NOVANEWS

by Ed Mattson

The decline of America and its global stature probably began with the implementation of our modified capitalistic society, though I choose to discuss the decline from the end of the Second World War when it is far easier for us to view and for us to remember.

I say it started back at the beginning because capitalism is an economic system that emphasizes private ownership of the means of production or a privately controlled economy, rather than goods, services, and central planning provided by government. When we realized freedom was ordained by the natural order of a spiritual being we call God, and that all persons were given the power of self-reliance and responsibility, capitalism is the only system that fits the mold of what freedom is all about. In a true capitalist society, you have a free market and companies live by the profit motive. They exist to make money, and not as some people believe, to provide jobs or for the greater good of the community. Prices, production, and the distribution of goods are determined by competition in a free market, and by such a system, there are guaranteed to be failures.

President Truman signing the Marshall Plan into law

In a capitalistic system the people grant power to a governing body to provide specific services to enable a free flow of commerce and to protect the citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic. The government in essence plays a very small but important role in the system. Other forms of government such as socialism, communism, Marxism, theocracy, monarchy, totalitarian, and variations thereof, are contradictory to a capitalistic system and the theory of freedom being a God given right. They are based on the assumption that certain and specific rights need to be granted by government.

In any of the authoritarian governments, power lies with a very small minority or single individual who calls the shots. Decisions are made for the individual populations under such rule. Any freedoms one has are granted by the government and can therefore be rescinded by government. In nearly all economic systems that are not totally capitalistic, such as so-called democracies or democratic socialistic countries, the government generally controls much of the individual freedom, liberties, entrepreneurial spirit, and creativity genius. They are often stifled because the incentive to make a profit is hampered…so to is the freedom to choose when, where, and how to work.

In a theocratic system, the government is controlled by and dictated to by religious philosophy and thought. Those in power claim their power by a higher being, much as monarchies have done since the beginning of government. Often these governments proclaim that all activity is dictated by the doctrine of a specific religion, and in many cases can be as restricting as any authoritarian form of government. Often punishment for wrong-doing in such societies can be more brutal and savage than most would imagine…cut off your hands if you steal, cut out your tongue if you lie, and being stoned to death for adultery. Capital punishment is more often the rule rather than the exception to the rule.

Many find fault with capitalism, yet it is capitalism and the notion that a person is free to pursue goals, work for someone or go in business for themselves, make a profit, and purchase what they want with their profits, choose what kind of life they want they want, and if they don’t want any of that, choose to leave such a system of government to one that is more amenable to their way of thinking. The decisions are left to the individual and not the government. From such a system, capitalism has created more wealth, prosperity, happiness, and freedom, than all the other forms of government combined. With profit as a motive coupled with the freedom to make one’s own decisions, the genius of thought and ideas flow freely to invent or develop new products and services.

I realize this is a simple explanation of varying complex forms of government, but those of us down on Main Street say, “it’s a simple explanation, verified by a history that has seen implementation of nearly every concept of governance man can envision. It doesn’t take a Masters or Doctorate Degree, to write a ten-page thesis or a book on the subject; we have witnessed it with our own eyes”.

Following World War II, we entered into an era of mistrust among nations. Two totally destructive wars in two decades seemed unfathomable to many. Did we learn from the mistakes that caused World War I? I think it is obvious we learned little as the many provisions in the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, were not only punishing to the countries of Germany, Austria and Hungary but were controversial in that it required them to accept responsibility for causing the war. Country borders, differing societies, ethnic differences, territorial disputes, and the Seven Deadly Sins (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony), which often are the cause of war between countries, were exacerbated by the terms of the treaties.

Coupled with the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (which dealt with Austria) and theTreaty of Trianon(dealing with the break-up of the Hungarian Empire), Germany was forced to basically disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay heavy reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente Powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks which is equivalent to $442 billion in US dollars. It was deemed by many to be excessive, and a became the road map leading to World War II (The final payments for reparations ended up being made on 3 October 2010, some 92 years after the end of the war).

Harsh treatment by the victors over the losers was recognized by the Allies as the leading cause of World War II, and were not about to be repeated. Instead, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan which in essence, provided the funding to rebuild much of Europe, much to the chagrin and jealousy of Russia and its newly ordained Soviet Union, which viewed the program to be one in which the US would exert its political influence. The Russians viewed the end of the war as a chance to expand its control and authoritarian rule over the counties they marched through in driving Germany out of Eastern Europe. This was a completely opposing view the US and Western Europe had in mind, and lead to a state of tension which became known as the Cold War.

Again, the same compounding issues that followed World War I…close country borders, differing societies, ethnic differences, territorial disputes, and the Seven Deadly Sins (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony)… were once again present with two distinct views with how to deal such differences. To the new Soviet Union the answer was simple…force people to live together through the threat of military might; dictate what people could and could not do. Micro manage and plan economic details, control education, provide collectivism in which every citizen (except for those in charge), would share the fruits of everyone’s labor, and indoctrinate the citizenry into a single mindset that government is the answer to all situations and problems. The population becomes merely servants of the government and the system. To the US and Western Europe, the solution was to allow every country to chose for itself what kind of government and economy it wanted and allow such choices to be made by open election.

