Free Ahmad Sa' adat

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
www.freeahmadsaadat.org + info@freeahmadsaadat.org
Twitter:http://twitter.com/freeahmadsaadat

Palestinian prisoners have entered their third week of hunger strike. After two weeks of hunger strike, physical symptoms become increasingly severe and prisoners' lives and health are ever more at risk. As prisoners have put their lives and bodies on the line to defend the rights of themselves and their people, international support and solidarity are continually escalating and much-needed.

The health of Ahmad Sa'adat, General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Palestinian national leader who has been in isolation for two and one-half years and whose struggle is at the center of the demand for an end to isolation, is in crisis. Two lawyers visited Sa'adat on October 7 and October 9, and reported that he was fainting and vomiting - a direct consequence of the Israeli Prison Service's confiscation of salt from prisoners. He has already lost over 7 kilos on the hunger strike. Nevertheless, no independent doctors or medical professionals have been permitted to examine Sa'adat. It is urgent that independent medical care reach Sa'adat - call and protest at your Israeli consulate or embassy or demand that the International Committee of the Red Cross take action to protect Sa'adat's life!

Despite his own health crisis, when asked about the duration of the strike, Sa'adat responded: "We are going to continue. We will not accept these degrading conditions. Either we live in dignity or we die with our heads high."

It is clear that if there are any consequences to Sa'adat's health or life, Israel and its isolation policy bear full responsibility and have yet more blood on their hands - but silence is complicity, and the world governments, officials and authorities who allow this to continue without raising a word of protest are also responsible for the ongoing crimes against Palestinian political prisoners and the Palestinian people as a whole.

As of October 9, 300 prisoners were participating in a complete open ended hunger strike and 3000 in a partial hunger strike. Additional prisoners have been joining the strike on a daily basis - on October 10 and 11, over 1500 prisoners at Nafha, Ramon, Eshel, Asqelan, and Gilboa prisons have joined in the open-ended strikes

Hunger strike tents continue to grow in cities throughout Palestine - in Ramallah, Qalqilya, Nablus, Gaza, Salfit, Tulkarem, Nazareth, Haifa. Palestinian activists have gone on solidarity hunger strike and engaged in ongoing mobilizations throughout Palestinian cities. In Gaza, three international activists have joined in the solidarity hunger strikes. Demonstrations in front of Ofer and Asqelan prisons were organized by Palestinians in '48 Occupied Palestine. On October 12, 2011, a general strike is expected to close businesses, schools and offices throughout Palestinian cities for hours, to express mass popular support for the prisoners' struggle.

Negotiations to end the strike failed on Monday as Israeli prison authorities continue to disregard Palestinian prisoners' rights. Prisoners have been repeatedly denied lawyers' visits in several prisons. Prisoners have been increasingly denied salt or their salt confiscated - a potentially deadly action for Sa'adat and other hunger strikers.

Abdel Latif Gheith, Chair of the Board of Directors of Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, was today slammed with a six-month ban on entry into the West Bank (as defined by Israel.) Gheith is a resident of East Jerusalem and was called to al-Moskobiyeh interrogation center in Jerusalem to order him arbitrarily forbidden from entering the West Bank, a severe violation of his right to freedom of movement and obvious retaliation for his work in support of the prisoners' hunger strike.

International solidarity to support Palestinian hunger strikers is growing rapidly:

In Gaza, international solidarity activists have joined solidarity hunger strike tents. "Palestinian prisoners are bravely resisting a system that seeks to crush them, their families, their communities, and their national life. Their struggle deserves our full support," said Joe Catron, an activist from the U.S. engaged in an open-ended hunger strike.

éirígí, an Irish republican socialist political party, held a demonstration in Dublin demanding freedom for Ahmad Sa'adat and supporting the hunger strike.

Protests took place throughout the U.S., including in San Francisco and at Occupy Wall Street in New York, in support of the hunger strike - and in solidarity with prisoners in California on hunger strike. Protesters called for the freedom of Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners. See a video of a protest organized by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

Greek organizations and social movements have stood in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners, including Greek trade unionists, city councillors, and the Communist Organization of Greece.

Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, an Arab prisoner in French jails, joined the hunger strike as protests took place in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners in Paris. Activists in Denmark, Sweden and Italyjoined in the solidarity actions across Europe.

The National Lawyers Guild in the US and the Palestinian Boycott National Committee issued statements and calls to action in support of Palestinian political prisoners.

A play, Ana Hurra, supporting Palestinian prisoners and telling their stories, began a two-week tour of the United States, and activists on Twitter plan global solidarity hunger strikes.

TAKE ACTION TO SUPPORT AHMAD SA'ADAT AND ALL PALESTINIAN PRISONERS!

1. Picket, protest or call the Israeli embassy or consulate in your location and demand the immediate freedom of Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian political prisoners. Make it clear that you support the demands of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike! Demand that independent doctors and medical experts be allowed to examine and treat Ahmad Sa'adat. Send us reports of your protests at Israeli embassies and consulates.

2. Distribute the free downloadable Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat flyer in your community at local events.

3. Write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners are freed from punitive isolation. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at JER_jerusalem@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat. Make it clear that Ahmad Sa'adat's life and health are gravely at risk and that he must be permitted independent medical care, and that the ICRC is aware and responsible for any risk to Sa'adat's life or health..

4. Join in the Twitter solidarity strike for Palestine - Tweet: My name is ( ) and I will go on a hunger strike on Wednesday in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners. #TweepStrike #HS4Palestine

5. Email the Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat at info@freeahmadsaadat.org with announcements, reports and information about your local events, activities and flyer distributions.



The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa' adat


http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org /
info@freeahmadsaadat.org
Twitter:http://twitter.com/fre eahmadsaadat

New Developments on Palestinian Prisoners' Hunger Strike - Action Needed + Solidarity with California, US Prison Hunger Strikers

http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org /
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa' adat - info@freeahmadsaadat. org -
Twitter:http://twitter.com/fre eahmadsaadat



Solidarity with Palestinian prisoners is more urgent than ever. Since the announcement of Palestinian prisoners' hunger strikeagainst the isolation of Ahmad Sa'adat and all other prisoners held in solitary confinement, and against torture and humiliation for prisoners and their families and visitors, Israeli prison officials have stepped up their threats against Palestinian prisoners participating in the hunger strike.

The strike begins today, Tuesday, September 27. The Israeli Minister of Internal Security, at a meeting in Ramon and Naqab Prisons, has threatened to escalate repression against prisoners, threatening to move all prisoners participating in the hunger strike into isolation and solitary confinement, and to forcibly transfer those prisoners to other prisons in the occupation prison system. Prisoners are frequently transferred by occupation forces in an attempt to break up social bonds and disrupt organizing against prison repression.

For decades, Palestinian prisoners have engaged in hunger strikes to demand - and win - their rights, putting their bodies on the line once more to demand the freedom and dignity of themselves, their people, their homeland and their nation. Palestinian prisoners have announced that they will not be moved from their course by the threats of the occupiers. Prisoners' representatives have confirmed that Sa'adat and fellow isolated leader Jamal Abu al-Haija, in isolation with Sa'adat, will join in the strike themselves.

Furthermore, prisoners announced that they will reject all prison orders, refusing to wear uniforms, stand up for daily counts, or accept food. The situation is more urgent than ever as prisoners begin their strike. The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat calls upon all solidarity, international justice and human rights groups and organizations to join us to demand freedom, dignity and justice for Palestinian prisoners.

TAKE ACTION TO SUPPORT AHMAD SA'ADAT AND ALL PALESTINIAN PRISONERS!

1. Picket, protest or call the Israeli embassy or consulate in your location and demand the immediate freedom of Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian political prisoners. Make it clear that you support the demands of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike!

2. Distribute the free downloadable Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat flyer in your community at local events.

3. Write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners are freed from punitive isolation. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at jerusalem.jer@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat.

4. Email the Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat at info@freeahmadsaadat.org with announcements, reports and information about your local events, activities and flyer distributions.

+++
Solidarity with Prison Hunger Strikers in California

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat expresses its deepest solidarity with the prisoners on hunger strike in Pelican Bay, California, the United States. These prisoners, inside the racist and brutal US prison system, have also stood together on hunger strike to demand an end to abuse and the use of isolation against prisoners, particularly long-term isolation, to demand proper food, and an end to torture and abuse. They ended their strike in July 2011 after receiving assurances that their demands would be met - however, this has not happened, and prisoners have in fact been punished and further repressed for participating in the strike. The prisoners in California have resumed their hunger strike on Monday, September 26, 2011.

Across the world, prisoners stand on hunger strike, demanding dignity and justice. The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat salutes the California hunger strikers, expresses our deepest solidarity, and joins in their demands for dignity and justice. We also note the great leaders and great struggles that have emerged from the racist dungeons of U.S. prisons, from Attica to Soledad. The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat salutes the political prisoners in U.S. jails and the Guantanamo torture camp - and all jails in the world - including Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, Ghassan Elashi, and hundreds more, and demands their freedom.



The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa' adat

http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org /
info@freeahmadsaadat.org
Twitter:http://twitter.com/fre eahmadsaadat

Eine Gefahr namens Israel

Nukleare Bedrohung

Anlässlich der von Präsident Obama organisierten Konferenz zur Einschränkung der nuklearen Aktivitäten


AUTOR: Gideon SPIRO גדעון ספירו

Übersetzt von Ellen Rohlfs

Auf Kommunisten-online am 27. Oktober 2010 – Israel steht heute an vorderster Front des internationalen Kampfes gegen die atomare Aufrüstung des Irans. Israel dementiert nicht die Meldungen, dass seine Luftwaffe Manöver abhält, mit dem Ziel, Irans nukleare Produktionsstätten zu bombardieren. Eine derartige israelische Militäraktion würde die Region wahrscheinlich an den Punkt eines atomaren Konfliktes bringen, dessen Folgen eine Katastrophe für die ganze Welt sein würde. Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt versucht die USA, Israel in Schranken zu halten, und die israelische Regierung hofft, dass die starke jüdische Lobby im US-Kongress die USA in eine Militäraktion zusammen mit Israel gegen den Iran drängt. Die konservative jüdische Lobby – bekannt für ihre militante Einstellung - spielte eine entscheidende Rolle beim Überfall der USA in den Irak, und nun hofft sie, ein ähnliches Resultat im Iran zu erreichen. Die Wahl des US-Präsidenten von Barack Obama, der links von seinem Vorgänger Bush steht, war ein Schlag für die extreme rechte Regierung, die jetzt in Israel herrscht, ließ aber das israelische und internationale Friedenslager hoffen, dass die USA nicht in noch ein militärisches Abenteuer gezogen wird, das wahrscheinlich katastrophale Folgen für die Region und die Welt haben wird.

