. Brand, Soviet Russia, The Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People, http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html
2. Newt Gingrich, Campaign speech, 2012 Republican Primary
3. Brand, Was there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period? http://www.think-israel.org/brand.palnationalism.html
[4] Danny Ayalon, Israel's current Deputy Foreign Minister, The Truth About the West Bank /News/News.aspx/145836
[5] See the original documents in the Avalon Project at Yale University. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/versailles_menu.asp
[6]The Balfour Declaration Text http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E210CA73E38D9E1D052565FA00705C61
[7] See the first two paragraphs of Article 22
[8] Mueller, Editor, Churchill as a Peacemaker, Feith, p. 224 n. 36 citing Sir Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return, p. 111-12
[9] Charles Hill, Trial of a Thousand Years, World Order and Islamism
[10] San Remo Convention Text of the Mandate
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention
[11] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 36
[12] The Future of Palestine" by Musa Alami with a foreword by Mr. Alami. Hermon Press, Beirut, London (1970)
[13] Id
[14] Id
[15] Salomon Benzsimra, Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel, n. 68 See below
[16] David Lloyd George, The Jews and Palestine, http://einshalom.com/archives/210
[17] Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, A history of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1983) p. 90-94
[18] High Walls at 189
[19] Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews,Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war,. . . http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_1/churchill_international_jews_and_the_holocaust.php
[20]http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art80
[21] Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003)
[22]http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion
[24] http://athena.hri.org/docs/sevres/part3.html
The day after Iran: Peace is only the first step
The day after Iran: Peace is only the first step
March 14, 2012, 12:45 pm 2
I
love this video. President Shimon Peres is 88 years old and he’s got one of the coolest Facebook videos on the planet. It was made by Noi Alooshe, the Israeli who made Zenga Zenga, the spoof of Muamar Qaddafi that became the anthem of the Libyan and Egyptian revolutions.
Peres gets it. Sure, he went to Washington to meet with President Barack Obama, but then he flew to Menlo Park, California to meet Mark Zuckerberg and launch his new Facebook page. Why? As Peres puts it, “Zuckerberg didn’t have a party, a country, an army, or a fortune, just an idea, that’s it — but he’s changing the world.”
Peres’s Facebook message is “be my friend, share peace.” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu used a different approach: Holding up letters the US government wrote to Jewish groups in 1944, explaining why the US could not bomb Auschwitz, Netanyahu not-too-subtly suggesting that Israel can only trust itself.
There is room for both approaches. It is good that Peres is using powerful new tools to reach out to the world. Netanyahu is focused on a no-less-critical component of advancing peace: to address the main source of the war against Israel and the West.
The good news is that the defeat or fall of the Iranian regime could usher in the biggest opportunity for Arab-Israeli peace in our lifetimes. With the mullahs defanged or gone, Hamas and Hezbullah would be much weakened and a space for Palestinian and other Arab moderates would be opened.
Yet I believe that both Peres and Netanyahu missed the mark. Together they were like the eagle on America’s national seal – olive branch in one talon and arrows in the other. But what about what is beyond both peace and self defense? When addressing the world, why do Israel’s leaders talk almost exclusively about the conflict?
A light unto the nations
With the threat from Iran reaching a crescendo, now may seem to be an unfair time to expect that Israelis focus on anything else. I disagree.
In his speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu said flatly, “The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future.” But security, while certainly necessary, is not sufficient. We have spent so long fighting and praying for peace and security that we have forgotten that it is not our purpose as a people and a state.
Netanyahu speaks at the AIPAC conference in Washington DC, Last week. (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)
If peace, something that most countries take for granted, were Israel’s only purpose, why go to all this effort? Did the Jewish people struggle for two millennia to regain our sovereignty in our land just so that we could have a nice safe place to live?
Many people might say yes, that would be enough. We ask no more than the right of self-determination that many peoples and states enjoy. We just want to mind our own business.
Personally, however, I’m not sure why I would have moved to Israel if the purpose were to live in safety. I felt safe in the United States. I also could have had a rich Jewish life in the US.
I — we — moved here to be part of a work in progress. And even at a time like this — maybe even more at a time like this — we need to remind ourselves and the world what it is we are trying to build. It is not about being just another country. It is about becoming a “light unto the nations.”