The result of these competing and very conflicting ideologies or goals, drew to a stalemate, and Europe became divided by the two opposing forces with the use of war to enforce either doctrine… and thus the world entered into an era of tension where the slightest variance may trigger a Third World War. At this point it became anEast versus West arms and political ideology race, filled with secrecy on both sides. The East became a completely closed society, and the West, a free but anxious society, with varying degrees of capitalism and ideas relating to “social equality”.

This is the point where I’d like to pick-up the decline of America. As I previous stated in my opening argument about our decline, it all began with secrecy created by the Cold War:

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
Patrick Henry

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The countries of the West, for the most part, I think mainly because of their close proximity and shared common borders, gravitated to economies that were far more socialistic than intended. With the advent of the Marshall Plan and the political influence it exerted, most the European countries opted to focus their rebuilding with US financial assistance and investment, on infrastructure and social welfare programs, while leaving the Cold War and confrontation of Soviet Union aspirations to the United States. Very little spending by our Western Allies is centered on their militaries, forcing the US to become the policeman of the world. Because so much anxiety emanated from the political tension between the Soviets and the US, strategies of both sides were conducted in secrecy. Spying and espionage on both sides became the rule of thumb.

We will pick-up the discussion as to how the Cold War and the policies we enacted back then, have created a continued perversion and bastardization of our once free and open society, and eroded the capitalistic system that made America great.

NOVANEWS

Anwar and Haneen: two beautiful girls murdered by IsraHell

Sarah Ali 

What could possibly explain the Israeli army’s targeting of children in the Gaza Strip?

I am a terrorist. At least that is what they call me. I grew up hearing the same word being repeated so often that I thought terrorists were the good guys for a second. They are apparently not. Of the many sad times I have gone through, the 2008-09 offensive that Israel launched on the Gaza Strip was the worst and probably the most painful. I was “lucky” enough to survive and to now have the chance to speak for those who lost their lives, although I am quite sure their deaths can speak well for them.

It was 27 December 2008 when the Israeli warplanes started dropping bombs on every place in Gaza, killing anything or anybody getting — or not getting — in their way.

The war left lots of people dead. Approximately 1,400 Palestinians were killed, thousands more injured. There were people dying everyday.

Then there was Anwar.

Just when we began to hear the news of Israel’s intentions to end the war, Anwar Shehada was killed. Anwar was a 13-year-old neighbor of mine who lived a few meters away from where I live. It was the last day of the war when Anwar told her younger sister she was going up to get the laundry from the roof. Her sister asked her not to go; Anwar told her sister not to worry because the war was almost over.

Before her parents could see her going up to the roof, Anwar was already gone. She probably thought that Israel would not kill a beautiful 13-year-old girl. Israel proved her wrong. The explosion that killed Anwar was the loudest one I have ever heard. I thought it was our house being shelled. The floor was literally shaking. We waited for death. In seconds, we saw the smoke coming out of the neighbors’ house. They said Anwar’s blood was all over the roof. Her head was found in the street.

Killed in a “safe” house

And then, there was Haneen.

Haneen was actually killed before Anwar, but we knew about her death a week after the end of the war. Haneen was my five-year-old friend who I first met in a mosque to which we both used to go. All I remember about her is the way she liked to tease me. She used to make that sound of “meow” because she knew I hate cats. “Meow” was actually the way she said “hi” each time we saw each other. During the war, Haneen’s family decided to go stay with their relatives in Tal al-Tawa, assuming that the area would be less dangerous. Haneen left her house, only to be killed in a house that was thought to be safe.

I cannot imagine the pain Haneen felt when the bomb penetrated her little heart, tearing it apart. I do not know what it feels like to lose a child, and I have no idea how tremendous the suffering of Anwar and Haneen’s parents is. I cannot imagine the shock Haneen felt when she saw the ceiling of the bedroom falling down and getting closer to her face.

I cannot imagine how a soldier looked right from his plane at that little girl and decided to end her life. I cannot imagine the kind of hatred that soldier had towards Palestinians that made him believe that murdering a child was okay. I cannot imagine the denial that soldier lived in that made him think what he did was “self-defense.” I cannot imagine how this very same soldier can now eat, drink, sleep and simply go on with his life. And I cannot understand how stupid Israel has to be to think that I will not fight back and seek justice for my little friends.

I kept thinking of Haneen for a year after she got killed, but now I do not think of her too much. It is just when I see her mother in the street that I remember how cute Haneen was. In fact, I have become selfish enough to avoid saying hi to Haneen’s mom whenever we meet. Each time I see her, I hide my face, hoping she will not see me. When Haneen was alive, her mother and I used to chat about how smart Haneen was and how bright her future would be. Now I just have nothing to say to her. I cannot make things better. I cannot look her mother in the eye and ask her “how are things?” because each time she replies “things are good,” I am sure that they are not.

A world of confusion

I am living in a world whose concepts are no longer clear to me. A world where the criminal walks free and the victim is called a terrorist. A world where killing a five-year-old kid is permissible. A world that has left me baffled about what is right and what is wrong. I have always thought that we could figure out who the terrorist was simply by looking at who died on whose side. I was wrong. Israel has the ability to kill Palestinians at night and call them terrorists the next morning.

Haneen did not know what cold-hearted blood is. Haneen was a little kid whose life was snuffed out because an Israeli soldier felt like killing somebody, and she just happened to be that somebody. Haneen was an unfortunate human being who was born Palestinian and accordingly guilty. She did nothing wrong to Israel. She was a five-year-old girl who was split into little pieces while in bed.