Israels offizielle Politik seit den 50er-Jahren, als das Kernkraftwerk Dimona i Ben Heine, Tlaxcalam südlichen Israel gebaut wurde, war: „Israel wird nicht das erste Land sein, das Kernwaffen in der Region einführt", aber heute ist jene Politik eine vollkommen anachronistische. In den 60er und 70er Jahren verdächtigte man Israel, es würde nukleare Waffen entwickeln. Aber es gab keinen entscheidenden Beweis. 1986 enthüllte der Techniker Mordechai Vanunu, der jahrelang im Reaktor in Dimona gearbeitet hatte, in der Londoner „Sunday Times", was innerhalb der Mauern der Einrichtung wirklich vor sich geht, sogar mit Photos von den hintersten Winkeln. Mit diesen wurde klar, dass schon Mitte der 80eer-Jahre Israel in Besitz von über 100 Atombomben war. 43 Jahre sind seitdem vergangen; der Reaktor ist ausgebaut worden, die Produktion wurde fortgesetzt und heute schätzt man, dass Hunderte von Atom- und Wasserstoffbomben in Israels Besitz sind, dazu Langstrecken-Raketen vom Typ „Jericho", die mit nuklearen Sprengköpfe ausgerüstet werden können.

Dem muss die Produktion von chemischen und biologischen Waffen aus dem biologischen Institut Nes Ziona, nicht weit von Tel Aviv, hinzugefügt werden.

Zusammengefasst: Israel ist eine atomare Großmacht, deren Arsenal größer ist als das von China, Großbritannien und Frankreich. Israel ist zu einem Pulverfass von Massenvernichtungswaffen geworden, ein Garten Eden für „Strangeloves" verschiedener Arten. Es gibt keinen anderen Staat in der Welt, in dem auf einem so kleinen Territorium eine so riesige Menge von nuklearen, biologischen und chemischen Waffen gelagert werden.

Israel führte das atomare Wettrüsten in den Nahen Osten ein, und seine Politik war und ist noch immer, das atomare Monopol zu bewahren und seine militärische Macht dazu benützen, seine Nachbarn daran zu hindern, ebenfalls eine Atommacht zu werden. Unter der Regierung Menachem Begin 1981 bombardierte Israel den im Bau befindlichen Reaktor im Irak. Obwohl es sich um einen französischen Forschungsreaktor handelte, entschied die Regierung Israels, dass selbst ein Forschungsreaktor eine unannehmbares Risiko sei. Er wurde vollkommen zerstört.

2007 entschied die israelische Regierung unter Ehud Olmert eine angebliche Kernkraftanlage in Syrien zu bombardieren, die nach israelischen Geheimdienstquellen von Nordkorea gebaut worden war.

Der Iran ist nicht der Irak oder Syrien, weder was die militärische Ausrüstung noch was die Ausdehnung seiner Atomanlagen betrifft. Ein Bombardement des Iran würde wahrscheinlich eine weltweite globale Katastrophe bedeuten. Israel wird sein nukleares Monopol nicht halten können. Es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis seine Nachbarn auch nukleare Waffen haben, wenn die Welt nicht aufwacht und sicherstellt, dass der Nahe Osten zu einer Massenvernichtungswaffen freien Zone gemacht wird, bevor es zu spät ist.

Der Iran behauptet, dass es keine nuklearen Waffen produzieren beabsichtigt, aber Israel hat dies auch behauptet, als es den Dimona-Reaktor baute. und offizielle Leugnungen auf diesem Gebiet müssen mit großer Skepsis betrachtet werden. Keiner weiß, was der Iran hat und was er nicht hat. Die Beseitigung von Irans nuklearen Einrichtungen, die über große Gebiete verteilt sind, liegt außerhalb Israels Militärmacht. Einem israelischen Militärangriff würde es vielleicht gelingen, die Produktion einer iranischen Bombe für eine Weile hinauszuschieben, wenn es solch einen Plan hat, aber es wird sicher auch einen neuen bewaffneten Konflikt schaffen, dessen Ende keiner voraussehen kann.

Israel wird heute von einer rechten Regierung beherrscht, unter deren Minister es nicht wenige religiöse Fundamentalisten und radikale Nationalisten gibt, die in der Vergangenheit schon bewiesen haben, wie leicht ihre Hände am Abzug sind. Ministerpräsident Netanjahus Israel ist nicht weniger gefährlich als Ahmadinejads Iran. Die wirksamste Weise, um eine Katastrophe im Nahen Osten zu verhindern, ist, wenn alle Staaten der Region ihre Kernwaffen liquidieren. Und der Prozess müsste mit Israel beginnen; denn es ist Israel, das diese Waffen in der Region einführte. Dies sollte die dringendste Aufgabe der USA und der EU, Israels Verbündeter, sein.

Der Bau des nuklearen Reaktors in Dimona begann in den 50ern mit der Hilfe Frankreichs.

Der Reaktor war als Dank für Israels Unterstützung im Kolonialkrieg gedacht, den Frankreich gegen Algerien führte.

1969 verkündete Ministerpräsident David Ben-Gurion den Bau des Reaktors mit einem kurzen Statement in der Knesset und deutete daraufhin, dass es ein Forschungsreaktor für friedliche Zwecke sein sollte, der für alle Wissenschaftler in aller Welt offen sein soll. Schon damals war klar, dass dies eine Täuschung war und dass der Reaktor für militärische Zwecke gedacht war.

Als amerikanische Spionageflugzeuge den Bau in Dimona während der Kennedy-Regierung entdeckten, versuchte die amerikanische Regierung die Aktivierung zu verhindern. Die US sandten Experten zur Inspektion der Gegend, aber Israel gelang es, sie zu täuschen. Heute ist es klar, dass Präsident Kennedys Furcht, der Reaktor würde in der Region ein nukleares Waffenwettrüsten auslösen, gerechtfertigt war.

Nach dem Juni-Krieg 1967 wurde die Verbindung zwischen den USA und Israel enger. Die USA wurde Israels Hauptwaffenlieferant. Ministerpräsident Levi Eshkol (1967-69) kam mit Präsident Johnson über die Nuklearfrage zu einem Einverständnis. Das Wesentliche davon war, dass die (US-) Regierung ein Auge zudrücken würde, wenn die israelische Regierung erklärt, dass Israel nicht der erste Staat wäre, der in der Region nukleare Waffen einführt. Dieses Abkommen wurde bei einem Treffen von Ministerpräsidentin Golda Meir (1967-74) und Präsident Richard Nixon bestätigt worden. Es erlaubte den USA weiter, Israel wirtschaftliche und militärische Hilfe zu geben. So wurden die USA ein stiller Partner und Geldgeber von Israels nuklearem Unternehmen. Der Betrieb des Reaktors von Dimona und die ganze nukleare Waffenherstellung kostet eine riesige Menge Geld, die auf eine Milliarde Dollar im Jahr geschätzt wird. Ohne die amerikanische Hilfe, die heute drei Milliarden Dollar pro Jahr betragen und in der Vergangenheit vier Milliarden erreicht hatte, könnte Israel sein nukleares Abenteuer nicht finanzieren. Dem müssen noch 6 Milliarden Dollar Darlehen hinzugefügt werden, die die US-Regierung Israel gab, die Israel erlauben, Anleihen vom internationalen Markt zu erhalten. Man füge dieser Geldbeschaffung für Israel in der internationalen jüdischen Gemeinschaft noch eine Milliarde pro Jahr hinzu. Und dann gibt es natürlich noch die Zahlungen aus Deutschland, die insgesamt 2 Milliarden (?) betragen.

Nur auf diese Weise konnte Israel sein nukleares Unternehmen, eine mächtige Armee, die mit den modernsten Waffen ausgerüstet ist, und regelmäßig Kriege finanzieren – all dies mit einer Wirtschaft und einem Lebensstandard auf europäischer Ebene.

Bei der Gründung des israelischen Nuklearunternehmens stand der Holocaust Pate. Wie viele Dinge in Israel wird der Holocaust als politische Waffe für aktuelle Bedürfnisse instrumentalisiert. Es ist eine Waffe, die sich als sehr wirksam erwiesen hat, zum einen, um Geld und Hilfe zu bekommen und um Kritik an Israel zu blockieren.

Der Grund, sich in den 50er-Jahren ein nukleares Arsenal anzuschaffen, war, dass die Araber danach strebten, Israel zu zerstören, und eine solch entsetzliche Waffe sollte sie abschrecken.

Das Bild, das damals von Israel gemalt wurde, war der kleine David, der der mächtigen arabischen Welt, dem Goliath, gegenüber steht, die uns vernichten will.

Über fünfzig Jahre sind seitdem vergangen, und es ist klar geworden, dass der militärische Goliath der Region niemand anders als das kleine Israel ist. Israel, das die modernste Armee im Nahen Osten hat, die mit dem Besten, was die amerikanische Macht liefern kann, ausgerüstet ist, und das jetzt seit über 40 Jahren über das palästinensische Volk herrscht und mehrere Kriege angefangen hat; dieses Israel ist zum Sparta des Nahen Ostens geworden.

Der einzige Krieg, in dem Israel einen schweren Schlag erlitten hat, war der Yom-Kippur-Krieg 1973; aber selbst dann war Israels Existenz nicht in Gefahr. Ägypten und Syrien planten keine Besetzung Israels; ihr Ziel war es, den status quo der israelischen Besatzung nach dem Junikrieg 1967 zu untergraben. Zusammengefasst war er in dem arroganten Statement des damaligen Verteidigungsministers Moshe Dayan: „Es ist besser Sharm al-Sheik ohne Frieden zu haben als Frieden ohne Sharm al-Sheik". Was die ägyptische Armee im Yom-Kippur-Krieg erreichte, bereitete den Friedensvertrag mit Ägypten vor, der verbunden war mit der Rückgabe der ganzen Sinai-Halbinsel an Ägypten bis zum letzten Millimeter.

Israels Kernwaffen-Arsenal ist heute fast der letzte zionistischer Konsens von Links bis Rechts . Mehr als 90 Prozent der israelischen Bürger befürworten Israels Besitz von atomaren Waffen und akzeptieren die These, dass sie zur Verteidigung Israels gegen eine mögliche Vernichtung dient. Die Vorstellung der jüdischen Israelis von sich selbst als die eigentlichen ewigen Opfer, könnte das nationale israelische Hobby genannt werden.

Die Anzahl der Gegner der atomaren Bewaffnung ist gering. Sie werden bestenfalls für naiv gehalten und schlimmstenfalls als Verräter angesehen.

Wie wir gesehen haben, hat sich Israels offizielle Politik nicht verändert, und Präsident Shimon Peres, einer der Gründer der Dimona-Anlage hat mehr als einmal gesagt, wenn vollkommener Frieden und freundliche Beziehungen zwischen Israel und der gesamten arabischen Welt herrschen wird, dann wird es möglich sein, über die Entwaffnung der ganzen Region zu reden.