Being a “light” does not mean being perfect or even better than anyone else. It does mean making a contribution to the world or, as Steve Jobs hoped for Apple, “a dent in the universe.”
It is time we stopped wallowing in the narrative of crisis and survival. If we are going to talk about survival, we have got to talk about what we are surviving for. What’s our vision? Do we want peace for its own sake, or because we want to do something when we have it?
I think our vision should be about changing the world. If Facebook can do it, if Apple can do it, Israel can certainly do it. In fact, we already are doing it.
Make the world a better place
This year, Israel will be the first country in the world to begin to end its addiction to oil. We will start replacing our gas cars on a mass scale with electric cars that are cheaper, more convenient, and no less powerful – all with no tailpipe. The same solution, from a company called Better Place, will be implemented in Denmark, and soon in Australia, which will demonstrate that it can also work in big countries.
Most people seem not to believe that it will work. Why, they don’t know or they can’t say. I think it will. But even if it doesn’t, the underlying template is inspired: take a global problem, solve it in one country, spread that solution globally.
A Better Place sales showroom in Tel Aviv (photo credit: Serge Attal/Flash90)
We need to take this template and apply it to other global problems, such as the need to reinvent education, energy infrastructure, health systems, and meet growing global demand for better food and water.
Israeli startups have always been globally oriented out of necessity – we lacked a large local market and we were shut off from the regional market. But now we need to think even more globally, beyond the US and Europe to emerging markets in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Let us not hand our enemies a victory. Yes, the mullahs need to be defeated. But we must not let them distract us from our vision, or worse, confuse us into thinking that survival is our only goal. Survival, by itself, can never be a purpose. Next time our leaders go to Washington, or anywhere else, let us hear their vision beyond security, beyond peace.
The opinions and facts here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, click here to report this post.
Students in South return to school amid lull in rockets
Students in South return to school amid lull in rockets
03/18/2012 09:02
Some 200,000 students in the South were going back to school on Sunday morning after a relatively quiet weekend which saw a single rocket fired from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel.
Local authorities in the South and the Education Ministry on Saturday night consulted with the Homefront Command and made the decision to resume studies in Beersheba, Ashdod, Kiryat Malachi, Kiryat Gat, Gan Yavne and other southern towns after students stayed home last week amid more than 200 rockets fired from Gaza.
The Egyptian brokered cease-fire between Israel and terror groups in Gaza appeared to be holding despite the rocket fired at the Eshkol Regional Council area on Friday night. No injuries or damage were reported in the attack.
Local authorities in the South and the Education Ministry on Saturday night consulted with the Homefront Command and made the decision to resume studies in Beersheba, Ashdod, Kiryat Malachi, Kiryat Gat, Gan Yavne and other southern towns after students stayed home last week amid more than 200 rockets fired from Gaza.
The Egyptian brokered cease-fire between Israel and terror groups in Gaza appeared to be holding despite the rocket fired at the Eshkol Regional Council area on Friday night. No injuries or damage were reported in the attack.
'US, Israel agree Iran abandoned nuclear bomb'
'US, Israel agree Iran abandoned nuclear bomb'
By Raheb Homavandi / Reuters
03/18/2012 07:52
By Raheb Homavandi / Reuters
US and Israeli intelligence agencies mostly agree that Iran has not restarted its development of a nuclear bomb, the New York Times reported on Saturday.
According to the report, the assessment among top US officials is that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, a conclusion which was established based on intelligence analyses.
Israel - while seeing an existential threat in Iran's possible pursuit of a nuclear bomb - mostly agrees with those assessments, a US intelligence official speaking on the condition of anonymity told the Times.
“Their people ask very hard questions, but Mossad does not disagree with the US on the weapons program,” the Times quoted the official as saying.
Still, the report notes that the US has had difficulty formulating a complete picture of Iran's nuclear agenda, which intelligence officials said is due to the inability of the CIA to work effectively on the ground in Iran.
The US has been "virtually blind on the ground" in Iran since the hostage crisis over three decades forced the US to shutter its embassy in Tehran.
The available evidence the US has gathered is often outdated and incomplete, and provides more information about what Iran is not doing, the Times reported.
Recruiting spies has been particularly problematic, with the report noting a 2004 technical mistake that put a network of Iranian agents in jeopardy, and the doubtful testimony of an Iranian scientist who defected to the US, only to return to Iran claiming he was abducted by the CIA.