Haneen was too young to die. Who cares about Haneen’s death anyway? Was she a terrorist too?

Sarah Ali, 20, is a Gazan blogger and a student of English literature at the Islamic University of Gaza. Her blog is sarahmali.wordpress.com.

NOVANEWS

The above statement perfectly characterizes 3 of the 4 items below, all of which point to the direction that Israel is on the way to being, and which should warn any Jew abroad who is neither ultra-Orthodox (i.e., fundamentalist) or ultra-Zionist (also fundamentalist) not to come to Israel to live.  I have in the past termed Israel a tribal society.  Well, if till now that has characterized Israel, then I guess it is rapidly becoming an ultra-tribal society—one that exists on xenophobia and narrow-mindedness.  Add these to an ultra-militaristic society and you have all  the  makings of a place in which not only will there be no peace (one after all cannot neglect to remember the area in which Israel is located) but also will be no room for anyone not belonging to the tribe or not behaving according to the tribal laws

Item 2 begins the trend by arguing that Netanyahu wants to be a dictator, item 3 tells us that Netanyahu backs a law to ban loudspeakers at mosques, and item 4 reveals that Jewish religious laws are threatening Jewish women.  You get the idea?  Unfortunately it’s all actually happening under our noses.

Item 1 is on a different tack.  It is a response to the notion that the Palestinians must first and foremost–before any discussion of peace or talks recognize Israel—recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that the Palestinian refusal to do so is at the root of the conflict.  Indeed!  As usual, and as with the law to ban loudspeakers calling Muslims to prayer, Netanyahu forgets both history and where Israel is situated (5 million or so Jews among 350 million or so Muslims!).  The authors respond to Netanyahu’s demand quite well, but barely touch on what would have strengthened their argument yet more: none of Israel’s governments have really wanted a solution to the conflict.  Of course they want peace, but on their own terms, namely by overcoming the Palestinians and creating the greater Israel.  I have recommended and will again the slim but excellent volume by Zalman Amit and Dapha Levit, “Israeli Rejectionism: a Hidden Agenda in the Middle East Peace Process.” They state clearly and in no uncertain terms what they intend to (and do) show in their book: “Our position is that Israel was never primarily interested in establishing peace with its neighbors unless such a peace was totally on its own terms.”  I agree.

  All the best,

Dorothy

==============================

December 11, 2011 [forwarded by Muriel]

A RESPONSE

What About Israeli Rejectionism?

Why the Jewish State Must Recognize Palestine

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/134012

Ghassan Khatib and Michael Bröning

GHASSAN KHATIB has served as a Member of the Madrid Peace Delegation and a Minister of the Palestinian National Authority. He is currently Director of the Palestinian Government Media Center in Ramallah. MICHAEL BRÖNING is Director of the East Jerusalem office of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner’s “The Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism” (November/December 2011) hangs on an echo — perhaps an unconscious one — of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University. “The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state stands at the root of the struggle and behind every so-called core issue,” the authors argue. “Rather than focus on the issues of settlement activity and territory, success in the negotiations will first require at least a tentative change in the Palestinian position on recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.” This is a prime example of the ongoing attempts to revive the increasingly incredulous myth that a peace-loving Israel simply has “no partner for peace.”

One fact is undisputed: In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” through the letters of mutual recognition exchanged between then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The authors correctly note that the declaration did not imply a Palestinian recognition of a “Jewish state.” However, they inaccurately interpret the omission as proof of a thinly concealed Palestinian scheme to pretend to support a two-state solution.

The truth is less dramatic. The declaration did not include the recognition of a “Jewish state” for the simple reason that Israeli leaders had not asked for it. And this was hardly an accident; they made no such request in the years that preceded the Oslo accords and did not include any such statement in the “road map for peace” or the “joint understanding” of the 2007 Annapolis Conference. Contrary to Kuperwasser and Lipner’s claim, the demand to gain outside recognition for a Jewish state is a position without precedent.

Of course, Israel has officially characterized itself as a “Jewish and a democratic state” since amending the basic law in the 1980s. Still, virtually no international actor, including Arab states with diplomatic relations with Israel, has ever been asked to embrace this designation. That is not surprising: Intertwining the ethnic and religious identity of a state with the question of legal recognition is not a common practice in international relations. Notwithstanding occasional references, even Washington, Israel’s most staunch supporter, has never recognized Israel as a “Jewish state.” To the contrary, U.S. President Harry Truman personally removed the term in the formal letter of recognition of Israel in 1948, replacing it with the handwritten correction “State of Israel.”

As Kuperwasser and Lipner correctly point out, the main Palestinian concern with recognizing a Jewish state has to do with the rights of Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian minority in Israel. As the authors know, Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state would be interpreted as waiving the right of return and forfeiting the rights of Palestinians in Israel before even beginning final status negotiations.

Along with Kuperwasser and Lipner, Netanyahu in his Bar-Ilan speech took as a point of departure the notion that “the root of the conflict has been — and remains — the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to its own state.” The prime minister also demanded a “demilitarized” Palestinian state, called on Palestinians to “overcome Hamas,” give up the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel, forsake internationally recognized claims to Jerusalem, and accept “normal life” in Israeli settlements. Remarkably, Kuperwasser and Lipner practically overlook that last part, even though settlements are one of the fundamental hurdles to progress. In fact, according to a recent estimate by the Israeli nongovernmental organization B’Tselem, settlements today control more than 40 percent of the West Bank.

