Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Mondoweiss. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Mondoweiss. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, 13 de diciembre de 2020

Trump’s bribe to Morocco to ‘recognize’ Israel means little — but could inflame a colonial conflict in the Western Sahara

The latest Trump move to bribe an Arab nation into “recognizing” Israel means practically even less than the first 3 “normalizations” — but could inflame a smoldering colonial conflict some 4000 miles to the west of Tel Aviv.

MOHAMED AL WALI, 65, A POLISARIO FIGHTER, STANDS NEXT TO A SAHRAWI ARAB DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC FLAG AT A FORWARD BASE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TIFARITI, WESTERN SAHARA, SEPTEMBER 9, 2016. (PHOTO: REUTERS/ZOHRA BENSEMRA)

The latest Trump move to bribe an Arab nation into “recognizing” Israel means practically even less than the first 3 “normalizations” — but could inflame a smoldering colonial conflict some 4000 miles to the west of Tel Aviv.

What’s more, one expert even warns that Trump’s bribe might eventually jeopardize global food security.

sábado, 21 de noviembre de 2020

Saeb Erekat, un pilar del liderazgo palestino, muere a los 65 años

Saeb Erekat, principal negociador palestino y líder de la OLP desde hace mucho tiempo, falleció el martes luego de una batalla de un mes con COVID-19.

EL SECRETARIO GENERAL DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN PARA LA LIBERACIÓN DE PALESTINA, SAEB EREKAT, HABLA CON LOS PERIODISTAS DESPUÉS DE REUNIRSE CON EL ENVIADO RUSO PARA ORIENTE MEDIO, MIKHAIL BOGDANOV, EN LA CIUDAD DE RAMALLAH EN CISJORDANIA, EL 6 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2016 (FOTO: SHADI HATEM / APA IMAGES).

Saeb Erekat, de 65 años, principal negociador palestino y antiguo líder de la Organización de Liberación de Palestina (OLP), falleció el martes luego de una batalla de un mes con COVID-19, que lo dejó hospitalizado y en estado crítico. 

sábado, 31 de octubre de 2020

Los ataques en Irán tienen la firma de Israel

Captura de pantalla de Twitter / Archivo

El país se había convertido en una amenaza existencial para Israel. Estaba gobernado por un megalómano que quería eliminar a Israel. Y ahora quería una bomba nuclear. Afirmaban que su programa nuclear era puramente civil, pero Israel sabía que eso no era cierto. Así que se propusieron retrasar el programa. Israel emprendió un programa de asesinato de sus científicos nucleares. Y, cuando eso no funcionó, volaron su instalación nuclear. Pero ese país no era Irán. Era Irak. Y recordar ese trozo de historia revela un patrón interesante.

Para 1973, Saddam Hussein había comenzado el programa nuclear de Irak. Israel respondió estableciendo un equipo llamado Nueva Era cuyo trabajo era frustrar el plan de Irak de adquirir armas nucleares. Una de las primeras estrategias que intentaron fue asesinar a los científicos nucleares que eran clave para el programa.

sábado, 11 de abril de 2020

Gantz and Netanyahu reportedly agree on annexing West Bank — and liberal Zionists appeal to Pelosi


Ten days ago the big news from Israel was that Benny Gantz was abandoning his opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu amid the coronavirus emergency and they were moving to form a “unity” government of former rivals, with a strong and all-Jewish majority: Netanyahu’s rightwing bloc of 58 seats + 15 or so of Gantz’s shattered centrist Blue White party.

Now the days pass and no Israeli government! Why not? The news from Israel is that Netanyahu is negotiating under a lot of pressure from his right wing to use the Trump window, which may be closing soon, to annex the West Bank; and Gantz has folded. The main stumbling block to a new government are judiciary issues touching on Netanyahu’s indictment.

martes, 11 de julio de 2017

London’s Palestine Expo defies smear campaign attracting more than 15,000

British Palestinian activist Leanne Mohamad speaks at the 2017 Palestine Expo in London, United Kingdom. (Photo: Lydia Noon)

“No-one will ever silence me, and I will speak my mind,” says 16-year-old Leanne Mohamad, a British-Palestinian activist, to enthusiastic applause at the Palestine Expo.

