Lies, condemnations, and shame

Today, Israel's invasion of Gaza was condemned by Qatar, Turkey, and Mauritania.
Qatar and Turkey host large American military bases, while Mauritania is one of very few Arab League nations that have chosen to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco are all under heavy domestic pressure to back away from Israel.

story from The Daily Star:

Erdogan blames Israel, Hamad charges 'war crime' and Mauritania pulls envoy
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Regional leaders have stepped up their criticism of Israel's blistering assault on the Gaza Strip, as Mauritania withdrew its ambassador to the Zionist state in protest and Turkey's premier accused Israel of provoking the outbreak of fighting. For its part, Qatar continued to push for an emergency Arab summit over the Gaza attacks, which the nation's emir described as a "war crime."

"The Israeli aggression against our people in the Gaza Strip is a war crime," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani said late Sunday in a televised address. He also renewed an earlier call on fellow Arab leaders to hold an extraordinary summit in support of Gaza.

"The mobilization on the Arab street and several peace movements in the world have proven that this is the least the people expect from us. I believed and still do that we can do something," the emir said.

Sheikh Hamad said that "calls for a mutual cease-fire treat the culprit and the victim as equal and justify the aggression."

Mauritania, one of only three Arab League countries that has full diplomatic ties with Israel, has withdrawn its ambassador in protest over the Gaza offensive, a Foreign Ministry source said on Monday.

Since Israel's offensive in Gaza started 10 days ago, Mauritania has seen daily protests, mostly from students who demanded that Nouakchott break all ties with the country.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday blamed Israel for the ongoing conflict in the battered Gaza Strip, saying it "provoked" the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the enclave.

The premier noted that Israel had continued a stifling blockade on Gaza despite pledging to lift it under the terms of an Egyptian-mediated truce, which Hamas had complied with by reining in fighters launching rockets into Israel.

Erdogan told Al-Jazeera: "A return to the situation before the truce happened because Israel continued the blockade, so I consider Israel the one which provoked and incited, not Hamas." - AFP, with The Daily Star

And for what? Apparently to remove Hamas from power. From The Guardian:

Livni's determination reflects a growing confidence in the upper echelons of the Israeli establishment that the assault will fatally damage the foundations of Hamas's control and, in time, drive it from power. Intelligence and military officials have told the cabinet that "not much" remains of the Hamas administration in Gaza and that its ability to take control again has been undermined by the destruction of a large part of the physical infrastructure of administration, including the parliament building and many government offices.
The intelligence services also told the cabinet that they believe the Israeli bombardment is turning Palestinian popular opinion against Hamas and that terms can be forced on the Islamist party that will further weaken its control.
Israeli officials have generally been reluctant to say that the attack on Gaza is intended to force Hamas from power out of concern that it would undermine the international support they have won by portraying the assault as a purely defensive measure to stop Hamas rockets.

So, much like the strategy the U.S.-sponsored "contras" employed in Nicaragua, the idea is to make life so abysmally miserable and the task governing so impossible that a "good" government takes over. We also see the Israeli government is employing sham justifications for public consumption, while promoting a hidden agenda that their allies would be ashamed to support.

Israel may attack Iran on its own

Showing the rank hypocrisy that presents itself as Israeli foreign policy, the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons and that refuses to either sign the NPT or submit to IAEA inspections is considering unilateral airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ironically, Iran has submitted to limited inspections (unlike Israel).

Israel presents itself as the Eternal Victim state, the poor beseiged nation that only wants peace. To it's neighbours, however, it a brutal bully that acts as a proxy for a foreign power. Israel has the strongest military in the region, armed with the most modern weapons and financed by the U.S. The "peace" Israel wants is the peace of the hegemon, the peace that comes from getting your way by coercion. It is a peace that allows Israel's proxies in Lebanon impunity, and allows Israel itself to act with unbridled arrogance against enemies of its own creation. The poor, peaceful Victim has no problem cutting off water and electricity to the Occupied Territories, making thousands suffer for the actions of a few over which the many have no control over. The Victim goes into the Occupied Territories and steals land from poor victims at the point of a gun, the brings in their military to protect the thieves who "settle" the land - as if it wasn't previously "settled". The Victim demands that everyone else disarm, kiss their ring, and bend over - and then we can "live in peace". There is a word for someone who demands that you hand over everything at the point of a gun, and that word is not "peacemaker".