Mit andern Worten: Peres sagte auch einmal, Israel wird seine atomaren Waffen nicht aufgeben, so lange der Messias nicht angekommen ist, und damit spricht er mit der überwältigenden Mehrheit der Juden in Israel.

Der Grund für die Opponenten der nuklearen Waffen, besonders der Mitglieder und Sympathisanten des „Israelischen Komitees für einen Nahen Osten, der frei ist von atomaren, biologischen und chemischen Waffen" ist folgender:

Israel droht kein Gefahr der Vernichtung. Diese Behauptung ist ein zynischer Versuch, die Ängste und Traumata aus der Zeit des Holocaust zu missbrauchen. Die Gefahr der Vernichtung besteht nicht, weil Israel auf Grund seiner konventionellen Bewaffnung die stärkste Macht der Region ist, und weil kein arabischer Staat Israel heute zerstören will. Israels konventionelle Armee ist stark genug für Israels Bedürfnisse – wenn Israel nicht zusätzliche Gebiete im Nahen Osten nicht zu kontrollieren plant.

Selbst der Iran drohte nie damit, Israel zu zerstören oder es anzugreifen. Inzwischen ist es nur Israel, das davon spricht, den Iran militärisch anzugreifen. Die Leugnung des Holocaust durch den iranischen Präsidenten muss entschieden verurteilt werden, ebenso Israels Parteinahme für die Türkei bei der Leugnung des armenischen Völkermords.

Israels Arsenal von nuklearen, chemischen und biologischen Waffen stellen für das Land externe wie interne Probleme dar

Es gibt keine „verantwortlichen Hände", wenn es um nukleare Waffen geht. Diejenigen, die sich am meisten verantwortlich fühlen, sind jene, die nicht die Möglichkeit haben, auf den nuklearen Knopf zu drücken. Allein seine Existenz ist ein Anreiz, ihn zu benützen. Seine Benützung könnte unter mehreren Umständen passieren: ein oberflächliches Lesen von Absichten des Feindes, Abenteuerlust von Seiten unverantwortlicher Führer oder eine falsche Einschätzung der Situation auf dem Schlachtfeld (wie beinahe während des Yom Kippur-Krieges geschehen ist, als mit Nuklearbomben bestückte Flugzeuge zum Abflug bereit standen.)

Intern sind die Gefahren nicht geringer: der Reaktor steht im Großen Rift-Tal, einem Grabenbruch, der ein Erdbeben auslösen könnte. Alle Experten stimmen darin überein, dass es nur eine Frage der Zeit ist, wann sich in diesem Gebiet ein Erdbeben ereignet. Wir wissen nur nicht, wie stark es sein wird. Ein Erdbeben der Stärke 8 oder 9 auf der Richterskala würde den Reaktor bersten lassen und eine radioaktive Wolke hervorbringen, die mindestens halb Israel, wenn nicht ganz Israel, für Menschen unbewohnbar machen würde.

Der atomare Müll, der sich seit Jahrzehnten angesammelt hat und die angewandten Methoden, ihn loszuwerden, sind uns unbekannt. Dieser Müll gefährdet den Boden und den Grundwasserspiegel. Und natürlich besteht immer die Gefahr eines Atomunglückes wie in Tschernobyl, ob als Folge eines menschlichen Irrtums oder wegen technischen Versagens. In der Stadt Dimona, die nicht weit vom Reaktor liegt, gibt es schon eine wachsende Anzahl von Krebskranken. Und die staatlichen Behörden weigern sich ernsthaft, eine Verbindung zum Reaktor zu untersuchen.

Genau so sind israelische Bürger ähnlichen Gefahren vom biologischen Institut in Nes Ziona ausgesetzt, wo Mittel für die biologische Kriegsführung erforscht und entwickelt werden. Eine Katastrophe im Institut könnte unheilbare Krankheiten bzw. deren Keime in die Luft entlassen, die schreckliche Epidemien verursachen könnten.

In Bezug auf Israels Nuklear-Arsenal spielt Deutschland unter dem Deckmantel von Hilfe und Beistand eine negative Rolle - hier spielt Israel mit den Schuldgefühlen der Deutschen …

Deutschland hat Israel mit supermodernen Unterseeboten ausgerüstet, die Raketen mit nuklearen Sprengköpfen mit sich führen. Diese Unterseeboote, die Hundertmillionen Dollar kosten, wurden Israel kostenlos geliefert – alles natürlich im Namen der Wiedergutmachung für die Schrecken des Holocaust. So wird das absurde Paradox geschaffen, dass im Namen des 1. Holocaust Deutschland einen neuen Holocaust entstehen lässt – einen nuklearen Holocaust. …Die Lehren aus dem Holocaust sind enthalten im Kampf gegen Rassismus und gegen Verletzungen der Menschenrechte, aber nicht in der Unterstützung eines Staates, der diese verletzt und nicht in der Bewaffnung dieses Staates mit Massenvernichtungswaffen.

Israel ist kein Signatar des Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (Nichtweiterverbreitung von Kernwaffen) und deshalb hat die Internationale Atomenergie-Agentur in Wien keine Kontrollmöglichkeiten in Dimona.

Wir müssen verlangen, dass die internationale Gemeinschaft aufhört, Israel anders zu behandeln als andere Länder. Es sollte als das behandelt werden, was es ist: als einer der Akteure, der heute den Weltfrieden gefährdet. Israels Besitz von nuklearen Waffen ermutigt seine Nachbarn, eigene nukleare Waffen zu haben. Man kann die Gefahr kaum übertreiben, noch dazu in einer Region, wo so viele Führer – in Israel wie bei seinen Nachbarn – behaupten einen direkten Draht zum Allmächtigen zu haben. Die Kampagne gegen Irans Erwerb von nuklearen Waffen ist lobenswert, aber sie wäre viel wirksamer, wenn sie im Kontext einer Kampagne geschehen würde, die den Nahen Osten frei von Massenvernichtungswaffen machen würde, was Israel natürlich mit einschließt.

Wir müssen Israel auffordern, den Nichtverbreitungsvertrag zu unterzeichnen und den Dimona-Reaktor für internationale Inspektionen zu öffnen als vorbereitende regionale vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen.

Wirkliche Freunde Israels werden sich solchen Forderungen anschließen und daran festhalten, auch wenn die israelische Regierung aufschreit, dies sei „Anti-Semitismus" Die Zeit ist gekommen, um sich nicht mehr über diese manipulierte Art und Weise aufzuregen, mit der Israel solch ein Problem behandelt. Nur so kann Israels Sicherheit auf Dauer garantiert werden – und das seiner Nachbarn auch.

Ich kann diesen Artikel nicht beenden, ohne von Israel zu fordern, die Verfolgung Mordechai Vanunu, Träger des Alternativen Nobelpreises, einzustellen, des Mannes, der Israels Nuklear-Arsenals enthüllte und dafür 18 Jahre im Gefängnis saß. Er ist nicht gebrochen worden. Er kämpft weiter für die Idee einer Welt ohne Massenvernichtungswaffen. Er hat seine Strafe voll abgebüßt. Es sollte ihm nun erlaubt werden, Israel zu verlassen und sein Leben an einem Ort seiner Wahl zu leben.

Quelle: Occupation Magazine-A danger called Israel

Originalartikel veröffentlicht am 11.4.2010

Über den Autor

Ellen Rohlfs ist ein Mitglied von Tlaxcala, dem internationalen Übersetzernetzwerk für sprachliche Vielfalt. Diese Übersetzung kann frei verwendet werden unter der Bedingung, daß der Text nicht verändert wird und daß sowohl der Autor, die Übersetzerin als auch die Quelle genannt werden.

URL dieses Artikels auf Tlaxcala: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=10483&lg=de

UN report: What happened on the Mavi Marmara

4 October 2010. A World to Win News Service. Following are excerpts from the report by a mission mandated by the UN Human Rights Council on the facts surrounding Israel's interception of a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza 31 May 2010. (Report A/HRC/15/21) We have retained the paragraph numbering of the original document, and reprinted the entire paragraphs, although we have made a selection from this 56-page document to focus on the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship, on which nine people were killed. The subheads are from the original report. For more on this report and the reaction to it, see accompanying article.



Initial attempt to board the Mavi Marmara from the sea



112. Israeli zodiac boats made a first attempt to board the Mavi Marmara from the sea shortly before 0430 hours. Several zodiac boats approached the ship at the stern from both the port and starboard sides. The approach was accompanied by the firing of non-lethal weaponry onto the ship, including smoke and stun grenades, tear-gas and paintballs. Plastic bullets may also have been used at this stage: however, despite some claims that live ammunition was also fired from the zodiac boats, the Mission is not satisfied that this was the case. The smoke and tear gas were not effective due to the strong sea breeze and later due to the downdraft from helicopters.



113. The Israeli forces attempted to board the ship through attaching ladders to the hull. Passengers engaged in efforts to repel the attempted boarding using the ship's water hoses and the throwing of various items at the boats including chairs, sticks, a box of plates and other objects that were readily to hand. This initial attempt to board the ship proved unsuccessful. It is the view of the Mission that the Israeli forces should have re-evaluated their plans when it became obvious that putting their soldiers on board the ship may lead to civilian casualties.



Landing of soldiers from helicopters onto the Mavi Marmara



114. Just minutes after soldiers from the zodiac boats had made initial unsuccessful attempts to board, the first helicopter approached the ship at approximately 0430 hours, hovering above the top deck. At this point between 10 and 20 passengers were located in the central area of the top deck, although this number increased as other passengers learned of events on the top deck. The Israeli forces used smoke and stun grenades in an attempt to clear an area for the landing of soldiers. The first rope that was let down from the helicopter was taken by passengers and tied it to a part of the top deck and thereby rendered ineffective for the purpose of soldiers' descent. A second rope was then let down from the helicopter and the first group of soldiers descended. The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.



115. With the available evidence it is difficult to delineate the exact course of events on the top deck between the time of the first soldier descending and the Israeli forces securing control of the deck. A fight ensued between passengers and the first soldiers to descend onto the top deck that resulted in at least two soldiers being pushed down onto the bridge deck below, where they were involved in struggles with groups of passengers who attempted to take their weapons. The equipment jacket of at least one soldier was removed as he was pushed over the side of the deck. A number of weapons were taken from the soldiers by passengers and thrown into the sea: one weapon, a 9mm pistol was unloaded by a passenger, a former U.S. Marine, in front of witnesses and then hidden in another part of the ship in an attempt to retain evidence.