While the US and Israel share information on Iran, the US is reticent to accept intelligence Israel has gathered from the Iranian exile group the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), which the US considers a terrorist organization.
That hesitation stems from US experience in dealing with an Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which provided faulty intelligence on Iraq's weapons program that led to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The US prefers a method of wire tapping of Iranian officials, which helped the US in its 2005 assessment that Iran had abandoned its nuclear program in 2003.
While Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, and has indicated willingness to engage with the international community over its nuclear program, US President Barack Obama warned last week that the window for diplomacy is closing.
US intelligence officials concluded that the evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had called off the nuclear program was "too hard to ignore," a conclusion that still "holds up really well," according to the report.
According to the report, the assessment among top US officials is that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, a conclusion which was established based on intelligence analyses.
Israel - while seeing an existential threat in Iran's possible pursuit of a nuclear bomb - mostly agrees with those assessments, a US intelligence official speaking on the condition of anonymity told the Times.
“Their people ask very hard questions, but Mossad does not disagree with the US on the weapons program,” the Times quoted the official as saying.
Still, the report notes that the US has had difficulty formulating a complete picture of Iran's nuclear agenda, which intelligence officials said is due to the inability of the CIA to work effectively on the ground in Iran.
The US has been "virtually blind on the ground" in Iran since the hostage crisis over three decades forced the US to shutter its embassy in Tehran.
The available evidence the US has gathered is often outdated and incomplete, and provides more information about what Iran is not doing, the Times reported.
Recruiting spies has been particularly problematic, with the report noting a 2004 technical mistake that put a network of Iranian agents in jeopardy, and the doubtful testimony of an Iranian scientist who defected to the US, only to return to Iran claiming he was abducted by the CIA.
While the US and Israel share information on Iran, the US is reticent to accept intelligence Israel has gathered from the Iranian exile group the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), which the US considers a terrorist organization.
That hesitation stems from US experience in dealing with an Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which provided faulty intelligence on Iraq's weapons program that led to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The US prefers a method of wire tapping of Iranian officials, which helped the US in its 2005 assessment that Iran had abandoned its nuclear program in 2003.
While Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, and has indicated willingness to engage with the international community over its nuclear program, US President Barack Obama warned last week that the window for diplomacy is closing.
US intelligence officials concluded that the evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had called off the nuclear program was "too hard to ignore," a conclusion that still "holds up really well," according to the report.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Scud Missile Launch Pads in Lebanon
Scud Missile Launch Pads in Lebanon
Hezbollah has prepared
areas for the missiles they received from Syria. The portable launchers remain
concealed so that Israel cannot detect them
A special unit is responsible for operating the Scud missiles, which is part of Hezbollah’s “launch organization.” Three years ago, Hezbollah established a special unit for operating the long-range rockets that the organization received and will apparently continue to receive from Iran.
Hezbollah has already conducted several quick deployment dry runs of the new rockets it received from Iran after the last war. Experts say Hezbollah also prepared “launch sites” prior to the Second Lebanon War, to where the launchers were now transferred, and from which it is easy to aim at Israeli targets.
Since the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the number of these sites has increased, and as already mentioned, such sites have been prepared for launching the Scud missiles. Israel is assessing that the organization also received the new, advanced variant of the Zelzal rocket from Iran, with a range of 400 km that will enable it to hit any target in Israel’s territory.
Fatah accuses Iran of trying to block Palestinian unity
Fatah accuses Iran of trying to block Palestinian unity
By REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl
03/17/2012 18:37
By REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl
Iran is funding some Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip to encourage them to thwart efforts to achieve reconciliation with Fatah, Azzam al-Ahmed, member of the Fatah Central Committee, said Saturday.
Ahmed's charges came in response to the visit of two top Hamas leaders, Mahmoud Zahar and Ismail Haniyeh, to Iran in the past few weeks.
"Iran does not want the Palestinians to end their divisions," Ahmed told the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal. "Iran is responsible for foiling attempts to achieve reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah."
Relations between Hamas and Iran were strained recently following the Islamist movement's refusal to support Syrian President Bashar Assad's ruthless crackdown on his opponents.
Relations between the two sides suffered another setback with the signing of the Qatari-brokered reconciliation pact between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
In a bid to ease the tensions, Zahar and Haniyeh visited Tehran separately in the past few weeks, assuring the Iranian leaders that Hamas has not abandoned the armed struggle against Israel despite the deal with Fatah.