lunes, 29 de mayo de 2017

If Trump is serious we may be seeing the most significant step in 20 years of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands in Jerusalem, Monday, May 22, 2017. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit) 

The Israeli media reported last week that the US government demands Israel will transfer some territory from Area C to Area B. These reports have not been confirmed yet, but they are already causing some trouble in the Israeli political system. What may be hiding behind this opaque formula may be the greatest breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in 20 years.

martes, 23 de mayo de 2017

Trump’s Jerusalem

Trump at the Western Wall, viewed at a Zionist apartment in West Jerusalem, May 22, 2017

You couldn’t get very close to Donald Trump in Jerusalem yesterday, but here are some photos of what was happening around him.

martes, 14 de marzo de 2017

Clinton says two-state-solution would have entailed ‘a lot of blood, gore, turmoil in Israel’

Bill Clinton at the Brookings Institution

Last week, the Brookings Institution held an event about Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister assassinated in 1995, on the occasion of a worshipful new biography by Itamar Rabinovich, the former Israeli ambassador.

The event was remarkable for underlining how difficult it would have been to achieve a two-state solution even if

domingo, 5 de febrero de 2017

Netanyahu scandals reflect corruption at the heart of Israeli society

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in danger of being brought down, possibly soon, over what initially appears to be little more than an imprudent taste for Cuban cigars and pink champagne.

In truth, however, the allegations ensnaring Netanyahu reveal far more than his personal flaws or an infatuation with the high life. They shine a rare light on the corrupt nexus between Israel’s business, political and media worlds, compounded by the perverse influence of overseas Jewish money.

Of the two police investigations Netanyahu faces (there are more in the wings), the one known as Case 1000, concerning gifts from businessmen worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, is most likely to lead to his downfall.

But it is the second investigation, Case 2000, and the still-murky relationship between the two cases, that more fully exposes the rot at the heart of Israel’s political system. This latter case hinges on a tape recording in which Netanyahu plots with an Israeli newspaper tycoon to rig media coverage in his favor.

Leads from both cases suggest that Netanyahu may have been further meddling, together with his billionaire friends, in the shadowy world of international espionage.
Cigars and champagne

Netanyahu’s appetite for a free lunch has been common knowledge in Israel since his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s. Then, he was twice investigated for fraud, though controversially charges were not brought in either case. Police discovered along the way that he and his wife, Sara, had horded many of the gifts he received during state visits. More than 100 were never recovered.

The clarifications that were issued more than 15 years ago, as a result of those investigations, make it hard for Netanyahu to claim now that he did not understand the rules. According to justice ministry advice in 2001, government and state officials cannot keep gifts worth more than $100 without risking violating Israeli law.

The gifts Netanyahu received from one of the Israeli businessmen involved in Case 1000, Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan, amounted to as much as $180,000. Netanyahu has argued that these presents, ranging from cigars to jewelry, were expressions of a close friendship rather than bribes to him in his capacity as prime minister.

The problem, however, is that Netanyahu appears to have reciprocated by using his position as head of the Israeli government to lobby John Kerry, the then U.S. secretary of state, to gain Milchan a 10-year U.S. residency visa. He may have done more. We will return to that matter later.

Also being investigated are his family’s ties to a friend of Milchan’s, Australian billionaire James Packer, who made his fortune in the media and gambling industries. Packer has similarly lavished gifts on the Netanyahu family, especially Yair, Netanyahu’s eldest son.

At the same time, Packer, now a neighbor of the Netanyahus in the coastal town of Caesarea, has been seeking permanent residency and the enormous benefits that would accrue with tax status in Israel. As a non-Jew, Packer should have no hope of being awarded residency. There are suspicions that Netanyahu may have been trying to pull strings on the Australian’s behalf.

Many of these gifts were apparently not given freely. The Netanyahus asked for them. Indicating that Netanyahu knew there might be legal concerns, he used code words – “leaves” for cigars and “pinks” for champagne – to disguise his orders to Milchan.

Police are reported to be confident, after questioning Netanyahu three times, that they have enough evidence to indict him. If they do, Netanyahu will be under heavy pressure to resign.
Pattern of corruption

Disturbing as these allegations of corruption are, Case 2000 indicates that this is about more than one prime minister’s dubious ties to wealthy patrons.

David Ansalem, a political ally of Netanyahu’s, observed on Facebook recently: “In the past 30 years, no prime minister was free from involvement in [police] investigations.”