116. A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives. At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object. Witnesses informed the Mission that their objective was to subdue and disarm the soldiers so that they could not harm anyone. The Mission is satisfied on the evidence that at least two passengers on the bridge deck also used handheld catapults to propel small projectiles at the helicopters. The Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken on board the ship. Despite requests, the Mission has not received any medical records or other substantiated information from the Israeli authorities regarding any firearm injuries sustained by soldiers participating in the raid. Doctors examined the three soldiers taken below decks and no firearm injuries were noted. Further, the Mission finds that the Israeli accounts so inconsistent and contradictory with regard to evidence of alleged firearms injuries to Israeli soldiers that it has to reject it.



Deaths of nine passengers and wounding of at least 50 other passengers



117. During the operation to secure control of the top deck, the Israeli forces landed soldiers from three helicopters over a fifteen-minute period. The Israeli forces used paintballs, plastic bullets and live ammunition, fired by soldiers from the helicopter above and soldiers who had landed on the top deck. The use of live ammunition during this period resulted in fatal injuries to four passengers, and injuries to at least nineteen others, fourteen with gunshot wounds. Escape points to the bridge deck from the top deck were narrow and restricted and as such it was very difficult for passengers in this area to avoid being hit by live rounds. At least one of those killed was using a video camera and not involved in any of the fighting with the soldiers. The majority of gunshot wounds received by passengers were to their upper torsos in the head, thorax, abdomen and back. Given the relatively small number of passengers on the top deck during the incident, the Mission is driven to the conclusion that the vast majority were in receipt of gunshot wounds.



118. Israeli soldiers continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded, with live ammunition, soft baton charges (beanbags) and plastic bullets. Forensic analysis demonstrates that two of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground: Furkan Doğan received a bullet in the face and İbrahim Bilgen received a fatal wound from a soft baton round (beanbag) fired at such close proximity to his head that parts such as wadding penetrated his skull entered his brain. Furthermore, some of the wounded were subjected to further violence including being hit with the butt of a weapon, being kicked in the head, chest and back and being verbally abused. A number of the wounded passengers were handcuffed and then left unattended for some time before being dragged to the front of the deck by their arms or legs.



119. Once the Israeli forces had secured control of the top deck they undertook measures to move down to the bridge deck below in order to take over the ship’s bridge and thus take control of the ship. In relation to this operation, a series of shooting incidents occurred centred on the portside doorway which gives access to the main stairwell on the bridge deck. This door is near to the hatch and ladder, which allows access from the top deck to the bridge deck.



120. Israeli soldiers fired live ammunition both from the top deck at passengers on the bridge deck below and after they had moved down to the bridge deck. At least four passengers were killed, and at least nine injured (five with firearms injuries) during this phase. None of the four passengers who were killed, including a photographer who at the time of being shot was engaged in taking photographs and was shot by an Israeli soldier positioned on the top deck above, posed any threat to the Israeli forces. There was considerable live fire from Israeli soldiers on the top deck and a number of passengers were injured or killed whilst trying to take refuge inside the door or assisting other to do so. Wounded passengers were brought into the ship where they could be given some form of medical treatment by doctors and others on board.



122. A group of up to twenty passengers, some holding sticks and rods and wearing gas masks, were located on or around the stairwell inside the ship. One passenger standing just inside the door was shot through the broken porthole in the door by a soldier standing a few metres away on the bridge deck outside.



123. During the shootings on the bridge deck and as it became apparent that a large number of passengers had become injured, Bulent Yildirim, the President of IHH [the Turkish humanitarian organisation that owned this ship] and one of principal organisers of the flotilla, removed his white shirt which was then used as a white flag to indicate a surrender. This does not appear to have had any effect and live firing continued on the ship.



124. Israeli forces moved down to the bridge deck and moved rapidly to take over the

bridge room towards the front of the ship. The doorway and windows of the bridge room came under fire and the ship’s captain ordered the ship’s engines to be cut. Israeli soldiers entered the bridge room through the door and broken window. The crew were made to lie on the ground at gunpoint. The captain remained standing but was held at gunpoint.



Shootings at the bow deck, the release of the Israeli soldiers and end of the operation



125. During the initial fighting on the top deck three Israeli soldiers were taken under control and brought inside the ship. While some passengers wished to harm the soldiers, other passengers ensured that they were protected and able to receive rudimentary medical treatment from doctors on board. Two of the soldiers had received wounds to the abdomen. One of the soldiers had a superficial wound to the abdomen, caused by a sharp object, which penetrated to the subcutaneous tissue. None of the three soldiers had received gunshot injuries, according to doctors who examined them. All three soldiers were in a state of shock and were suffering from cuts, bruises and blunt force trauma.



126. As the seriousness of incidents on the outer decks became apparent, there was growing concern among some of the flotilla organisers that holding the captured Israeli soldiers may have serious implications for the security of all passengers on board. It was decided that the soldiers should be released and they were taken to the bow of the lower deck. Once on the bow deck two of the soldiers jumped into the sea and were picked up by Israeli boats. The third soldier did not jump and was rapidly joined by Israeli soldiers who came down from the top deck.



127. At least four passengers were injured on the bow of the ship, both before and around the time that the Israeli soldiers were released. At least two passengers received wounds from live ammunition, while others received injuries from soft baton charges, including one doctor who was tending to injured passengers.



128. The Israeli forces stated that the active phase of the Israeli forces operation concluded at 0517 hours, once the ship was under their control and the three soldiers were released. During the 45-50 minute operation, nine passengers were killed, more than 24 passengers had received serious injuries caused by live ammunition and a large number of passengers had received serious injuries caused by plastic rounds, soft baton charges (beanbags) and other means.



Deaths occurring on the Top Deck (roof)



Furkan Doğan, a 19 year old with dual Turkish and United States citizenship, was on

the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax, left leg and foot. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were most likely received in a standing position.



İbrahim Bilgen, a 60 year old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot. He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front. These wounds would not have caused instant death, but he would have bled to death within a short time without medical attention. Forensic evidence shows that he was shot in the side of the head with a soft baton round at such close proximity and that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the brain. He had a further bruise on the right flank consistent with another beanbag wound. The wounds are consistent with the deceased initially being shot from soldiers on board the helicopter above and receiving a further wound to the head while lying on the ground, already wounded.



Fahri Yaldiz, a 42 year old Turkish citizen from Adiyaman, received five bullet wounds, one to the chest, one to the left leg and three to the right leg. The chest wound was caused by a bullet that entered near the left nipple and hit the heart and lungs before exiting from the shoulder. This injury would have caused rapid death.



According to the pathology report, Ali Heyder Bengi, a 38 year old Turkish citizen from Diyarbakir, received six bullet wounds (one in the chest, one in the abdomen, one in the right arm, one in the right thigh and two in the left hand). One bullet lodged in the chest area. None of the wounds would have been instantly fatal, but damage to the liver caused bleeding which would have been fatal if not stemmed. There are several witness accounts which suggest that Israeli soldiers shot the deceased in the back and chest at close range while he was lying on the deck as a consequence of initial bullet wounds.



Deaths occurring on the Bridge Deck, portside



Cevdet Kiliçlar, a 38 year old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, was on the Mavi Marmara, in his capacity as a photographer employed by IHH. At the moment he was shot he was standing on the bridge deck on the port side of the ship near to the door leading to the main stairwell and was attempting to photograph Israeli soldiers on the top deck. According to the pathology reports, he received a single bullet to his forehead between the eyes. The bullet followed a horizontal trajectory which crossed the middle of the brain from front to back. He would have died instantly.



41 year old Cengiz Akyuz from Hatay and 46 year old Cengiz Songur from Izmir, both Turkish citizens, were injured on the bridge deck in close succession by live fire from above. They had been sheltering and were shot as they attempted to move inside the door leading to the stairwell. Cengiz Akyuz received a shot to the head and it is probable that he died instantly.



The pathology report shows four wounds: to the neck, face, chest and thigh. Cengiz Songur received a single bullet to the upper central thorax below the neck, shot from a high angle, which lodged in the right thoracic cavity injuring the heart and aorta. Unsuccessful efforts were made by doctors inside the ship to resuscitate him through heart massage.



Çetin Topçuoğlu, a 54 year old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, exited from the neck and then re-entered into the thorax. Another bullet entered the left buttock and lodged in the right pelvis. The third entered the right groin and exited from the lower back. There are indications that the victim may have been in a crouching or bending position when this wound was sustained.



Ill-treatment of passengers at airport and repatriation



202. Perhaps the most shocking testimony, after that relating to the violence on the Mavi Marmara, provided to the Mission was the consistent accounts of a number of incidents of extreme and unprovoked violence perpetrated by uniformed Israeli personnel upon certain passengers during the processing procedures inside the terminal at Ben Gurion International Airport on the day of deportation. These accounts were so consistent and vivid as to be beyond question. An intimidating number of armed soldiers and police were present inside the terminal building. Some passengers said that these officers were "spoiling for a fight". All passengers had been subjected to multiple searches and were completely under the control of the Israelis by this stage. Most passengers were continuing to refuse to sign deportation documents and some were determined to make a point about the legality of the

process by insisting on a court hearing to confirm the deportation. None of the violence described seems to have been justified.



203. Some passengers in the passport checking area saw an older passenger being roughly treated after receiving what appeared to be a beating. When other passengers, including Irish and Turkish, protested at this treatment, they were charged by soldiers using batons. In the foray, around 30 passengers were beaten to the ground, kicked and punched in a sustained attack by soldiers. One Irish passenger was seen being particularly badly beaten around the head and held in a choke position to the point of near suffocation. He identified his attackers as police officers. He was taken to a holding cell.



204. One Turkish passenger involved in the fight said that he was subsequently taken by soldiers, handcuffed with metal cuffs, picked up by the cuffs, taken to a small room and beaten and kicked by five more soldiers while others shielded the scene from outside. The police intervened to stop the violence in this case.



205. A number of women were pushed around by soldiers, one of whom was beaten with fists. They were also subjected to sexual taunts.



206. In a separate incident, a passenger was physically attacked by around seventeen

officers when he refused to sign deportation paper, kicked in the head and threatened at gunpoint. A number of passengers had resolved to resist deportation in order to have the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence in an Israeli court. This was taken as a provocation by the Israelis.



Possessions of passengers confiscated by the Israeli authorities



240. Amongst the items confiscated and not returned by the Israeli authorities is a large amount of video and photographic footage that was recorded on electronic and other media by passengers, including many professional journalists, on board the vessels of the flotilla. This includes a large number of photographic and video material of the Israeli assault and interception on the Mavi Marmara and other vessels. The Israeli authorities have subsequently released a very limited amount of this for public access, in an edited form, but the vast majority has remained in the private control of the Israeli authorities.



241. The Mission is satisfied that this represents a deliberate attempt by the Israeli authorities to suppress or destroy evidence and other information related to the events of 31 May on the Mavi Marmara and other vessels of the flotilla.