The question now is whether or not Bush will use Israel to do what Bush himself can no longer justify to this domestic audience: bomb Iran into submission. There will be a 'mistake', some regrettable miscommunication that "nobody" could have anticipated, and it will be handled clumsily and unconvincingly. This "mistake" will be the pretext for the "unavoidable" attack by Israel on Iran, and Bush will defend Israel against all consequences. He may very well follow his trademarked routine of taking "responsibilty" for the incident, but without taking the blame.

story from The Guardian

Israel considering strike on Iran despite US intelligence report

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Friday December 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Senior Israeli officials warned today they were still considering the option of a military strike against Iran, despite a fresh US intelligence report that concluded Tehran was no longer developing nuclear weapons.
Although Israel argues that it wants to see strong diplomatic pressure put on Iran, it is reluctant to rule out the threat of a unilateral military attack. Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, told Army Radio today: "No option needs to be off the table."

Avigdor Lieberman, the hard-right deputy prime minister, said Israel should be ready to act if sanctions did not work. "If they don't, we will sit and decide whatever we have to decide," he told the Jerusalem Post in an interview today.
Several of Israel's Iran experts say the American rethink on the threat posed by Iran had ruled out a US military strike and probably an Israeli strike too, at least for now. However, Israel's political hawks continue to keep the threat of action alive.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the popular rightwing opposition leader, was asked whether Israel should launch its own military operation. "We always prefer international action, led by the United States, but we have to ensure that we can protect our country with all means," he told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz today.
The repercussions of the new US intelligence assessment are consuming Israeli politicians, analysts and the press. Although Israeli leaders had been briefed in advance, the national intelligence estimate (NIE) which was declassified and published on Monday, brought surprise and frustration in Israel's defence establishment.
In a marked shift from earlier assessments, the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in autumn 2003 and had not restarted it. America's intelligence agencies said they now did not know whether Iran intended to build nuclear weapons.
Israeli officials quickly offered a direct challenge. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, said although Iran's nuclear programme was halted in 2003 "as far as we know it has probably since revived it".
It is, however, far from clear whether Israel has its own unique intelligence on Iran strong enough to contradict the American findings. Ha'aretz noted in an analysis today: "It wasn't in the intelligence arena that Israel suffered a blow this week, but rather in the public opinion arena."
Some have suggested that with Israel feeling isolated by its hardline stance on Iran, it might be more inclined to launch a unilateral military strike and a comparison is frequently drawn to Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, said this week if Israel felt its "red line" had been crossed it might strike. "They may force a military confrontation," he told the Associated Press agency.
However, it is widely assumed Israel would need at least American approval if not cooperation for any bombing mission. In particular, Israel's air force would need the US flight codes that would allow its planes to cross safely into Iran. When Israel requested those codes in 1991, to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the first Gulf War, the United States refused and there was no Israeli strike.
Yet Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is not shy of acting alone and has been heartened by the lack of international censure over its bombing raid in northern Syria in September, which may or may not have targeted a Syrian nuclear installation.
Israel's Iran experts argue that the US intelligence assessment did not wholly exonerate Tehran - they point to evidence of a continued enriched uranium programme which has only limited civilian use - but they admit that for now an Israeli military operation is unlikely.

Olmert makes lame apology to Turkey

Olmert made an apology to Turkey over the incursion of Israeli bombers into Turkish airspace last month. Well, not quite. Actually, it was a rather qualified apology. IF we entered your airspace, we didn't do it to hurt your feelings. We don't apologise for actually doing it, only for upsetting you when we did it. If we actually did it in the first place, of course. And we just might do it again, just so you know and don't go getting yourself all worked up. We respect your sovereignty, but we'll violate it whenever we want. No hard feelings, okay?

What kind of apology is it when you don't even admit to doing what you are apologising for? A lame one.

full story

Olmert to Turks: Sorry if We Hurt You

(IsraelNN.com) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the cabinet Sunday that he had apologized to his Turkish counterpart, Tayyip Erdogan, and before the Turkish people, for any distress that may have been caused by the entry of Israeli warplanes into Turkish airspace on September 6.

According to reports in the press, the planes were on their way to attack a suspected nuclear site in Syria.

"If planes did indeed enter Turkish airspace there was no intention to hurt or somehow challenge Turkish sovereignty, which we respect," he said.

---------------------------------------------

IAEA Chief: Israel 'Took Law into its Own Hands'

(IsraelNN.com) The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad el-Baradei, was quoted Sunday as saying that Israel "had taken the law into its own hands" when it carried out the alleged attack on a Syrian nuclear facility last month.

El-Baradei said it was "disgusting" that Israel has given the IAEA "zilch information" about the alleged nature of the facility attacked.