Conspicuously, Kuperwasser and Lipner choose to focus solely on Palestinian ideological “rejectionism.” Certainly, programmatic shortcomings exist in the Palestinian political movements, but the authors neglect the ideological rejectionism on the Israeli side. The Likud Party’s 1999 platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River” and considers Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza a “realization of Zionist values.” Similarly, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party considers the very concept of land for peace “fundamentally flawed.” The programmatic stance of Netanyahu’s coalition partner, Shas, is equally uncompromising: Its document of principles flatly declares that “Jerusalem is not an issue for negotiation or for division” and that “Shas will work for the continuation of settlements in Judea and Samaria.” Likewise, Habayit Hayehudi, the smallest and most radical right-wing party in the Israeli government, unambiguously declared in 2009 that “there will be no Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean,” since “Jordan is the Palestinian state.”

These positions may not reflect a broad Israeli consensus. However, Kuperwasser and Lipner fiercely justify their call for the recognition of a Jewish state by stressing the need to “ease Israeli fears about the Palestinians’ true motivations.” They would be well advised to apply the same principle to the current Israeli government.

Finally, the authors’ focus on “Palestinian rejectionism” prevents them from recognizing constructive developments in the Palestinian Authority. For the authors, the PA “is only a would-be state without any legacy of governance or practice in exercising a monopoly over violence.” And given this Palestinian inability to govern responsibly, any Palestinian state would be prone to “serve as a launch pad for terrorist strikes against Israel’s heartland.”

The authors appear to have lost touch with current events. Not usually known for a pro-Palestinian bias, last April the World Bank declared that, under Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, state-building programs have fundamentally transformed the territory. And in its economic monitoring report, the World Bank stipulates that the PA “has continued to strengthen its institutions, delivering public services and promoting reforms that many existing states struggle with” while reiterating its assessment that Palestine “is well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”

Contrary to the current Israeli government’s claims, demanding further verbal Palestinian concessions is the least productive means of advancing genuine political progress. Instead of fabricating new conditions, what is needed is a willingness of the government of Israel to acknowledge legitimate demands of Palestinians, namely, the right to live freely in an independent state, and to back this acceptance with constructive steps on the ground. Kuperwasser and Lipner’s obsessive focus on “Palestinian rejectionism” makes them oblivious to the fact that, since the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993, policies of rejectionism have so far managed to keep only one state off the map: the state of Palestine.

1.    Haaretz

December 12, 2011

When Netanyahu wants to be like Putin

When we look at the bigger picture we see a comprehensive program that serves Netanyahu and his ideology and is orchestrated by him.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/when-netanyahu-wants-to-be-like-putin-1.400907

By Merav Michaeli

The immediate, unequivocal support voiced by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for Russia’s parliamentary election, which he characterized as free, fair and democratic, is puzzling. Russia and Vladimir Putin are pro-Iran, pro-Syria, pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah, and by Lieberman’s ultra-nationalist Israeli lights, they are terrible for Israel. So why is he so eager to embrace them?

Perhaps it’s an expression of his great identification with, and envy for, Putin’s position. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his own quiet support for Lieberman’s remarks, demonstrates that he shares the desire to be in the same position as Putin.

The method is familiar: Lieberman speaks or acts, and Netanyahu tacitly acquiesces. It’s the same modus operandi the prime minister is using with MKs Zeev Elkin, Ofir Akunis, Yariv Levin and Faina Kirshenbaum and, of course, with Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman. They initiate laws and measures to erode democracy, and Netanyahu says nothing. Occasionally he delays deliberations on a particular bill or announces that the cabinet will not approve another – making him look like the knight come to the rescue of the rule of law, the man with his finger in the dam, the very defender of democracy.

But when we look at the bigger picture we see a comprehensive program that serves Netanyahu and his ideology and is orchestrated by him. The Prime Minister’s Office hires people to silence, or simply get rid off, journalists in the Israel Broadcasting Authority; the PMO decides to arrogate for itself authority over Israel Educational Television, a station that had heretofore been nearly invisible; Defense Minister Ehud Barak runs Army Radio as he sees fit; the government puts Channel 10 in a financial stranglehold and appoints cronies to the Second Authority for Television and Radio, which regulates commercial broadcast outlets. Meanwhile, the Israel Hayom daily benefits from the freedom to coordinate every word it prints with the prime minister.

Netanyahu appointed Neeman, and backs him by supporting bills aimed at changing the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee and at interfering with the inner workings of the Israel Bar Association and the way the president of the Supreme Court is selected. There is nothing accidental about the timing of the onslaught against the Supreme Court and the news media. Each is supposed to protect the public, and democracy at large, from such measures; the combined assault renders each incapable of doing so.

It seems that even Israel’s international isolation is no mistake, and the cold shoulder from friendly states is not undesirable for Netanyahu. Just as an abusive husband isolates his wife from her social circle, both as part of his abuse and a means of facilitating its escalation, so too does Israel’s isolation facilitate the escalation of the occupation and the antidemocratic processes within. Fewer external pressures, fewer countries to give an accounting to – and on top of that, the government can always blame the other countries for being the ones to turn their backs on us.