The "Jewish boat to Gaza": How Israel deals with Jews who consider oppression immoral



4 October 2010. A World to Win News Service. Israel couldn't deal with the Irene the same way it had the Mavi Marmara. Unlike last May, when Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish passengers on an aid ship bound for Gaza, they had to be more careful with this small yacht carrying a symbolic cargo of medical and school supplies and therapeutic toys for Gaza intercepted 28 September.



Of the ten passengers, six were Israeli Jews: a former officer who several years ago initiated a letter signed by Air Force pilots pledging to refuse to bomb Palestinian towns; his brother, also a combat veteran; a prominent peace activist whose daughter was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber; his wife, the peace activist daughter of an Israeli general; an Israeli TV reporter; and a well-known critical supporter of Zionism who describes himself as a Holocaust survivor. The others were a refugee from Nazi Germany who now lives in the U.S., a Jewish studies scholar from Germany, a British biographer of the famed author and Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi, and a UK photojournalist. The Irene was organized by a London-based group called Jews for Justice for Palestine. Among its sponsors was the mother of Labour Party leader Ed Miliband and the former Foreign Secretary David Miliband.



The boat was surrounded by a destroyer and other warships, helicopters and, according to some reports, submarines. News footage shows two warships pulling up against the Irene, one on each side, and spinning it around. When dozens of commandos came aboard, the passengers put up no resistance of any kind. But the former Israeli pilot Yonatan Shapira put his arms around 82-year-old Holocaust survivor Reuven Moskovitz and refused to let go.



The commandos tased Shapira twice in the right arm. Then a naval captain lifted up his life vest, put the Taser to his chest and sent a jolt of electricity into his heart. He collapsed and was put in handcuffs and dragged away, along with his brother. They face serious criminal charges. Other passengers were kicked and beaten. All cameras were confiscated. The scholar from Germany was jailed when she refused to sign voluntary deportation papers.



Moskovitz said in a statement, "When I was a kid I lived in a ghetto for a few years, and I think of the Palestinian children." "It is my sacred duty as a survivor to protest against the persecution, the oppression and the imprisonment of so many people in Gaza, including more than 800,000 children." He also said, "It's just immoral."



An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman and a military statement both called the Irene's symbolic attempt to break the Gaza blockade a "provocation".



Nevertheless, the Israel government could not and did not wish to refrain from bestiality. It carried out this battle for the high moral ground with a hint of its usual cruelty. It needed to teach these people a lesson, and keep others from following their example.

U.S. to Israel after the Gaza ship massacre: keep up the killing

4 October 2010. A World to Win News Service. "The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution," a UN-sponsored fact-finding mission on the Israeli attack on an aid flotilla to Gaza last May has concluded.



Contrary to Israeli claims that the nine passengers on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara were killed by Israeli soldiers acting in self-defense, the Mission's report, based on forensic and other material evidence and 112 interviews with ship passengers, is a detailed account of reckless gunfire and cold-blooded murders.



Some passengers on the top deck of the Mavi Marma had thwarted the Israeli commando attempt to climb up ladders to board the ship by throwing down "chairs, sticks, a box of plates and other objects that were readily to hand." When a helicopter lowered a rope for soldiers to climb down, passengers grabbed it and tied it to part of the deck so it couldn't be used. The helicopter began shooting at the top deck.



When, after that, soldiers descended from helicopters on a second rope, "a number of passengers fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives." They used slingshots to fire objects at the copters, but "the Mission has found no evidence to suggest that any of the passengers used firearms or that any firearms were taken aboard the ship."



Once they were on board, Israeli soldiers raked the top deck with live ammunition, plastic bullets (which killed at least one man) and paint balls, hitting nearly everyone gathered there, and then sprayed the deck below, hitting people trying to escape or take cover. Some wounded men were finished off with bullets to the head. Nineteen-year-old Furkan Dogan, on the top deck filming the action, was shot four times from behind and then, while lying on the deck, apparently turned over and shot pointblank in the face.



At least 50 people were wounded. There was so much gunfire with live ammunition that "it seems a matter of pure chance that there were not more fatalities as a result."



There were no deaths on any of the other ships in the flotilla, whose passengers, the report says, offered only non-violent resistance or none at all. But there, too, Israel soldiers were enraged and brutal. Many of the more than 700 passengers and crew on six ships were beaten and electroshocked (with Tasers). Israeli soldiers carried out what the report describes as "torture" on handcuffed prisoners on the way back to shore, during the processing of the prisoners, and at the airport as they were being deported.



Journalists were targeted because of their profession. Some passengers said the commandos carried picture books of particular people they were looking for, presumably, the report says, on the basis of intelligence reports before the ships set off.



The Israeli interception of this flotilla on the high seas was unlawful, the report states after reviewing the facts and relevant laws and codes. Even aside from that, the use of lethal force was illegal, since even those carrying out legitimate law enforcement and military activities have a responsibility to avoid needless harm and death of civilians under all circumstances, and acts like the torture and summary execution of prisoners are always forbidden.



"There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willingly causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," the report concludes. Those open to legal charges under international law include both the individuals who may have committed crimes and their superiors at every level who under international law are responsible for the actions of their troops.



In fact, the report says, the Israeli government is actively covering up these crimes. It confiscated the CCTV footage, every camera, phone, memory card, and almost every single electronic or other device carried by the passengers so as to keep exclusive control of the evidence. It told the UN Mission that it would not recognize it or cooperate with it.



The Mission argues that Israeli accounts of what happened do not concur with the evidence cited in the report and that these accounts are mutually inconsistent and in many cases implausible. Since only the sound and camera recordings that Israel insists on keeping secret could substantiate its claims, then its failure to produce that material means that its arguments cannot be accepted.



Moreover, the report argues, again after reviewing the facts and relevant law, the Israeli blockade of Gaza is itself illegal, because its stated purpose is to punish the people of Gaza for having voted for the Hamas organization. Such collective punishment of a population is explicitly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention, the so-called laws of war. Israel had deliberately caused a "severe humanitarian situation" in Gaza through "the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage." Imposing starvation on a civilian population is also illegal under international humanitarian law, and "the ordinary meaning of 'starvation'" under that law "is simply to cause hunger."



Israel continues to enforce this situation today as a matter of state policy, the report dated 22 September notes, despite minor adjustments to the blockade.



But there is an even greater crime here: the reaction of the U.S. and other imperialist powers to this report. Of the UN Human Rights Commission's 47 members, only one voted against endorsing the report: the U.S. All the European members abstained.



Why? Not one of these countries argued that anything in the report is inaccurate, untrue or legally unfounded. The American ambassador to the Human Rights Council simply criticized its "unbalanced language, tone and conclusions".



If the term "unbalanced" was meant to mean that the report did not sufficiently listen to the Israeli side of the argument, then how can be UN Mission be blamed for Israel's refusal to cooperate or allow any of its citizens to be interviewed? On the other hand, if "unbalanced" means that the report reaches definitive conclusions, that is not wrong but a good thing. This Mission "went where the evidence led us", said member Desmond de Silva, a British jurist and former chief prosecutor for the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone.



The Mission chairman, Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, retired judge of the International Criminal Court and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, pointed out that the U.S. spokeswoman's "unfortunate" comments "came without any supporting evidence or argument. There has been no factual criticisms, as far as we have been able to glean from any reports."



U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe did make one argument, although not about facts or law. She said that the report could be "used for actions that could disrupt the direct Israeli-Palestinian talks now under way or actions that could make it harder." (All quotes from The New York Times, 28 September 2010).



Here we have it: the U.S. fears the truth because it might disrupt the Obama government's efforts to use diplomacy and political pressure to force the Palestinians into submission, in harmony with Israel's deliberately blatant and sadistic brutality to achieve the same goal.

NETANJAHU IST HIER NICHT WILLKOMMEN

Griechenland:

Volk verabscheut Premier des „Mörderstaates Israel“

übersetzt von Jens-Torsten Bohlke, Brüssel

Mitteilung der KKE vom 16. August 2010 (auf Kommunisten-online am 30. August 2010). – Gestern Nachmittag fand in der griechischen Hauptstadt Athen eine Demonstration anlässlich des Besuchs von Israels Premierminister B. Netanjahu statt. Arbeiter und Angestellte, Anhänger der Friedensbewegung, Frauen und Jugendliche folgten dem Aufruf von PAME, des Griechischen Komitees für Internationale Entspannung und Frieden (EEDYE), der Frauenorganisation Griechenlands (OGE) usw. zur Massendemonstration am 16. August 2010 gegen den Besuch des Premierministers Israels in Griechenland, für die Solidarität des griechischen Volkes mit den Palästinensern und für die Verurteilung der imperialistischen Rolle Israels im Mittleren Osten.

Die klassenkämpferische Gewerkschaftsbewegung PAME vereinte die Massen mit der Allgemeinen Vereinigung der Palästinensischen Arbeiter und dem Allgemeinen Verband Palästinensischer Studenten in Griechenland bei dieser Demonstration vom Kriegsmuseum zur Botschaft Israels in Athen in Sprechchören „Israels Premierminister ist hier unerwünscht! Nieder mit den imperialistischen Verbrechern aus Israel, USA, EU!“. Dieses Demonstrationsmotto wurde auch auf einem großen Spruchband an der Spitze des Demonstrationszuges getragen.

Die massive Präsenz von Polizei rief sofortige Reaktionen seitens der Organisatoren hervor. Der Demonstrationszug zog weiter mit den Sprüchen „Die Völker sind nicht Terroristen! NATO und Israel sind Terroristen!“. Beim Erreichen der hermetisch von Polizeitruppen abgeriegelten Botschaft Israels wurden die Sprechchöre immer lauter.

Das ZK der KKE war mit einer großen Delegation bei der Demonstration dabei. Die KKE gab folgende Stellungnahme zum Besuch von Netanjahu in Athen ab:

„Die KKE ruft das Volk dazu auf, seine schärfste Verurteilung des Besuches des israelischen Premierministers in unserem Land auszusprechen und ebenso die Unterstützung der griechischen Regierung für die aggressive imperialistischen Rolle Israels gegenüber den Völkern des Mittleren Ostens zu verurteilen.

Israels Premierminister vertritt einen Staat, der ständig Verbrechen in Ausübung von Unterdrückung und Mord am palästinensischen Volk begeht und dessen Territorium seit Jahrzehnten besetzt hält. Israel spielt eine führende Rolle in den imperialistischen Planungen. Israel organisiert militärische Einsätze gegen die Völker der Region.