Ansalem was suggesting that Israeli bribery and fraud laws are too strict, and can easily catch out an unwary politician. But the reverse is more likely to be true: politicians are rapidly corrupted by their pursuit of power in Israel. In short, the corruption in Israel is institutionalized.

Netanyahu’s predecessor as prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was similarly the subject of several different investigations, and is currently serving a jail term for fraud over his involvement in a massive real estate deal when mayor of Jerusalem. He was also convicted of receiving cash in envelopes from a U.S. businessman, Morris Talansky, in return for political favors.

Before Olmert, Ariel Sharon was at the centre of many investigations of dubious financial connections with businessmen, including Israeli real estate magnate David Appel and the British Jewish businessman Cyril Kern. Sharon fell into a long-term coma, and later died, before the investigations could lead to an indictment.

This week a corruption investigation against Isaac Herzog, the opposition leader, was dropped, though inconsistencies in his testimony were sharply criticised by Israel’s attorney general. The investigation led to the indictment of Herzog’s campaign manager and a businessman.

Also this week, a former chief rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, was convicted of bribery and sentenced to for three and half years.
20 super-rich families

Corruption is rampant in part because of Israel’s extreme concentration of wealth. This is a trend in much of the developed world, but its effects are accentuated in Israel by the small scale of the economy. Research shows that as few as 20 families control most of the country’s wealth, particularly in sectors like real estate, banking, retail, transport and homeland security. It seems some of these super-rich families expect to buy political influence as well.

But there is also a combination of conditions, particular to Israel, that blur the distinctions between the personal and institutional, and that have ensured corruption flourishes.

The climate was probably set in 1948, when Israel was established on the ruins of another society. The building by Israel’s elites of a new, supposedly more equal society in the agricultural communities of the kibbutz and moshav was possible only through the wholesale theft of Palestinian land and homes. The Absentee Property Law of 1950 sanctioned an orgy of plundering by Israel’s upper and middle classes. That foundational culture is hard to eradicate.

Further, Israel’s highly militarised society discourages resistance to authoritarian practices. A 2014 survey by the Israel Democracy Institute, for example, found that only one in three Israeli Jews regarded Israel’s democratic character as supremely important.

This trend is reinforced by the sanctity of Israel’s security sector, which includes not only the military, but the many intelligence services, including the Mossad spy agency, Israel’s arms manufacturers, homeland security and cyber warfare firms, as well as more conventional industries.

Trust in the Israeli military stands at 90 per cent, and half of the Jewish public believe the security services should be allowed to operate against terror without any legal oversight, according to a survey last year. The secrecy surrounding this sector – and the expansive definition in Israel of “terrorism” – inculcates a consensus in favor of concealment and a set of values in which corruption is likely to thrive.

Safeguards are further undermined by Israel’s fractured social structure – religious vs. secular, Ashkenazim vs. Mizrahim, veterans vs. immigrants, liberals vs. settlers. The resulting tribalism creates oppositional interest groups seeking favors and patronage rather than accountability and transparency.

Corruption is especially flagrant in land dealings, both in Israel and the occupied territories. In the Negev, in Israel’s south, for example, vast stretches of territory have been seized, often from Bedouin owners who are nominally citzens of the state, and reallocated as private ranches to Jewish families in a non-transparent planning process.

The institutionalization of corruption is evident in the behavior of leading officials, especially in the field of law enforcement. The police chief, Roni Alsheikh, and a supreme court judge, Noam Sohlberg, both have long records of lawbreaking, by living in settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law.

Even more glaring is the fact that Avi Cohen, the government official in charge of monitoring and enforcing planning laws in Israel, chiefly against Palestinian citizens, lives in the West Bank settlement “outpost” of Palgei Mayim, which is in violation of Israeli law too.
The shadow economy

But the reach of Israeli corruption is global.

As a self-declared Jewish state, one that formally regards every Jew in the world as being personally invested in Israel, a network of personal and financial ties that are intentionally opaque has developed between Israeli businesses and officials, on the one hand, and overseas Jewish organisations, donors, investors and criminals, on the other.

Israeli authorities are aware that criminal gangs with international connections, often in the former Soviet Union, recycle their money in the Israeli economy, often laundering it in real estate purchases. A leaked U.S. embassy cable in 2009 warned that Israel was in danger of becoming a “promised land” for organised crime.