It’s possible that Netanyahu is not always conscious of the motivations behind his actions; he certainly doesn’t see himself as a Lieberman. That is why he chose to surround himself with antidemocratic people, each of whom is a projection of a different repressed aspect of Netanyahu’s personality. There’s Barak, whose career in the army was presumably based at least in part on his affinity for the undemocratic nature of ruling by command (and his final round as Labor Party leader proved that he never relinquished that affinity ). There’s Neeman, who is loyal to power and to Jewish law, but not to democracy. And there’s Lieberman, of course. Not for nothing has Netanyahu termed them “our natural partners” from day one. Each one is an alter ego who does what Netanyahu would like to do himself but does not dare.

After all, Netanyahu does have other political options. He could have given more power to Likud politicians like Dan Meridor, Benny Begin or Reuven Rivlin, but they wouldn’t have served his purposes. Netanyahu wants to be Putin: an iPad for every worker and complete freedom to rule. There’s a reason for Netanyahu’s timing in scheduling a party primary that almost guarantees him victory – he wants it now, as the antidemocratic efforts are gaining momentum.

“We’re proud to be a country that is governed by laws, not people,” Netanyahu said last week in honor of International Human Rights Day. And that is precisely why his people are changing the law so that only certain people will be able to govern the country.

2.    Haaretz

December 12, 2011

Netanyahu backs law to ban loudspeakers at mosques

‘There’s no need to be more liberal than Europe,’ PM says of move that would ban loudspeakers in calls to prayer.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-backs-law-to-ban-loudspeakers-at-mosques-1.400875

By Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday voiced support for a law that would ban mosques from using loudspeaker systems to call people to prayer.

The so-called Muezzin Law, propsed by MK Anastassia Michaeli (Yisrael Beiteinu ) applies to all houses of worship but the practice is prevalent only in mosques.

“There’s no need to be more liberal than Europe,” Netanyahu said in reference to the law during a meeting of his Likud ministers.

After intense pressure from Likud ministers Limor Livnat, Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, who harshly criticized the bill, Netanyahu announced that he was postponing the scheduled debate in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation.

Michaeli has said hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens routinely suffer from the noise caused by the muezzin’s calls to prayer.

“The bill comes from a worldview whereby freedom of religion should not be a factor in undermining quality of life,” she said.

Netanyahu made similar comments to the Likud ministers.

“I have received numerous requests from people who are bothered by the noise from the mosques,” he said. “The same problem exists in all European countries, and they know how to deal with it. It’s legitimate in Belgium; it’s legitimate in France. Why isn’t it legitimate here? We don’t need to be more liberal than Europe.”

Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor said there was no need for such a law and that it would only escalate tensions.

Michael Eitan, minister for the improvement of government services, agreed with Meridor, adding that this law was just a pretext for those wishing to legislate against Muslims. “If the desire was to combat sound, then a law against sound in all areas should be introduced,” said Eitan. “But the MK proposing the bill wants to combat religion. I met with her and she tried selling it to me as an environmental law. I said to her, ‘Look me in the eyes. You are not interested in the environment, but in Islam.”

Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat joined Eitan and Meridor, saying anyone who wishes to serve a complaint over noises coming from Mosques can already do so under existing law. “There is an anti-noise law that is supposed to deal with the problem of noise from mosques, if such a problem even exists, but that law is not enforced. There is no need for a new law, rather the proper enforcement of the existing one,” said Livnat.

“None of the ministers came to Netanyahu’s defense or supported his position,” said one minister who participated in the meeting.

Netanyahu realized he would not be able to muster a majority in support of the law among his Likud ministers, and announced that the bill would be removed from the agenda of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, which convened a few hours after the Likud meeting.

Netanyahu added, however, the matter would be debated over the coming days and that the bill would be brought before the ministerial committee next week.

As a resident of Caesarea, Netanyahu is particularly familiar with the struggles that exist over noises emerging from mosques. For some time now, Caesarea residents have been acting against the use of loudspeaker systems by mosques in the neighboring village of Jisr al-Zarqa. In the past few years, “round table” teams comprised of members from both villages have been set up to find solutions to various issues. One of the representatives from Jisr al-Zarqa told Haaretz the issue of mosques using loudspeakers has arisen in their meetings.

Head of the Jisr al-Zarqa local council Az-a-Din Amash said Netanyahu did not intervene in the discussions, adding, “We have no desire to clash with Caesarea residents over the matter, quite the opposite. As such, we established a joint committee for dialogue, in which numerous issues relating to mosques use of loudspeaker systems arise.”

Haaretz

December 12, 2011

Jewish religious law threatening Israeli women

Most Israeli children learn, in schools funded by the state, that women exist for men’s use, and it shapes their world.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/jewish-religious-law-threatening-israeli-women-1.400910

By Sefi Rachlevsky

Many of those who protest against silencing the singing of secular women act out of hypocrisy. Israel sends most first-graders whom the state identifies as Jews to religious schools. Whether they are part of the public school system or run by the ultra-Orthodox, these schools receive state subsidies yet are responsible for unconstitutional sex segregation.

We are not merely talking about silencing the singing of women. The whole truth is made clear in the two creation stories that appear in Genesis. In the first, male and female are created. In the second, man is created alone and woman is later created from his rib.

There is a canonical Orthodox explanation for this contradiction: Man and woman were created together, but the man wanted to rule over the woman. She did not want to rule, only to be independent. So he abused her until God gave her wings and she flew away. That was Lilith. The first Eve and the first feminist, she is the female Satan.