Ahmed admitted in the interview that efforts to implement the reconciliation pact have reached an impasse. He blamed Iran for the "inciting" Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip against rapprochement with Fatah.
"Iran has apparently played a role in inciting Hamas leaders against the reconciliation agreement," he charged. "Iran is playing a negative role with regards to the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation."
The Fatah official added that Iran has provided financial aid to Haniyeh in return for his opposition to the Qatari-brokered deal.
In response, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri denounced the allegations as "trivial." He accused the Fatah official of seeking to escalate tensions with Hamas and reiterated his movement's readiness to implement the reconciliation accord instantly.
Abbas, meanwhile, told a visiting Jordanian parliamentary delegation last Friday that "small obstacles" were preventing the establishment of a Palestinian unity government, as envisaged by the reconciliation pact.
"I don't want to go into details, but there are some small problems facing the formation of a unity government dominated by technocrats," Abbas was quoted as saying. He nevertheless expressed hope that the two sides would be able to overcome the obstacles.
Ahmed's charges came in response to the visit of two top Hamas leaders, Mahmoud Zahar and Ismail Haniyeh, to Iran in the past few weeks.
"Iran does not want the Palestinians to end their divisions," Ahmed told the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal. "Iran is responsible for foiling attempts to achieve reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah."
Relations between Hamas and Iran were strained recently following the Islamist movement's refusal to support Syrian President Bashar Assad's ruthless crackdown on his opponents.
Relations between the two sides suffered another setback with the signing of the Qatari-brokered reconciliation pact between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
In a bid to ease the tensions, Zahar and Haniyeh visited Tehran separately in the past few weeks, assuring the Iranian leaders that Hamas has not abandoned the armed struggle against Israel despite the deal with Fatah.
Ahmed admitted in the interview that efforts to implement the reconciliation pact have reached an impasse. He blamed Iran for the "inciting" Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip against rapprochement with Fatah.
"Iran has apparently played a role in inciting Hamas leaders against the reconciliation agreement," he charged. "Iran is playing a negative role with regards to the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation."
The Fatah official added that Iran has provided financial aid to Haniyeh in return for his opposition to the Qatari-brokered deal.
In response, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri denounced the allegations as "trivial." He accused the Fatah official of seeking to escalate tensions with Hamas and reiterated his movement's readiness to implement the reconciliation accord instantly.
Abbas, meanwhile, told a visiting Jordanian parliamentary delegation last Friday that "small obstacles" were preventing the establishment of a Palestinian unity government, as envisaged by the reconciliation pact.
"I don't want to go into details, but there are some small problems facing the formation of a unity government dominated by technocrats," Abbas was quoted as saying. He nevertheless expressed hope that the two sides would be able to overcome the obstacles.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Flash from Qassam Count
Qassam rocket hits Eshkol
A Qassam rocket exploded in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. (Ilana Curiel)
|
A Qassam rocket exploded in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. (Ilana Curiel)
Several injured in Friday West Bank demonstrations
Palestinian lightly hurt when bit by IDF dog during weekly demonstration in village of Kedum; three people, including Israeli woman, hurt in Nabi Saleh protest.
By Nir Hasson and Gili Cohen Tags: IDFWest BankPalestinians
Israeli forces on Friday used a dog against Palestinian protesters in the West Bank village of Kedum. The dog bit the arm of one of the demonstrators for several minutes. Demonstrators said that the dog's military handler was unable to get the dog to release its jaws.
The Palestinian, who was lightly hurt, was detained. The incident occurred shortly after the start of the weekly demonstration in the village when protesters began throwing stones at Israeli forces. The Israeli forces released a dog to disperse a group of demonstrators. The dog jumped on one of them, brought him to the ground, and bit into his arm.
 | Dog bites Palestinian demonstrator during protest in Kedum, March 16, 2012. |
| Photo by: AFP |
According to Jonathan Pollack, an Israeli pro-Palestinian activist, Israeli forces have used dogs in the past, but one has never bit a demonstrator before Friday's incident.
 | Israeli forces walk past burning tires in Kedum, March 16, 2012. |
| Photo by: AFP |
The IDF Spokesperson's Unit said in response to the incident: "During a violent and illegal disturbance in the village of Kedum, next to the settlement of Kedumim, west of Nablus, around 100 Palestinians gathered, rolled burning tires, and threw stones at security forces, who responded with riot dispersal means. One Palestinian was arrested for physically attacking forces at the location. Another Palestinian who was arrested was bit by a dog belonging to the forces during his arrest. He was treated at the scene by a military doctor and did not require evacuation."