The Haaretz newspaper observed recently that this underground economy had become so big – with an annual turnover reaching as much $39 billion – Israel could find itself on the same list as Iran as “one of the leading state financiers of global terrorism”.

Some of this shadow economy is authorised at the highest levels. Israel confers privileged status on international Zionist organisations like the Jewish National Fund and World Zionist Organisation that funnel in donations from Jews around the world. These “charitable” organisations enjoy semi-governmental status, even though they can operate outside Israel’s laws.

The WZO setttlement division, for example, secretly pumps money into illegal settlements in the West Bank, hiding the money even from Israel’s state auditors. Funds are moved around out of sight, leaving plenty of room for corruption among officials, in addition to the inherent illegality of the settlement enterprise.

And then there are the Jewish tycoons from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia who treat Israel as part of their philanthropic investment portfolio. Their reasons include ideological zeal to realise a Greater Israel, salving their consciences for not living in Israel, or extending their influence to the “safe haven” they or their family may need in times of trouble.

Most Israeli politicians rely on overseas Jewish funders. Netanyahu won his Likud party’s primaries in 2014 exclusively with the help of foreign donors, all but one of them American.

Personifying this unhealthy external interference in Israeli politics is Sheldon Adelson, the U.S. casino magnate who is Netanyahu’s main patron. Adelson has done much more than channel donations to Netanyahu’s campaign coffers. He created a newspaper to get Netanyahu elected and keep him in office.

The free daily Israel Hayom, founded 10 years ago, is now the biggest-circulation paper in Israel and is known locally as Bibi-ton, or Bibi’s newspaper, in reference to Netanyahu’s nickname. A recent investigation by Haaretz found that Adelson had sunk an astronomic sum into Israel Hayom – some $190 million in its first seven years alone – to keep it afloat.

At the same time, Adelson has been sponsoring Republican politicians, including the new occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, to ensure he has an outsize influence in the U.S. as well. Trump’s sudden conversion to Netanyahu’s pro-settlement agenda coincided with his need for Adelson’s support in the presidential campaign.
War against the media

Adelson and his Israel Hayom newspaper are at the heart of Netanyahu’s current troubles. The tapes in Case 2000 are audio recordings of conversations between Netanyahu and Arnon Mozes, the Israeli owner of the Yedioth Ahronoth media group, which includes the country’s largest paid-for newspaper. Mozes’ desperate need to save his business empire appears to have driven him into Netanyahu’s embrace.

Adelson and Netanyahu’s aim in establishing Israel Hayom in 2007 was not only to create a propaganda platform for Netanyahu. It was also intended to drive rival papers, especially Yedioth Ahronoth, out of business by forcing down their income from advertising revenue. U.S. businessman Adelson’s pockets are much deeper than those of Israeli businessman Mozes.

This was effectively a vendetta by Netanyahu and Adelson against Mozes for using his media empire, which once enjoyed near-monopoly status in Israel, to damage Netanyahu and support rival politicians. Yair Lapid, a former columnist at Yedioth, is today leader of the Yesh Atid party, a potential challenger to Netanyahu for prime minister. He has in the past received strong backing from his former paper.

In the tapes, Mozes and Netanyahu discuss a deal that would guarantee the Yedioth media group cheerlead for Netanyahu in return for his government passing legislation to limit Israel Hayom’s circulation and possibly force it to charge a cover price. The pair appear to have broken off contacts some time before Israel’s general election in March 2015.

Had the talks succeeded, Netanyahu would have enjoyed almost blanket support in the mainstream press. The holdout would have been the liberal, and very small-circulation, Haaretz daily.

Netanyahu was not prepared to rest there, however. After the 2015 election he appointed himself the communications minister so that he would have regulatory power over Israel’s broadcasters. Since then he has been waging a concerted battle to intimidate Israel’s two commercial TV stations, Channels 2 and 10. Even after the latest revelations, he remains in charge of the communications ministry.
From Hollywood to Mossad

Cases 1000 and 2000 share at least one figure in common. Milchan gave Netanyahu extravagant gifts over many years, but he is also reported to have acted as go-between, bringing arch-enemies Netanyahu and Mozes together. Milchan has his own financial stake in the media, in his case a holding in the Channel 10 TV station.