God understood his mistake. The second Eve, the woman of our world, was born of the rib of a man, so that she could be an organ among his organs. That is why our sages, including Maimonides, Nahmanides and other rabbinical leaders, called her “a tail” – because women should know that they exist for men’s “tashmish,” meaning both “use” and “sex.” This is what most Israeli children learn, in schools funded by the state, and it shapes their world.

And that’s not all. This country surrendered from the outset, deciding that the only legally binding Jewish marriage conducted in Israel would be an Orthodox one in which a woman’s father sells her to a new master: her husband. Just like people used to buy ewes and lambs.

Religion exists in the dialectic between precept and reality. Judaism, as well as Christianity and Islam, have been filled with strictures based on accepted tradition and each religion’s response to persecution. However, one of the foundations of rabbinical guidance is that a rabbi should advise others to adhere to a given precept if he thinks they will heed him, but should not do so if he thinks they won’t. In other words, the extent to which the stricture is publicized depends on an assessment of whether anyone will pay attention.

Religious moderation is therefore dependent on the iron wall of reality. When children push against a wall and realize that it will remain intact, the wall’s stability teaches them about boundaries. But what happens if the wall moves? It is reasonable to expect the child to go mad. That is what happens to religion when the principle of reality is removed; the strictures know no bounds.

Non-Jews, from the point of view of Jewish religious law, or halakha, cannot be citizens of the Holy Land. And the prohibition regarding women’s voices does not apply only to singing, according to the late Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliahu, who said men should not listen to anything women say that extends beyond day-to-day affairs.

MK Yaakov Katz of National Union, who is closely identified with Eliahu, is behind the so-called “Grunis Law,” which seeks to pave the way for Supreme Court Justice Asher Dan Grunis to become court president and, ultimately, to push out what Katz has referred to as the “miserable gang” out of the Supreme Court and to turn Israel into a theocracy.

Katz is also a disciple of Rabbi Yitzhak Levanon, who recently said it was better for male soldiers to face a firing squad than to listen to female singers. This summer he also ruled that no woman should be appointed to any task; that was in the context of picking a committee on a small settlement. Immediately after that, Katz sponsored the Grunis Law, which was aimed at preventing Justice Miriam Naor from becoming Supreme Court president. Today the coalition is planning to back the law.

Only a week ago, the current Supreme Court president, Dorit Beinisch, called for a stop to the wave of legislation relating to the justice system. But then again, she’s just a woman. After that came a warning from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spoke about her with disrespect as Interior Minister Eli Yishai hastily clarified that everything was being done in accordance with the law.

Naor warned of the huge risk involved in attaching political labels to judges. But those were the remarks of a woman. So here we have not merely any judge, but the president of the Supreme Court on the way to being appointed by an ad hoc law, while the judge in question makes it clear that he does indeed have vested interests and will work to keep the court from overturning unconstitutional laws. Those behind the Grunis bill have made it clear that once he retires, the practice of appointing the court president based on seniority will be abolished and the danger of having female chief justices will be removed.

Behind every halakhic-style statement you will find a man. This week it was Israel’s foreign minister who declared to the Russians just what he considers democracy and legal elections to be. The Supreme Court is the last iron wall of Israeli democracy, and it is being crushed. If the wall is moved, all boundaries will be breached. Once the Supreme Court is no longer intervening, we can expect Arab parties to be disqualified from the next election – and that’s just the beginning.

Grunis’ desire to be appointed Supreme Court president is understandable. But not like this. Not at this price. Not as an emissary of those getting rid of the “miserable gang.” Not as someone with whom the lords of halakha will readily shake hands and sing, because he is a man. Let us not cooperate with that, for it is forbidden.

NOVANEWS 

NOVANEWS

Rana Baker 

Mosques and churches have coexisted in Gaza for hundreds of years.

We Palestinians have nothing to cherish more than our roots and ancestral identity. To us, olive trees and the shade in which our grandparents rested or lovers used to secretly meet weave together sweet pre-dispossession memories.

My grandmother’s depleted voice can’t but play and replay the same ecstatic melodies of a womanhood (before 1967) spent between Gaza and Jerusalem, or actually, between Gaza and an Israeli officer and from there to Jerusalem. She would repeat to me again and again how smoothly (compared to now) she and her Jerusalemite relatives could visit each other. According to her, the most difficult part was to find a carriage.

I would nod my head, sip my tea, and contemplate her face. It is really difficult to imagine that the young adventurous woman who could “smoothly” go to and enjoy Jerusalem is the same one as my wrinkled grandmother. Later, I would be struck by the fact that she is eight decades old. Eight decades! Older than the Nakba? Yes.

One of my grandmother’s clearest memories of the few years prior to the Nakba is one of a British officer who stood before a Palestinian crowd that happened to include my grandmother. According to her, everybody was there to celebrate the inauguration of a new British-established school in Gaza.

My grandmother narrates: “Can you see me, Rana? I can see the officer in front of eyes now. I remember him yelling and cheering until he uttered these words: ‘Today we are your guests, but tomorrow you will be ours.’” A deep breath and she continues: “we were too naïve to fathom the demon snoring in his speech.”

My grandmother, therefore, is a living evidence of the irrefutable fact that Palestinians had forged lives in Palestine until Zionist gangs, like the Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang, to name a few, viciously drove Palestinians out of their lands.

They destroyed our villages, but not our heritage

In our schools and families, we are raised to identify ourselves with our heritage and the villages or towns from which we originally descend.