Die griechische Regierung der sozialdemokratischen Partei PASOK trägt höchste Verantwortung für die Fortsetzung der Politik der liberalen Partei ND und für nicht nur die politische Unterstützung Israels, sondern die Entwicklung ihrer militärischen Zusammenarbeit einschließlich gemeinsamer Manöver und Militärpakts.“

Quelle:

http://inter.kke.gr/News/2010news/2010-08-16-israel

Die Welt als Israels „Tanzbär am Nasenring“

Kommentar des Monats Juli 2010
Monatskolumne aus dem hinteren Kandertal
von Evelyn Hecht-Galinski

Quelle: arendt-art vom 6. Juli 2010

Verfolgt man die Chronologie der Ereignisse seit dem 31. Mai bis heute, kann man in erschreckender Weise feststellen, wie gut die Hasbara, die israelische Propaganda wieder Gehirnwäsche betrieben hat. Es waren 700 friedliche Aktivisten, die die Blockade des Gazastreifens durchbrechen wollten. Sie wollten darauf aufmerksam machen, dass diese unmenschliche und völkerrechtswidrige Blockade 1,5 Millionen unschuldige Menschen in kollektiver Kerkerhaft hält. Vergessen wir auch die unwahre Propaganda Israels über die Gefahr aus dem Gazastreifen durch die Hamas. Die bewusste Abschneidung des Gazastreifens vom Westjordanland ist eine gezielte Maßnahme zur Verhinderung eines Palästinenserstaates.
Schon im Jahr 1991, vor Beginn des Golfkrieges, wurde ein Trennzaun um den Gazastreifen gezogen, und die Bewohner konnten nicht mehr frei ein- und ausreisen. Vergessen wir nicht – das war vor dem so genannten Oslo-Friedensprozess und vor der Welle der ersten palästinensischen Anschläge. Als in einem Interimsabkommen 1993 die Einheit zwischen den besetzten Gebieten, also dem Westjordanland und dem Gazastreifen, festgelegt wurde, hat Israel auch das bewusst negiert. Nach Beginn der zweiten Intifada im Jahr 2000 wurden die Übergänge zwischen dem Westjordanland und Gaza geschlossen. Seit damals – also seit 10 Jahren – ist der Gazastreifen von der Außenwelt hermetisch abgeriegelt. Familien wurden auseinandergerissen und Studenten, die im Westjordanland studierten, wurden deportiert. Man sollte also nicht allein die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Lieferung der Waren konzentrieren, sondern auch auf die Verweigerung des Rechts und die Vereitelung des Wunsches der Gaza Bewohner hinweisen, ein aktiver, dauernder und natürlicher Teil der palästinensischen Gesellschaft zu sein. Diese Ausgrenzung des sozialen Miteinander, der zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen und des Rechts auf Bildung verfolgt die israelische Politik seit Gründung des Staates Israel mit der Unterdrückung, Vertreibung und Ermordung des palästinensischen Volkes. Das ist Teil der unmenschlichen Apartheidpolitik Israels.

Daher ist es ja sehr erfreulich, wenn der Deutschen Bundestag endlich eine Aufhebung der Gaza Blockade fordert. Aber auf diese Aufforderung müssen Druck und Taten folgen, die Israel in Zugzwang setzt. Dem kann ich nur skeptisch entgegensehen, da mir scheint, dass nach dieser Erklärung der Bundestag überparteilich seine Pflicht getan hat und nun wieder zur Tagesordnung übergeht.

Israel führt die Welt wie immer als „Nasenbär“ in seinem Zirkus vor. Da wird jetzt eine „schwarze Liste“ für Gaza vorgelegt, die vorsieht, dass das Kontingent der Waren, die verwehrt werden, erweitert wird. D.h. Stahlkabel, Eisen und Beton dürfen weiterhin nicht unkontrolliert in den Gazastreifen – genau wie Jagdmesser, Nachtsichtgeräte, bestimmte Computertechnik und Düngemittel (man merke!), die zur Herstellung von Sprengstoffen genutzt werden können. Aber Limonade, Süßigkeiten und Ketchup zum „Dickmachen“ sind erlaubt. Dank unserer aller Hilfe geht also die unmenschliche und verbrecherische israelische Willkür- und Strangulationspolitik weiter.

Immerhin dürfen wir nicht vergessen, dass die ganzen Hilfsgüter von uns allen, von internationalen Hilfsorganisationen und der UNO bezahlt werden. Ich vermisse also weiter den Aufschrei und den Protest gegen diese israelische Politik. Wir brauchen also anstatt unwirksamer Resolutionen wirksame Zeichen, d.h. die Verhinderung der Mitgliedschaft Israels in der OECD, Eureka. Und anstatt die Militärzusammenarbeit zu vertiefen, brauchen wir einen sofortigen Stopp aller Militärgeschäfte und Geschenke an und mit Israel.

Lieber Bundestag, liebe Parteien: Das wäre ein Zeichen! Auch unsere Medien sind unrühmlicher Teil in diesem Trauerspiel. War man nach der völkerrechtswidrigen Erstürmung der Gaza Flotte noch entsetzt und verurteilte die Tat Israels von 9 Ermordeten und über 48 Verletzten, änderte sich die Berichterstattung zusehends. Die 700 Aktivisten mutierten zu „so genannten“ Friedensaktivisten,“ nützlichen Idioten“ (Focus) und sind inzwischen, wie heute Morgen im DLF (O-Ton) schon zur „ Hamas Flotte“ umbenannt. Diese erschreckende Hirnwäsche hat die israelische Propaganda im Schatten der Fußball WM schon erreicht. Hoffen wir, dass wenigstens die Türkei standhaft bleibt und - solange Israel sich nicht für dieses Massaker entschuldigt und eine internationale Untersuchungskommission erlaubt – mit dem Abbruch der Kontakte zu Israel droht. Die Türkei sagte wenigstens schon eine geplante gemeinsame Seeübung ab. Der türkische Luftraum bleibt für israelische Militärflugzeuge gesperrt, und die Türkei hat ihren Botschafter aus Israel zurückgerufen.

Angesichts des heutigen Besuchs Netanjahus beim US-Präsidenten ist Obama vor allen Dingen an der Sicherheit der 25.000 US-Soldaten im Nahen Osten, Mittleren Osten und der Golfregion gelegen. Da stört es natürlich, wenn das Verhältnis zwischen der Türkei und Israel zerrüttet ist. Auch wenn die Obama Regierung so tut, als ob sie die Siedlungspolitik verurteilt, sind die Palästinenser in Wirklichkeit außen vor, egal ob im amerikanisch-israelischen Terminus gemäßigt oder terroristisch = Hamas. Machen wir uns nichts vor, was in den USA nur zählt, sind Israel, der Jüdische Staat und die einzige Demokratie im Nahen Osten und die Israel Lobby im Senat und Kongress.

Es hilft nur Widerstand und das Boykottieren dieser unheilvollen Politik Israels mit den USA gegen den Rest der Welt, d.h. besonders natürlich gegen die muslimische Welt. Daher erscheint mir auch der Slogan „um Hoffnung kämpfen“ ein falscher Ansatz. Kämpfen kann man nur für ein freies Palästina – darin liegt eine Hoffnung. Aber die Wirklichkeit ist alles andere als hoffnungsvoll. Laut Betselem kontrollieren die Siedler 42% des Palästinensergebietes. Die Zahl der Siedler liegt heute lt. Haaretz bei über 300.000. Man plant nach dem Auslaufen des Moratoriums 2700 neue Wohneinheiten. Die Judaisierung, Vertreibung und Deportation aus Ost-Jerusalem schreitet täglich voran. Die Menschenrechtsgruppen und NGO’s in Israel werden massiv angegriffen – d.h. sie sollen sogar z.T. verboten bzw. ihnen jeder legale Status genommen werden.

Wo bleibt da der Protest des Deutschen Bundestages? Solange das nicht geschieht und solange Israel hier weiterhin jeden Freibrief für seine mörderische Unterdrückungspolitik hat, habe ich keine Hoffnung auf Besserung. Zumal wie immer die gleichen Protagonisten,´- wie z.B. der Pornoverfasser im Spiegel - gegen den Bundestag opponieren. Aus diesem Grund ist auch die Kritik des Zentralrates nur mit mildem Lächeln zu betrachten. Mit diesem Generalsekretär Stephan Kramer, der trotz seiner Rundumschläge gegen die Medien („antisemitisch“!) immer wieder Platz für seine Tiraden bekommt. Wie sagt Kramer in der TAZ: weil für ihn das Judentum nach „einer Phase der Identitätssuche ein Stück weit Heimat und Familie geboten hat.“ Bedauerlich, dass er nicht katholisch wurde und im Vatikan gelandet ist – so einen „Wadenbeißer“ hätte der Papst gebraucht. Aber Spaß beiseite – sagt Kramer nicht sehr richtig auch in diesem Interview, dass der Holocaust von einzelnen Mitgliedern der israelischen Regierung und Teilen der israelischen Gesellschaft für politische Zwecke benutzt wird und bemängelt auch: „Das geht nicht“, dass Ahmadinedschad nicht vor dem Tor von Auschwitz gezeigt werden dürfte, um die atomare Bedrohung des armen kleinen Israels durch den Iran zu demonstrieren. Sehr schön, Herr Kramer, aber liest man Ihre letzten Propagandareden anlässlich von Demonstrationen gegen die Gaza-Flotte in Berlin, wird man eines Besseren belehrt. Sie und der Zentralrat machen bewusst Politik mit der falschen Angst mit Vergleichen Holocaust – Iran, Holocaust, Antisemitismus und Antizionismus, d.h. wieder mit der unsäglichen Vermischung und dem Totschlagen jeder Israel-Kritik. So sieht die traurige Wirklichkeit im Jahre 2010 aus. Da wird bewusst ein nicht erfolgter Besuch des Konzentrationslagers Buchenwald durch eine iranische Delegation als antisemitisch aufgeputscht. Ich frage Sie: Würde eine deutsche Besucherdelegation aus Weimar der 300.000 Getöteten aus den Kriegen im Iran gedenken? Und warum muss jeder Politiker bei jedem Israel Besuch nach Yad Vaschem? Das nenne ich eine gefährliche Instrumentalisierung des Holocaust durch Israel und den Zentralrat. Ebenso wird der bedauerliche Vorfall in Hannover gegen eine jüdische Tanzgruppe unsäglich benutzt, d.h. Kinder, die Kieselsteine geworfen und dumme Parolen gerufen haben, werden als Antisemiten kriminalisiert. Ist nicht der wirkliche Hintergrund dieser Vorfälle die israelische Unrechtspolitik gegenüber den Palästinensern, die hier die Gemüter der Muslime erhitzt – zumal sich die Jüdische Gemeinde in Deutschland als Teil dieser israelischen Politik begreift: Wenn sie z.B. die Hatikva, also die israelische Nationalhymne singen und Davidsternflaggen schwenken? Das ist eine Provokation, die genau dieses Klima erzeugt, das dann von israelischen und Zentralratskreisen benutzt wird, um Angst vor angeblichen, neuem Antisemitismus zu erzeugen, der schon in der “ Mitte der Gesellschaft“ angekommen ist.