In addition, Milchan introduced Netanyahu to sympathetic businessmen, including his friend Packer, to discuss taking the ailing Yedioth media group off Mozes’ hands. Only last October he arranged for media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan, to fly to Israel for one night for a secret meeting with Netanyahu.

Milchan is undoubtedly at the centre of the shadowy world of power and finance that corrupts public life in Israel. Not only is Milchan a highly influential Hollywood figure, having produced more than 100 films, but he has admitted that he is a former Mossad agent. He used his Hollywood connections to help make arms deals and secure parts for Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

One can only wonder whether Milchan was not effectively set up in his Hollywood career as a cover for his Mossad activities.

But Milchan, it seems, is still wielding influence in Israel’s twilight world of security.

Yossi Cohen was appointed head of the Mossad a year ago, after a government vetting committee accepted that he had no personal ties to Netanyahu. But Cohen forgot to mention that he is extremely close to Netanyahu’s high-flying friends – connections that are now under investigation.

Milchan set up a global security firm in 2008 called Blue Sky International, stuffed with Israeli security veterans. Packer soon became a partner. They developed close ties to Cohen, first while he was a senior official at the Mossad and later when he headed Israel’s national security council.

Before Cohen was appointed head of Mossad in December 2015, the pair had hoped to recruit him to their cyber-security operations. Cohen received several gifts from Packer, in violation of Israeli government rules, including a stay at one of his luxury hotels.

A source speaking to Haaretz said Blue Sky had “more than [a] direct line” to Netanyahu. They “would pull him out from anywhere, at any time, on any occasion.”

According to Haaretz’s military analyst, Amir Oren, the new disclosures raise serious questions about whether Milchan and Packer twisted Netanyahu’s arm to parachute Cohen into the post over the favored candidate. In return, Packer may have been hoping that Cohen would authorise exceptional Israeli residency for him, classifying him as a security asset.

Beyond this, one one can only speculate about how Cohen’s indebtedness to Milchan, Packer and Netanyahu might have influenced his decisions as head of the Mossad. It was only a few years ago that the former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, was reported to have wrestled furiously with Netanyahu to stop him launching a military strike on Iran.
Prosecution drags feet

It is unclear for the time being whether the revelations are drawing to a close or will lead deeper into Israel’s twin netherworlds of financial corruption and security.

But what has emerged so far should be enough to finish off Netanyahu as prime minister. Whether it does so may depend on the extent of Israel’s compromised legal system. Attorney general Avichai Mendelblit was appointed by Netanyahu and is a political ally. He appears to have been dragging his feet as much as possible to slow down the police investigation, if not sabotage it.

But the weight of evidence is looking like it may prove too overwhelming. As political analyst Yossi Verter observed: “There’s no way that a police commissioner … appointed [by Netanyahu] and a cautious attorney general, who in the past was part of his close circle and one of his loyalists, would be putting him through the seven circles of hell if they weren’t convinced that there’s a solid basis for indictment and conviction.”

The next question for Netanyahu is whether he will step down if indicted. He should, if Olmert’s example is followed. But his officials are citing a 1993 high court ruling that allows a cabinet minister under indictment to remain in office. Certainly if Netanyahu chooses to stay on, his decision would be appealed to the court again. However, the judges may be reluctant to oust a sitting prime minister.

The court of public opinion is likely to be decisive in that regard. A recent poll shows few Israelis believe Netanyahu is innocent of the allegations. Some 54 per cent think he broke the law, while only 28 believe him. Opinion, however, is split evenly on whether he should resign.
Where next?

If past experience is any measure, Netanyahu will try to turn public opinion his way by increasing friction with the Palestinians and exploiting the international arena, especially his relations with the Trump administration. He may be expected to encourage Trump at the very least to posture more stridently against Iran.

Nonetheless, most observers assume Netanyahu is doomed – it is simply a matter of when. The odds are on an indictment in late spring, followed by elections in the fall, say Israeli analysts.

At this stage, none of his political rivals wants to be seen stabbing Netanyahu in the back. Most are keeping quiet. But behind the scenes, political leaders are hurrying to forge new alliances and extract political concessions while Netanyahu is wounded.