It is neither surprising nor is it phenomenal when a seven-year-old boy knows exactly which Palestinian village or town is his home of origin and offers a brief but accurate description of his grandfather’s stolen or destroyed house, even if he’s never been allowed to visit himself.

Our heritage is not only the black or red checkered kufiyyeh scarf and the traditional embroidered dress; it is a scent wafting carried on the breeze from olive groves, vines and figs. Alas, everything was and continues to be subject to Israel’s relentless attempts to loot a deep-rooted Palestinian culture.

To us, especially the young, books are our solace from a life of turbulence and uncertainty. We are more attached to the characters of some novel than to the bombs falling down from the sky. Yet, Israel doesn’t allow that. Every single book I have was smuggled to me by one of my non-Palestinian friends who travel a lot.

Furthermore, more than 6,000 Palestinian books are now languishing on the shelves of Israel’s National Library indexed with the label AP or “Absentee Property.” Those “absentees” are Palestinian refugees whose dream and right to return have been denied for so long.

Israel, however, can never loot a culture of nonviolence and stone-throwing. Frankly speaking, without massacring and dispossessing tens of thousands of Palestinians, Israel could have never come to existence in the first place.

It is almost impossible to imagine a decked-out Israeli soldier picking up a stone to hurl it at Palestinian protestors in Nabi Saleh or Beit Hanoun in the West Bank or Gaza, respectively. On the same note, it cannot be possibly pictured that Palestinian protestors would riddle Israeli “guards” with rubber bullets, tear gas or live ammunition.

Heritage of tolerance

Walking through the roads of Palestine attests to a history of religious tolerance. With Christmas coming soon, Palestinian florists and gift shops, mostly owned by Muslims, are adorned with Christmas trees, Santa Claus costumes and glowing lights. Here, Muslims and Christians are neighbors and friends. Every Christmas, Muslims visit their Christian neighbors and offer warm hugs and outings together.

I was educated in a Christian school; I clearly remember my Christian classmates fasting during Ramadan with us or at least, avoiding eating in front of us. Christians here, despite being a minority, celebrate Eid with us. They even go get new outfits every Eid as is the Muslim custom.

Even the construction testifies to warm relations and deep respect. In the old part of Gaza, you will find a Catholic church that shares a wall with an ancient Turkish mosque. Both the church and the mosque have stood there for hundreds of years.

Prior to the Nakba, the above situation applied to relations with Jews; but when the Israeli state was established on 15 May 1948 and declared a “Jewish-state,” Jews were separated from Muslims and Christians. Even those Jews who were not affiliated with the Zionist movement had to be separated.

Palestinians do not come from Mars, but we are constantly alienated and our demands swept off to corners like dust.

I lost faith in the so-called “international community” a long time ago. I don’t even know whether I have ever had any sort of trust in it.

None of the UN resolutions that could have brought us fragments of justice have ever been implemented. The 1947 UN resolution on the partition of Palestine (181), however, was upheld and implemented. This resolution served nobody but the Zionist movement and therefore the perpetuation of our misery.

The cultural war Israel has fueled is aimed at de-Palestinianizing the Palestinians and those who choose to stand on the right side of history. This is why the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) exists. Israel has cultural obligations to meet and must be pressured into complying with them. Until it does, the campaign will not stop.

NOVANEWS 

Dictators and Depots I Have Known

by  Ingrid Rimland Zundel

From an admittedly skewed perspective of my very young, impressionable years, I’d like to shine a brief spotlight on four twentieth century dictatorships I have personally known.

Stalin first. I was too little to have witnessed his brutalities first-hand in the Ukraine where I was born to German-descent parents.

But I heard plenty of stories about the artificial famine of the mid-Thirties where the death-cart passed each day along the street to pick up the dead by the wayside.

Seven million are said to have perished.

My young parents, then still single, were students in a teachers’ college in Odessa. A particularly poignant story I heard all my life is that my father came courting my mother each evening with a handful of beans in his pocket.

Imagine Beans as a Sole Diet

They would soak them overnight on the windowsill and cook their only meal of the day in the morning. I was born the following year. I suspect that had it not been for the beans in my father’s pockets, you wouldn’t be reading my missives in Veterans Today.

My father was arrested six years later by the Soviet Torquemadas. Every male age 14 and over was arrested in our German-descent town in the early days of September 1941, only weeks before Hitler’s Wehrmacht arrived and drove the tormentors away.

My father’s “crime”? Being German. We never saw him again. He never saw a “Nazi” in his life.

Adolf Hitler in WWI

Hitler next: I know that most of my readers have a different view of history from mine. I won’t pontificate here about the power of decades of relentless atrocity tales about what the “monster of monsters” allegedly did – or at least ordered.

Let me just say that, having been raised in a pacifist setting of Germans of Russian descent in a religious community deep in the Paraguayan jungle, I was well into my thirties when it dawned on me that Hitler was perceived by most of what passes as the “civilized world” to be a ghoul who used to chew on a carpet in his rage against the Jews – and not the trustworthy liberator that I and my people experienced.

Alfredo Stroessner – Paraguay

General Stroessner of Paraguay.

He came to power when I was still a teenager and ruled, I believe, for 30-plus years in a moderate fashion.

Not so in the beginning. I heard he made short shrift of same obstreperous liberal padres of the Catholic Church by throwing them into a tiger cage, thus crushing any serious opposition.