In der Tat ist es immer wichtiger, darauf hinzuweisen: Die heutigen Feindseligkeiten zwischen Muslimen und Juden, zwischen Israelkritikern und so genannten Zionisten und Israelunterstützern dürfen nicht in die antisemitische Ecke gedrängt werden. Dagegen müssen wir uns alle gemeinsam als deutsche Demokraten wehren. Den wirklichen Antisemiten, die es natürlich immer gibt und geben wird, macht man es durch diese falsche Vermischung immer leichter. Die echten Antisemiten werden durch die inflationären Antisemitismusanschuldigungen immer sicherer in ihrem braunen Dreck.

Lassen wir es nicht mehr zu, dass Israel den Gazastreifen und das besetzte Palästina aus unserem Bewusstsein verdrängt. Die Gaza Flotte war nur ein Anfang. Sanktionen und Boykott sollten die Fortsetzung sein. Solange die autistische israelische Gesellschaft Regierungen wählt, die alle – egal, ob Likud, Kadima, Arbeiterpartei oder rechtsradikale Splitterparteien – eine faschistische Unrechts- und Unterdrückungspolitik betreiben. Wie lange wollen wir uns durch Duldung und Hinnehmen dieser Politik noch schuldig machen?

Schluss mit dem Zirkus und mit der Vorstellung des „Bären am Nasenring“, an der Leine und an der Kette von Israel. Genug ist genug!

Wenn Tausende Israelis mit einem Marsch für einen Soldaten nach Jerusalem unterwegs sind, wie viele Millionen Palästinenser müssten dann für ihre Zivilisten - die über 11.000 in Gefängnissen inhaftierten Männer, Frauen und Kinder -marschieren?

Israel and the U.S.: who is whose tool?

28 June 2010. A World to Win News Service. The American international policy professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who are critical of U.S. support for Israeli settlement expansion and its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, argue that ″the unmatched power of the Israel lobby″ distorts U.S. foreign policy. Many people outraged by these crimes have been influenced by their still widely-circulated article ″The Israel Lobby″ that first appeared in The London Review of Books in 2006 (available at lrb.co.uk) and was later expanded into a book published in 21 countries.

Their work contains much useful information about the links between the U.S. and Israel. Yet their basic theory turns reality upside down. The truth is that Israel exists largely thanks to the U.S., because it plays an essential role in American domination in the Middle East and its current quest to ″stabilize″ an unjust and unacceptable situation for the people. In arguing that "American interests" would be better served by less uncritical support for Israel, Mearsheim and Walt do not really confront the nature of the U.S. – a monopoly capitalist country whose wealth and power are inextricably linked to a global empire of exploitation and oppression. Nor do they thoroughly deal with the nature of Israel as a colonial settler state whose existence itself is no more defensible than the apartheid regime in South Africa.



This greatly weakens their critique of the U.S.-Israel nexus and reduces it to wishful thinking. That's especially dangerous at a time when the U.S. is trying to have it both ways, to do everything possible to support Israel's continued existence and aggression and at the same time try to appear as a friend to the Palestinians.



Despite their academic prominence, these two scholars have been the object of a Zionist hate campaign and an intellectual boycott, especially in the U.S. It is shameful that so many writers and public figures who explode in the face of any criticism of Israel have tried to silence Mearsheimer and Walt by pinning the label of anti-Semitism on them. But while these two consider themselves critical friends of Israel, it is true, as their attackers realize and they do not, that once you start to analyse Israel from the point of justice for all, the whole Zionist enterprise can be called into question.

In fact, their argument is essentially similar to the all-too-common idea among the masses of people in the world and the U.S. itself, that U.S. crimes in the greater Middle East and beyond can be explained by ″Jewish pressure groups" rather than a system that basically can't work any other way.

The following reply to Mearsheim and Walt was written in April by Stephen Maher, who describes himself as a graduate student at the American University School of International Service who has lived in the West Bank. We are reprinting it from his blog rationalmanifesto. blogspot. com and electronicintifada. org While we do not share some important elements of his analysis, we welcome both his basic conclusion and his method of taking all the facts into account and testing ideas against reality.



Many of Israel's critics blame an "Israel lobby" for the near-total complicity of the U.S. in Israeli annexation, colonization and cleansing programs in the occupied West Bank. This complicity continues to the present, despite the "row" that erupted after the Israeli government humiliated U.S. Vice President Joe Biden by announcing the construction of 1,600 settlement units in occupied East Jerusalem while he was visiting the country. Indeed, despite the apparent outrage expressed by top White House officials, the administration has made clear that its criticism of Israel will remain purely symbolic. However, as we shall see, the lobby thesis does little to explain U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Years after Noam Chomsky, Stephen Zunes, Walter Russell Mead and many others published their critiques of the Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer "Israel lobby" thesis, many of the sharpest critics of Israel continue to attribute U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East to the influence of the lobby. Given the prevalence of the Israel lobby argument, and the latest diplomatic confrontation between the U.S. and Israel, it is important to revisit the flaws in the thesis, and properly attribute U.S. behaviour to the large concentrations of domestic political and economic power that truly drive U.S. policy.



U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is similar to that which is carried out elsewhere in the world, in regions free of "the lobby's" proclaimed corrupting effects. The inflated level of support that the U.S. lends Israel is a rational response to the particular strategic importance of the Middle East, the chief energy-producing region of the world. By building Israel into what Noam Chomsky refers to as an "offshore U.S. military base", it is able to protect its dominance over much of the world's remaining energy resources, a major lever of global power. As we shall see, those blaming the lobby for U.S. policy once again misunderstand the U.S.'s strategic interests in the Middle East, and Israel's central role in advancing them.



Geopolitics and the U.S.-Israeli relationship



A central claim of the "Israel lobby" thesis is that the "lobby", however defined, overwhelmingly shapes U.S. policy towards the Middle East. Thus, if the argument were true, its proponents would have to demonstrate that there is something qualitatively unique about U.S. policy towards the Middle East compared with that in other regions of the world. Yet upon careful analysis, we find little difference between the purported distortions caused by the lobby and what is frequently referred to as the "national interest", governed by the same concentrations of domestic power that drive U.S. foreign policy elsewhere.



There are states all around the world that perform similar services to Washington as Israel, projecting U.S. power in their respective regions, whose crimes in advancing Washington's goals are overtly supported and shielded from international condemnation. Take for instance the 30 years of U.S. support for the horrors of the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor. In addition to the use of rape and starvation as weapons, and a gruesome torture regime, Indonesian president Suharto slaughtered 150,000 persons out of a population of 650,000. These atrocities were fully supported by the U.S., including supplying the napalm and chemical weapons indiscriminately used by the Indonesian army, which was fully armed and trained by the U.S. As Bill Clinton said, Suharto was "our kind of guy."



Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN at the time of the Indonesian invasion, later wrote that "the Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook" to end the butchering of the East Timorese, a goal he carried out with "no inconsiderable success." Yet this support was not due to the influence of an "Indonesia lobby." Rather, planners had identified Indonesia as one of the three most strategically important regions in the world in 1958, as a result of its oil wealth and important role as a link between the Indian and Pacific oceans.



In some regions, as in Latin America where U.S. clients like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and terrorist armies like the Nicaraguan Contras spent years murdering defenceless peasants demanding basic human rights, the threat is mostly one of "successful defiance;" that is, a country defying U.S. orders and getting away with it. Should the U.S. tolerate one such case, the logic goes, it will embolden resistance to its dictates elsewhere. The danger underlying such defiance – referred to as "the threat of a good example" by Oxfam – is that a country will implement a successful model for independent development, refusing U.S. dictates and seeking to direct much-needed resources to serve the needs of the domestic population instead of wealthy foreign investors.



Such thinking is deeply institutionalized and exhibited by U.S. policy worldwide, going back to the very beginnings of the modern imperial era after World War II. It was clear from early in the war that the U.S. would emerge as the dominant world power in its aftermath, and so the State Department and Council on Foreign Relations began planning to create a post-war international order in which the U.S. would "hold unquestioned power". One way it planned to do so was gaining control of global energy resources, primarily those of Saudi Arabia, which were referred to at the time as "the greatest material prize in history" by the U.S. State Department.



As Franklin Roosevelt's "oil czar" Harold Ickes advised, control of oil was the "key to postwar political arrangements" since a large supply of cheap energy is essential to fuel the world's industrial capitalist economies. This meant that with control of Middle Eastern oil, particularly the vast Saudi reserves, the U.S. could keep its hand on the spigot that would fuel the economies of Europe, Japan and much of the rest of the world. As U.S. planner George Kennan put it, this would give the United States "veto power" over the actions of others. Zbigniew Brzezinski has also more recently discussed the "critical leverage" the U.S. enjoys as a result of its stranglehold on energy supplies.



Thus in the Middle East it is not simply "successful defiance" that the U.S. fears, nor merely independent development. These worries are present as well, but there is an added dimension: should opposition threaten U.S. control of oil resources, a major source of U.S. global power is placed at risk. Under the Nixon Administration, with the U.S. military tied down in Vietnam and direct intervention in the Middle East to defend vital strategic interests unlikely, military aid to pre-revolution Iran (acting as an American regional enforcer) skyrocketed. Amnesty International' s conclusion in 1976 that "no country has a worse human rights record than Iran" was ignored, and U.S. support increased, not because of an "Iran lobby" in the U.S., but rather because such support was advancing U.S. interests.



Strategic concerns also led the U.S. to support other oppressive, reactionary regimes, including Saddam Hussein's worst atrocities. During the Anfal genocide against the Kurds, Iraqi forces used chemical weapons provided by the U.S. against Kurdish civilians, killed perhaps 100,000 persons, and destroyed roughly 80 percent of the villages in Iraqi Kurdistan, while the U.S. moved to block international condemnation of these atrocities. Again, supporting crimes that serve the "national interest" set by large corporations and ruling elites, and shielding them from international criticism is the rule, not the exception.



It is no coincidence that the U.S.-Israel relationship crystallized after Israel destroyed the independent nationalist regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser in a pre-emptive attack in 1967, permanently ending the role of Egypt as a centre of opposition to U.S. imperialism. Since before World War II, Saudi Arabia had happily served as an "Arab facade," veiling the hand of the true ruling power on the Arabian peninsula, to borrow British colonial terminology. With Nasser's Arab nationalist rhetoric "turning the whole region against the House of Saud", the threat he posed to U.S. power was serious. In response, the State Department concluded that the "logical corollary" to U.S. opposition to Arab nationalism was "support for Israel" as the only reliable pro-U.S. force in the region. Israel's destruction and humiliation of Nasser's regime was thus a major boon for the U.S., and proved to Washington the value of a strong alliance with a powerful Israel.