Naftali Bennett, the settler leader, is pushing aggressively for annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, a large settlement strategically located close to Jerusalem, as a prelude to further annexation of parts of the West Bank.

Who might succeed Netanyahu? Yair Lapid, of the centre-right Yesh Atid, is heading the polls, but that may in part reflect the disarray in Netanyahu’s Likud party. In a sign of where the deeper currents in Israeli society are leading, a Maariv poll last week showed that settler leader Naftali Bennett would win an election if he were to head the Likud.

Netanyahu now needs the help of all the powerful friends he can muster. His biggest ally, U.S. casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, may not be among them. After the revelations that Netanyahu was conspiring against him with Mozes, Adelson has cut back on Israel Hayom’s circulation and is reported to be offering less favorable coverage of the Netanyahus.

That could prove the final straw, sealing Netanyahu’s fate.


About Jonathan Cook 
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net. Other posts by Jonathan Cook. 


03/02/2017 by MONDOWEISS 



martes, 24 de enero de 2017

Despite international pressure, Finkelstein gives talk on Gaza’s ‘martyrdom’ at German institute

Norman Finkelstein

Norman Finkelstein has been the focus of an international campaign to — once again — stop him from teaching. It didn’t work, so far anyway. Today he gave a lecture titled “Gaza; an inquest into its martyrdom” at the Max Planck Institute in Halle, Germany, during a two-week residency there. This afternoon, Finkelstein reported:

It’s over. The workshop lasted five hours. It was normal, just as if I were anywhere else in the world. Hopefully, it will herald the new normal in Germany, which would be good for Truth, good for Justice, and good for Palestine.

The Jerusalem Post describes pressure on the Max Planck Institute to withdraw the invitation, including from Florida Senator Marco Rubio:

“It’s shameful that the Max Planck Institute will give a platform to the anti-Israel author Norman Finkelstein, a supporter of the terrorist group Hezbollah,” Senator Rubio (R-FL) told The Jerusalem Post.

Israel lobbyists have been focused on pressuring the Institute by threatening funds to a Florida neurological branch, per the Jerusalem Post:

Max Planck has an institute based in Jupiter, Florida. [Palm Beach County commissioner Steven] Abrams said: “In 2008, Palm Beach County approved the allocation of $86.9 million to the Max Planck Florida Institute to build and operate a 100,000 sq. ft. biomedical research facility on the campus of Florida Atlantic University. The county has paid all but the last payment of $5.3 million, which is due November 2017.”

Audrey Goff, a spokeswoman for the Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience in Jupiter, told the Post: “The Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience (MPFI) focuses on neuroscience research and does not work in the field of anthropology… MPFI leadership is only responsible for decisions on the speakers we host locally, and is not involved with whom other Max Planck Institutes host.” According to the MPI,“The Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience was awarded $522,500 over two years in funding from the National Eye Institute, one of 27 institutes and centers of the US National Institutes of Health.”

It is unclear if the Monday talk by Finkelstein will affect Max Planck’s funding streams in the US

The Max Planck Institute has released a long statement justifying the invitation to Finkelstein, noting that his work about “oppression, marginalization, treatment of minorities… [has given] him the reputation of a thoroughly controversial intellectual.” And that’s OK. More:

Some groups have criticized Finkelstein’s invitation to Halle. As a scientific institution which is primarily dedicated to basic research, we will enter into a dialogue with Finkelstein about his work. In doing so, controversy cannot be ruled out; it is indispensable in academic discourse. Controversy is, in fact, a trait of academic work; and it is one of our tasks to introduce our young scientists to controversial academic discourse: Our concern is that our PhD students should learn to listen carefully to an argument, take it on its own merits, and address it in a measured, respectful, professional manner – even and maybe the more so, if that argument goes against their own profound convictions. This, we feel, is one of the most important skills we can instil in our PhD students and early-career academics – especially in a time when social media permits expressions of prejudice and recourse to anonymous insults is almost socially acceptable, and objective exchange of arguments seems to fall more and more behind.

The Institute is very sensitive about the Holocaust (as Finkelstein indicates in his own comment, above):

Today, scientists from more than 100 nations work at the Max Planck Society as well as at our institute, the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle. 70 years after the Holocaust, employees with a Jewish background are now active at Max Planck, too. It is a place where people of different religions, nations, sex and skin colour work together on key issues relevant to our society and our future.