Also on Friday, three demonstrators were hurt in a protest held in Nabi Saleh. One of the wounded was an Israeli woman who suffered a head injury from a rubber bullet. A Palestinian resident of Nabi Saleh was also hurt by a rubber bullet and another Palestinian resident of the village was hurt by a teargas canister.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Iron Dome intercepts rocket fired by Gaza militants at Israeli city
Iron Dome intercepts rocket fired by Gaza militants at Israeli city
Attack comes following hours of relative calm along Israel's border with the coastal enclave; Palestinian groups fired 3 Grad rockets toward Be'er Sheva in the morning hours.
By Gili Cohen Tags: IDFIAFGaza Strip
The Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted a Grad-type Katyusha rocket fired by Gaza militants toward the southern city of Ashdod on Thursday, following hours of relative calm along Israel's border with the coastal enclave.
The attack came after Palestinian militants fired three Grad rockets toward the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva on Thursday morning, following strikes by Israel Air Force craft against multiple targets in the Strip overnight.
 | An Israeli missile being launched from the Iron Dome missile system in the city of Ashdod, March 11, 2012. |
| Photo by: AFP |
Earlier Thursday, a Gaza rocket landed near Netivot in southern Israel and shortly afterward, three Grad rockets were fired toward Be'er Sheva. Two of them were intercepted by the Iron Dome system.
Islamic Jihad has denied any involvement in Thursday's rocket fire.
Despite an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire between the sides which went into effect early Tuesday morning, Palestinian militant groups continued to fire rockets sporadically into Israel on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Despite an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire between the sides which went into effect early Tuesday morning, Palestinian militant groups continued to fire rockets sporadically into Israel on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Five cities in southern Israel - Be'er Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Malakhi and Gan Yavneh - decided to cancel school on Thursday.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Iran threatens N. Israel with bombardment from Lebanon
Iran threatens N. Israel with bombardment from
Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 14, 2012, 10:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tehran has begun capitalizing on its allies” two perceived victories: Bashar
Assad’s success in seizing Idlib from rebel hands and the Palestinian Jihad
Islami’s triumphal missile assault from Gaza.
The Iranians are now moving forward with plans to match the Palestinian assault on southern Israeli with an offensive on the north from Lebanon. This is reported by debkafile’s exclusive sources in the wake of a visit paid by high-ranking Iranian and Hizballah officials Wednesday morning, March 14, to the Lebanese-Israeli border region opposite Metulah, Israel’s northernmost town at the tip of the Galilee Panhandle.
The Iranian group, led by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spokesman, arrived in a heavily guarded convoy at the Fatma outpost opposite Metulah for its rendezvous with Hizballah military intelligence officers.
Once there, they kept moving around near the Lebanese-Israeli border fence. At times, they came up close and examined the Israel Defense Forces’ ongoing work for fortifying the border fence and upgrading it from a boundary marker to a military barrier able to withstand terrorist incursions into the Galilee panhandle.
The Iranian visitor, Javanfekr, commented in the hearing of our sources: “The Zionists can build any wall they like, whether of concrete, iron or plastic, but we and Hizballah will knock it down, like Israel itself.”
He pitched his voice loudly enough to carry across the border.
His words were taken by top Israeli commanders as a blunt threat of a missile offensive on similar lines to the Gaza confrontation – only this time instead of Jihad Islami in Gaza, Hizballah would be entrusted with shooting missiles from Lebanon.
Word of this threat spurred Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to sharpen his tone in his speech to the Knesset later Wednesday and declare, “We shall strike Iran even if our American friends object.”
He was further irked by a decision by US President Barack Obama and visiting British premier David Cameron, reported by debkafile’s Washington sources, to intensify their efforts for holding Israel back from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu therefore stressed once again that Israel would decide for itself the best way to pre-empt a nuclear Iran.
No sooner were his comments broadcast, when Washington announced that Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro would be traveling to Israel forthwith. He will no doubt try and clarify how far Netanyahu really means to go.