This unique regional importance is one reason for the tremendous level of aid Israel receives, including more advanced weaponry than that provided to other U.S. clients. Providing Israel with the ability to use overwhelming force against any adversary to the established order has been a pivotal aspect of U.S. regional strategy. Importantly, Israel is also a reliable ally – there is little chance that the Israeli government will be overthrown, and the weapons end up in the hands of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists or independent nationalists as happened in Iran in 1979.



Today, with the increased independence of Europe, and the hungry economies of India and China growing at breakneck speed along with their demand for dwindling energy resources, control over what is left is more crucial than ever. In the September 2009 issue of the Asia-Africa Review, China's former Special Envoy to the Middle East Sun Bigan wrote that "the U.S. has always sought to control the faucet of global oil supplies", and suggested that since Washington would doubtless work to ensure that Iraqi oil remained under its control, China should look elsewhere in the region for an independent energy source. "Iran has bountiful energy resources," Bigan wrote, "and its oil gas reserves are the second biggest in the world, and all are basically under its own control" (emphasis added).



It is partially as a result of this independence that Israel's strategic importance to the U.S. has increased significantly in recent times, particularly since the Shah's cruel, U.S.-supported dictatorship in Iran was overthrown in 1979. With the Shah gone, Israel alone had to terrorize the region into complying with U.S. orders, and ensure that Saudi Arabia's vast oil resources remain under U.S. control. The increased importance of Israel to U.S. policy was illustrated clearly as its regional strategy shifted to "dual containment" during the Clinton years, with Israel countering both Iraq and Iran.



With Iran developing technology that could eventually allow it to produce what are referred to in the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review as "anti-access weapons" or weapons of mass destruction that prevent the U.S. from being able to freely use force in any region of the world, this is a crucial moment in Washington's struggle to seize control of Iran. This confrontation, stemming from the desire of the U.S. to control its oil and destroy a base of independent nationalism, makes U.S. support for Israel strategically crucial.



The "Israel lobby" and U.S. pressure



If we adopt "the lobby" hypothesis, we would predict that the U.S. would bend to Israel's will when the interests of the two states diverge, acting against its "national interest". Yet if U.S. policies in the Middle East were damaging its "national interest", as proponents of the lobby argument claim, that must mean that such policies have been a failure. This leads one to ask: a failure for whom? Not for U.S. elites, who have secured control of the major global energy resources while successfully crushing opposition movements, nor for the defence establishment, and most certainly not for the energy corporations. In fact, not only is U.S. policy towards the Middle East similar to that towards other regions of the world, but it has been a profitable, strategic success.



Indeed, the U.S.'s policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is not to achieve an end to the occupation, nor to bring about respect for Palestinian rights – in fact, it is the actor primarily responsible for preventing these outcomes. To the U.S., Israel's "Operation Defensive Shield" in 2002 had sufficiently punished the Palestinians and their compliant U.S.-backed leadership for their intransigence at Camp David. While the Palestinian Authority was already acting as Israel's "subcontractor" and "collaborator" in suppressing resistance to Israeli occupation, in the paraphrased words of former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's deliberate destruction of Palestinian institutions provided the opportunity to rebuild them, and ensure an even greater degree of U.S. control.



The settlement and annexation programs help guarantee Israeli control over the most valuable Palestinian land and water resources, ensuring Israel will remain a dominant society not easily pressured by its neighbours. To help achieve these goals, the U.S. shields Israeli expansion behind a "peace process" in hopes that given enough time the Palestinians will concede more and more of what was once theirs. The primary concern is to present the appearance that the U.S. and Israel are ardently crusading for peace, battling against those who oppose this noble objective. Though it is true that people across the region are appalled and outraged by Israeli crimes, such anger is a small consideration next to the strategic gain of maintaining a strong, dependent ally in the heart of the Middle East.



The reconstitution of an even more tightly-controlled Palestinian Authority, with General Keith Dayton directly supervising the Palestinian security forces, enabled the U.S. to meet these goals while more effectively suppressing resistance to the occupation. Likewise, redeploying Israeli soldiers outside of Gaza allowed Sharon a free hand to continue the annexation of the West Bank while being heralded internationally as a "great man of peace".



The treatment of Israel by the mainstream U.S. media is also standard for all U.S. allies. Coverage in the corporate press is predictably skewed in favour of official U.S. allies and against official enemies, a well-documented phenomenon. Thus, proponents of the lobby thesis are missing the forest for the trees. What they see as the special treatment of Israel by the mainstream press is actually just the normal functioning of the U.S. media and intellectual establishment, apologizing for and defending crimes of official allies while demonizing official enemies.



Of course, this is not to argue that there are not organizations in the U.S., like the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC [the lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee] that seek to marginalize dissent from Israeli policy in every forum possible. Rather, I am pointing out that the power of these groups pales in comparison to other, far more powerful, interests and concerns. While the AJC or ADL may mobilize for the firing of a professor critical of Israel, for example, that argument is amplified by the elite-owned and controlled press because doing so serves their interests. Likewise, AIPAC can urge unwavering support for Israel on the part of the U.S. government, but without the assent of other far more powerful interests, like the energy corporations and defence establishment, AIPAC's efforts would amount to little. U.S. policy, like that of other states, is rationally planned to serve the interests of the ruling class.



Israel could not sustain its aggressive, expansionist policies without U.S. military aid and diplomatic support. If the Obama Administration wanted to, it could pressure Israel to comply with international law and resolutions, join the international consensus, and enact a two-state solution. While the "Israel lobby" thesis conveniently explains his failure to do so and absolves U.S. policy-makers of responsibility for their ongoing support of Israeli apartheid, violence and annexation, it simply does not stand up under closer scrutiny.

Free Ahmad Sa´adat!

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat received and is distributing the important alert below from the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign. The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat fully supports this call to free Mohammad Othman and all of the nearly 11,000 Palestinian prisoners held within the occupation jails. We encourage our supporters to take action in response to this call, and to support justice and freedom for Mohammad Othman and all Palestinian political prisoners!

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/
info@freeahmadsaadat.org

--- Stopthewall.org - Action Alert : September 25, 2009
FREE MOHAMMAD NOW !---------------------------------------------------------A prisoner of conscience, arrested solely for his human rights work

Blog: http://freemohammadothman.wordpress.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36429272741&ref=ts Online Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/stopwall/petition.html
On September 22, Mohammad Othman was arrested by soldiers on the Allenby Bridge Crossing, the border from Jordan to Palestine. He is now being held in Huwara prison as a prisoner of conscience, arrested solely for his human rights work.Mohammad, 33 years old, has dedicated the last ten years of his life to the defense of Palestinian human rights. He has campaigned with the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign against the dispossession of Palestinian farmers and against the involvement of Israeli and international business in the violations of Palestinian human rights.His village, Jayyous, has been devastated by the Apartheid Wall and Zufim – a settlement, built by Lev Leviev’s companies. These companies are facing a successful boycott campaign because of their violations of Palestinian rights.Mohammad was returning from one of his trip to Norway, during which he met with senior officials, including Norwegian Finance Minister Kristen Halvorsen. Norway’s national Pension Fund recently announced that it had divested from Elbit, the Israeli company which provides both Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other military technology for Occupation forces, as well as security systems for the Wall and settlements.This is not the first time Palestinian human rights defenders have been arrested after trips abroad. Recently, Muhammad Srour, an eye witness at the UN Fact Finding Mission on Gaza, was arrested on his way back from Geneva. This arrest was a clear act of reprisal against Srour for speaking out about Israel’s violations of international law. Arresting Palestinians as they return from travel is yet another Israeli tactic to try to silence Palestinian human rights defenders. It complements the overall policy of isolation of the Palestinian people behind checkpoints, walls and razor wire.We call on international solidarity and human rights organizations to act immediately to bring attention to this case and advocate for the release of Mohammad Othman by:Recommended Actions:
Encourage others to join this campaign through petitions, demonstrations and / or letter writing / phone calling. Please provide them with contact information and details;
Urge your representatives at consular offices in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem/Ramallah to demand the immediate release of Mohammad Othman. (For your consular contacts, see: http://www.embassiesabroad.com/embassies-in/Israel#11725 );
Let the Israeli Embassy in your country know that you are campaigning for Mohammad’s release and for a just and lasting peace based on international law.
Sign the online petition for Mohammad on: http://www.petitiononline.com/stopwall/petition.html
Bring the case of Mohammad to the attention of local and national media outlets;
Follow the blog and facebook to free Mohammad Othman to see the latest updates and action alerts.
Blog: http://freemohammadothman.wordpress.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36429272741&ref=ts
Mohammad Othman represents only one of the 11,000 Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons. More than 800 are being held in “administrative detention”, meaning that they are imprisoned (indefinitely) without charge. International solidarity and governments have to hold Israel accountable and achieve an end to the large scale repression and mass imprisonment of Palestinians as part of their efforts to bring about an end to the occupation and the restoration of Palestinian rights.
********************************************************************************************************************
TAKE ACTION!---------------------------Sign the Petition ---------------------------To sign the petition for the immediate and unconditional release of Mohammad, click here: http://www.petitiononline.com/stopwall/petition.html ---------------------------Write to your embassy or consulate---------------------------If you want to write to your diplomatic office, you can use the following sample letter:Dear x,I am writing to you to express my deepest concern about the detainment of Mohammad Othman on, September 22, at the border between Jordan and the West Bank. He was returning home after a visit in Norway.I fear that the detainment of Mohammad Othman is a result of his peaceful criticism of violations of international law by Israeli authorities. The charges against him have not been made clear, but there is reason to believe that he is a prisoner of conscience, arrested solely for his human rights work through legal organizations. I ask you to take all appropriate measures, including official inquiries and protests, to ensure Mohammad’s immediate and unconditional release. Furthermore, whilst being held, he should be protected from any form of torture or ill-treatment, and the conditions of his detention should fulfill the requirements of international law. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. Sincerely, ---------------------------Write to the Israeli embassy or consulate ---------------------------Let the Israeli Embassy in your country know that you are campaigning for Mohammad’s release and for a just and lasting peace based on international law. (Click here to find contact information for the Israeli Embassy in your country)---------------------------Get creative !---------------------------Norway protests against the release of Mohammad OthmanApproximately 250 people participated in a demonstration in Oslo today calling for the immediate and unconditional release of prisoner of conscience Mohammad Othman. The demonstration was held in front of the Israeli embassy, but demonstrators were prevented from reaching the embassy by police. Speeches were given by MP Ågot Valle (Socialist Left Party) and MP Truls Wickholm (Labour).Demonstrators and speakers accused Israel of repressing freedom of speech and human rights, and called for the continuation of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. On Monday activists from the Socialist Youth of Oslo will launch a week of direct action in response to the detention of Mohammad. The first day will include targeting local vegetable and import stores to convince them to remove Israeli goods from their shops. See pictures at the facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36429272741&ref=ts
Contact freemohammad@stopthewall.org with your actions and for further information! www.StopTheWall.org - Visit the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign web site