The Institute is particularly defensive about the Gaza focus of Finkelstein’s talk:

Addendum: The internal Workshop was announced within the MPI for Social Anthropology as a closed group event. The chosen title relates to the working title of a forthcoming publication of Dr. Finkelstein (“Gaza: an inquest into its martyrdom”), since the main focus of the workshop will be the discussion of this manuscript. The topic “Justification of the use of force by the state” will be discussed on the basis of this example. This is one of the fundamental questions in legal research and it is also relevant to the Gaza conflict.

At his own site, Finkelstein has posted the Jerusalem Post news with the headline, Finkelstein Under Attack!



23/01/2017 by MONDOWEISS.



miércoles, 11 de enero de 2017

Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will strengthen the far right, and may also further isolate Israel

Israelis waiting for US visas line up at the US Embassy
 in Tel Aviv. (Photo: AP)

In a letter to president-elect Donald Trump, Palestinian National Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has laid out a warning in regards to moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. According to the Palestinian news agency Wafa—as reported by Al Jazeera—Abbas argued that moving the embassy would have a “disastrous impact on the peace process, on the two-state solution and on the stability and security of the entire region”. Meanwhile, Israel’s Channel 2 News is now reporting a possible compromise that Trump’s administration is considering—not moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but having David Friedman, his pick for U.S. ambassador to Israel, live and work out of an existing Jerusalem consulate. This, as of publication, has not been confirmed or denied by Donald Trump or his spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson. Moving the US embassy 67 kilometres to Jerusalem may seem like an extraneous, and deeply performative gesture, but for many supporters of Israel—both inside and outside the state—it would solidify the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and reaffirm a commitment to the state that many right wing ideologues have accused the Obama administration of lacking.

On January 3, Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), and Marco Rubio (R-Florida) introduced the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act to the 1st session of the 115th Congress, with the goal of passing into law a measure to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, while also demanding that the president immediately begin the process of relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, which calls for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the establishment of a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem “…no later than May 31, 1999”, was adopted in 1995. This public law has been delayed on 22 occasions due to a provision in the act under section 7, known as the “Presidential Waiver”, which allows for suspension of the act should it be “necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” The new legislation requests that the section 7 Presidential waiver be struck, and provides no no similar section authorising the President to suspend the implementation of the act.

Nadia Hijab, Executive Director of Palestinian policy network Al-Shabaka, tells Mondoweiss that it’s anyone’s guess as to whether Trump’s administration will defer the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act as past presidents have done, even after campaign promises. Hijab explains that “while there seems to be a concerted effort by pro-Israel commentators in the mainstream media to say that such a move would “be good” for peace” there is likely going to be major backlash in the region against both U.S. interests and pro-U.S. states, and the Palestinian Authority, “who will lose the fig leaf covering their reliance on the US-led peace process.”

More importantly, Hijab notes that “moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would violate international law, under which East Jerusalem is occupied territory; nor is Israel’s claim to sovereignty over West Jerusalem recognized. One of the important outcomes of UN Resolution 2334 which was passed last month is this: Should the Trump Administration go ahead with this move, countries that might have been tempted to follow suit will think twice.”

Dr. Greg Shupak, writer and activist who teaches media studies at Canada’s University of Guelph, sees moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing the city as the capital of Israel as an affront to Palestinians “as East Jerusalem has long been a key site of Palestinian political, economic, and cultural life.” Shupak clarifies that while the official U.S. position has been to oppose the Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem, “neither American party has stopped Israel from building illegal settlements there, demolishing Palestinian houses in the city, or repressing Palestinian Jerusalemites”. On the contrary, he says, “both Republican and Democratic administrations have enabled such activities through lavish economic, political, and military support for Israel.” Finally, Shupak predicts that should Trump’s administration move the embassy, things will likely become worse for Palestinians as this political maneuver could possibly green-light the state’s violent takeover of the city.

Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and moving the U.S. Embassy to the occupied city, is undoubtedly a gesture that will strengthen the hard right, but it may also further isolate Israel.

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, recently explained on the podcast Delete Your Account that it wouldn’t surprise him if Trump were to move the embassy, but he doesn’t believe that it will be as significant a move as most people think. “After everything the United States has done to support Israel…moving this building…is not going to change that much.” Abunimah argues that what it will do “if anything” is that it will highlight the United States and Israel’s status of isolation in the region, as other countries will be reluctant to follow suit.