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 14, 2012, 10:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
Ali Akbar Javanfekr, Ahmadinejad's
spokesman
The Iranians are now moving forward with plans to match the Palestinian assault on southern Israeli with an offensive on the north from Lebanon. This is reported by debkafile’s exclusive sources in the wake of a visit paid by high-ranking Iranian and Hizballah officials Wednesday morning, March 14, to the Lebanese-Israeli border region opposite Metulah, Israel’s northernmost town at the tip of the Galilee Panhandle.
The Iranian group, led by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spokesman, arrived in a heavily guarded convoy at the Fatma outpost opposite Metulah for its rendezvous with Hizballah military intelligence officers.
Once there, they kept moving around near the Lebanese-Israeli border fence. At times, they came up close and examined the Israel Defense Forces’ ongoing work for fortifying the border fence and upgrading it from a boundary marker to a military barrier able to withstand terrorist incursions into the Galilee panhandle.
The Iranian visitor, Javanfekr, commented in the hearing of our sources: “The Zionists can build any wall they like, whether of concrete, iron or plastic, but we and Hizballah will knock it down, like Israel itself.”
He pitched his voice loudly enough to carry across the border.
His words were taken by top Israeli commanders as a blunt threat of a missile offensive on similar lines to the Gaza confrontation – only this time instead of Jihad Islami in Gaza, Hizballah would be entrusted with shooting missiles from Lebanon.
Word of this threat spurred Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to sharpen his tone in his speech to the Knesset later Wednesday and declare, “We shall strike Iran even if our American friends object.”
He was further irked by a decision by US President Barack Obama and visiting British premier David Cameron, reported by debkafile’s Washington sources, to intensify their efforts for holding Israel back from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu therefore stressed once again that Israel would decide for itself the best way to pre-empt a nuclear Iran.
No sooner were his comments broadcast, when Washington announced that Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro would be traveling to Israel forthwith. He will no doubt try and clarify how far Netanyahu really means to go.
Report: Iran officials told Assad to focus on Israel to divert attention from Syria crisis
Emails said to have been intercepted by Syria opposition and released by the Guardian show advisers indicated Syrian President should verbally attack Israel, center on Palestinian cause in a planned speech.
By HaaretzTags: SyriaBashar AssadArab SpringPalestiniansJerusalem
Syrian President Bashar Assad was advised by Iranian officials to divert attention toward Israel and the Palestinian cause in an effort to deflect criticism of his brutal crackdown, emails said to have been intercepted by Syrian opposition and released by the U.K.'s the Guardian indicated on Wednesday.
According to the Guardian, the messages were said to have been intercepted by the opposition's Supreme Council of the Revolution between June of 2011 and February 2012, and include missives from Assad's private account as well as that belonging to his wife, Asma.
 | Syria President Bashar Assad and Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. |
| Photo by: AP |
One email sent in December 31 indicated that Assad's aides advised the Syrian president on the contents on an upcoming speech following "consultations with a good number of people in addition to the media and political adviser for the Iranian ambassador."
In the composed memorandum, Assad was advised to stress the issue of Muslim identity through the use of Koran quotes, as well as centering on what the email called "Syria's principles," which included: "Resistance"; "Hostility to Israel, the first enemy of the Muslims"; and "Protection of Palestinian people's rights (real prayers should be in the direction of Jerusalem)."
"Maybe here the president can reiterate his stance by condemning forcefully the recent Israeli practices and policies to Judaise Al-Quds (Jerusalem)," the email added, saying that Assad should use "powerful and violent" language in his opposition to Israel.
"Here the subject of Israel comes up and it becomes necessary to put stress on the particular merits of the president by linking the foreign pressures on Syria, which differs in its toughness and content to other countries in crisis, with the geographical proximity to Israel and the position of the people and the regime towards Israel," the memo stated.
Culminating the email's section on Israel, the adviser said Assad should make "a clear distinction between the west's ambitions and people's demands and that the west and Israel are exploiting part of the Syrian people without their knowledge to break Syria, but the president has a great confidence in the patriotism of the entire Syrian people."
The emails released by the Guardian also indicated that the Syria leader received advice from noted Lebanese businessman Hussein Mortada, known for his links to the Iran. In one message, Mortada advised Assad to stop blaming al-Qaida for opposition attacks
"It is not out of our interest to say that al-Qaida organization is behind the operation because this claim will [indemnify] the U.S. administration and Syrian opposition," Mortada was quoted as saying, adding "I have received contacts from Iran and Hezbollah in my role as director of many Iranian-Lebanese channels and they directed me to not mention that al-Qaida is behind the operation. It is a blatant tactical media mistake."