“It increases the possibility that other countries—specifically the Europeans—that simply tag along behind the United States are going to have to start to make policy [decisions] for themselves…where they exact some form of consequence on Israel,” Abunimah predicts.



10/01/2017 by MONDOWEISS. 



jueves, 29 de diciembre de 2016

The formal end of the two-state solution

Applause in the UN Security Council chamber after the results were annoucned.

On December 23, 2016 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 reaffirming the world’s judgment that Israel should return land taken in the June 1967 war, subject only to mutually agreed upon adjustments. It reflects a continued international commitment to a two-state solution for the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The resolution called the ongoing Israeli settlement project a flagrant violation of international law.

But it seems clear now, after 50 years of Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank, that Israel will never voluntarily help to create a Palestinian state. Israel’s vehement response to Resolution 2334 speaks volumes that the time when Israel may have been willing to “exchange land for peace” has long passed. It seems equally clear that international law is impotent to bring about a two-state-solution, and that the international community lacks resolve.

At least that’s the judgment of Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

Israel’s reaction to Resolution 2334 was apoplectic.

Ahead of the vote, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned New Zealand that its support of the resolution was “a declaration of war,” and after the vote, Israel withdrew its ambassador to New Zealand and barred New Zealand’s ambassador to Israel. Netanyahu told his ministers on Sunday to stay away “from those countries that voted against us.” Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer called the Obama administration a “runaway train” for failing to veto this reaffirmation of international law principles. Netanyahu lectured John Kerry: “friends don’t take friends to the Security Council.”

On Monday, Netanyahu doubled down, saying “Israel is a proud country. . . . We don’t turn the other cheek. . . . . The nations of the world respect strong countries that stand up for themselves. They do not respect weak and obsequious countries that bow their heads.” He called the U.S. abstention “a disgrace.” “They betrayed us,” he said.

Netanyahu canceled a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May and a visit to Israel by the Ukrainian prime minister. Meanwhile, Israel’s defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, called an upcoming peace conference in Paris “a modern version of the Dreyfus trial.” Lieberman also ordered Israeli officials to cut all civil and diplomatic contacts with the Palestinian Authority.

Education minister Naftali Bennett compared support for the resolution with “planes hitting buildings and trucks killing people in Berlin.”

It all adds up to Netanyahu and his government poking a finger in the eye of world opinion. The Israeli right that is in control of Israel doesn’t care what the world thinks. They will not “exchange land for peace,” they will not help create a Palestinian state, they will not stop settlements, they will not end the occupation.

“This is just another instance of the UN ganging up on Israel,” lamented Ron Dermer. But the reality is other: Israel’s vehement response to Resolution 2334 amounts to a big rejection of the Palestinians and the international community.

Here is a closer look at Resolution 2334:



The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions . . . Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, . . .

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem . . . .

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines, . . .

Recalling also the obligation . . . for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders . . .

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, . . . constitutes a flagrant violation under international law . . .

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory. . .

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution . . .;

5. Calls upon all States . . . to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and . . . for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, . . . to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

8. Calls upon all parties to . . . launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process . . . ;

9. Urges . . . the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions . . . and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions; . . . .



What’s to dislike here, unless you reject the very concept of a two-state-solution?

The status quo is leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” said John Kerry in his speech this morning.

But we are past “leading toward.” The moment has arrived. For the next four years Israel, it appears, will have enthusiastic support from the American administration for its one state reality and occupation. Incoming president Donald Trump has nominated an ambassador to Israel who raises funds for West Bank settlements, who refers to the West Bank by its biblical names Judea and Samaria, who was bar mitzvahed at the Western Wall, who has spent his summers at an apartment in Jerusalem since 2002, who rejects a two-state-solution for the West Bank and Gaza, and who has described Jewish supporters of a two-state solution, as “far worse than kapos—Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps.” Under Trump’s leadership, commitment to a two-state solution was removed from the Republican platform. See, e.g WSJ.

Perpetual occupation is the official policy of Israel and, in 23 days, the official policy of the United States. Resolution 2334 marks the formal end point of the two-state solution.




28/12/2016 by MONDOWEISS.