Another correspondence of note was between Assad's wife Asma and the daughter of the emir of Qatar, Hamid bin Khalifa al-Thani, in which the Qatari noblewoman both advised Assad to step down as well as indicated that Qatar may be able to present the Syrian leader's family with asylum.
"My father regards President Bashar as a friend, despite the current tensions – he always gave him genuine advice," she was cited by the Guardian as writing, saying that the "opportunity for real change and development was lost a long time ago. Nevertheless, one opportunity closes, others open up – and I hope it's not too late for reflection and coming out of the state of denial."
A later email seemed more direct, saying that: "Just been following the latest developments in Syria … in all honesty – looking at the tide of history and the escalation of recent events – we've seen two results – leaders stepping down and getting political asylum or leaders being brutally attacked. I honestly think this is a good opportunity to leave and re-start a normal life."
"I only pray that you will convince the president to take this an opportunity to exit without having to face charges. The region needs to stabilise, but not more than you need peace of mind. I am sure you have many places to turn to, including Doha."
Israelis See Iran “Mini-Drill” in Gaza Flare-Up
Israelis See Iran “Mini-Drill” in Gaza Flare-Up
Israel has emerged from the past few days of fighting with Palestinians in Gaza more confident that its advanced missile shield and civil defenses can perform well in any war with Iran. One Israeli official said on Tuesday: “In a sense, this was a mini-drill,” alluding to Iran’s threat to respond to any “pre-emptive strike” on its nuclear facilities by firing missiles at Israel. “The Israeli home front has shown once more that it can deal with the challenges,” said the armed forces’ commander, Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dubs Iran a mortal threat and described the recent Gaza rockets as a harbinger. “These terrorist attacks, by Islamic Jihad for example, demonstrate the scale of the danger that will be wrought if, God forbid, a nuclear Iran stands behind them,” he said on Monday.
(Dan Williams – Reuters)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dubs Iran a mortal threat and described the recent Gaza rockets as a harbinger. “These terrorist attacks, by Islamic Jihad for example, demonstrate the scale of the danger that will be wrought if, God forbid, a nuclear Iran stands behind them,” he said on Monday.
(Dan Williams – Reuters)
Gaza militants fire rockets at Israel, Iron Dome intercepts projectile over Be'er Sheva
Gaza militants fire rockets at Israel, Iron Dome intercepts projectile over Be'er Sheva
Attacks come mere days following an Egypt-mediated ceasefire agreement between Israel and militants in the coastal enclave.
By Gili Cohen Tags: IDFGaza Strip
The Israel Air Forces' Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted a Grad-type rocket launched toward the southern city of Be'er Sheva on Wednesday, despite a truce reached between Israel and Gaza militants earlier this week, while a second projectile landed in an open field in the vicinity of the town of Ofakim.
It was not the first time since the Egyt-mediated ceasefire that rockets were fired at Israel's south, a Grad-type Katyusha rocket also hitting a residential area in the southern town of Netivot late Tuesday. One person was lightly wounded.
 | An Iron Dome missile being launched on Monday, March 12, 2012. |
| Photo by: AFP |
In addition, even prior to the attack on Netivot, seven rockets and five mortar shells were fired toward southern Israel throughout Tuesday. They exploded in open areas and there were no reported casualties.
All in all, about 200 rockets have exploded in Israeli territory since the latest round of violence between Israel and Gaza broke out on Friday and until the Israel Defense Forces and Gaza militants agreed to cease fire.
Responding to rocket fire, the Israel Air Force carried out 37 airstrikes in the Gaza Strip, 19 strikes targeted rocket-launchers and 18 targeted weapons warehouses in response to rocket attacks.
Twenty-six Palestinians were killed as a result of IAF strikes on Gaza. Out of these 22 were militants and 4 were civilians who were in the area of IAF strikes, but were not involved in the rocket fire.
Earlier Tuesday, IDF officials announced that, following the ceasefire, 207,000 schoolchildren in communities 7-40 kilometers from Gaza would be returning to their studies on Wednesday, for the first time since the beginning of the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)