The simple paisanos loved Don Alfredo Stroessner to abandon. I glimpsed him only once, in 1984, when I went back to the places of my youth.

Stroessner and Peron

As he did each Thursday afternoon, there he walked the streets with a handful of cronies on the way to a hotel to play a game of cards. He had no bodyguards, and people greeted him without pretense as you might greet a neighbor.

Stroessner disliked and distrusted his own son, Gustavo, a not-too-bright spoiled brat. Legend has it that when he fell mortally ill, he masterminded his own benign revolution to get himself deposed to assure a successor to his liking.

His place was taken briefly his son-in-law – who died shortly thereafter – I was told, in New York hospital. Mean conspiracy buffs claim he was killed.

Juan and Evita Peron

General Peron of Argentina. More or less the same story in terms of unreserved admiration by the populace. His wife, Evita, was worshiped like a goddess for her activism on behalf of her “descamisados” – the Shirtless Ones.

She helped arrange “aguinaldo” – at Christmas, all employees in Argentina received an extra month’s pay.

At age 17, I experienced only the end of Peron’s popular rule. A personal insight why it ended came to me by accident.

I worked at the time as a maid for a well-to-do Argentine family who, I found out much later, were personal car-racing buddies of the Perons.

As I was serving food at a small family dinner one evening, I overheard one of them say:

“Well, he finished off la rubia (the Blond One)” – and there were guffaws all around. A week later, Evita’s “terminal cancer” was announced, and after another few weeks, she was supposed to have succumbed.

A Rare Photo of Evita

Ever since, Argentina has been in the clutches of the banksters.

The four gents above were unabashed dictators. They didn’t hide behind “democracy” – as “democratic” governments these days are wont to do as they rain terror on civilians.

From the perspective of a simple youth caught in the juggernaut of a world war and brutal postwar struggles for survival, in my book only Stalin was to be feared.

Ever heard of the “School of Americas”- the place where torturers were trained in Fort Benning, Georgia? The following press release was sent to me last night:

SOA Watch – info@soaw.org

Solemn voices lifted up the spirits of those killed by graduates of the School of the Americas and filled the air as the music team sang out their names from the stage during this morning’s funeral procession in front of the entrance to Fort Benning. The crowd of thousands responded, “PRESENTE!”

Joining actor Martin Sheen on stage this weekend was Georgia NAACP State President Edward DuBose, who told the crowd many had asked him why he’d come here.

“I made a promise to Troy Anthony Davis that I would continue to speak out against any system that takes any innocent life,” DuBose told the crowd. “However long it takes, we’ll be here. We’re on this road until justice is served!”

United Auto Workers President Bob King also addressed the gathering, lifting up the voice of organized labor standing in solidarity with workers all across the Americas.

School of the Americas – Ft. Benning Georgia

Social movement leaders from Colombia, Haiti, Honduras and Costa Rica joined the thousands of activists who made the trek to this year’s vigil. Jimena Paz, who helped organize the SOA Watch Encuentro in Venezuela, and who, as a young member of the Honduran Resistance, has lost friends to the SOA-led repression campaign, shared her compelling story from the stage.

Dr. Luther Castillo, a young, Afro-indigenous Garifuna doctor and community organizer, directs the foundation For the Health of Our People (“Luagu Hatuadi Waduheñu” in the Garifuna language), and is the founder and director of the First Popular Garifuna Hospital of Honduras.

Exposing the effects of SOA training of Honduran soldiers since the 2009 graduate-led military coup, Luther shared that he and the hospital have been subject to many threats of closure and other attacks by the military and coup government.

Jani Silva, a community organizer from La Perla Amazonica, Putumayo, Colombia, addressed the reality of US foreign policy in her country, which has sent more than 10,000 soldiers to be trained at the SOA with chilling results.

Mario Joseph, a prominent Haitian human rights lawyer, is representing political prisoners and victims of political violence in Haiti. He spoke from the stage, urging solidarity with Haitian struggle to keep the army from being brought back.

Also present among those giving testimony to SOA violence was Nelly del Cid, one of the Feminists in Resistance in Honduras. She shared her deep concerns about the huge number of femicides since the coup.

Costa Rican lawyer and peace advocate Luis Roberto Zamora also gave updates about the lawsuit he filed against the Costa Rican government for sending police to the School of the Americas/WHINSEC.

Theresa Cusimano, 43, of Denver, Colorado, crossed the line for the second time following the morning’s solemn funeral procession. She was arrested by military police and faces up to six months in prison. Stay tuned for a message from Theresa!

Editing: Jim W. Dean

NOVANEWS 

by Stephen Lendman

Knesset summer session bills grievously harm civil and human rights if passed. Basic freedoms are at risk, including speech, assembly, association, and right to dissent.

On October 16, a Haaretz editorial addressed one measure affecting press freedom headlined, “Free press in Israel is in danger,” saying:

Knesset extremists want to silence it “through the threat of libel suits that would jeopardize the economic foundations of the media outlets.”

Last week, Knesset Law and Justice Committee chairman David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu party) approved MK Yariv Levin’s (Likud) bill for first reading. It calls for more punitive libel compensation from 50,000 to NIS 300,000 (Israeli new shekel) with no need to prove damages.

Moreover, the penalty could rise to NIS 1.5 million if the complainant’s response isn’t published in full.

Levin claimed “freedom of expression is not freedom of transgression.” MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) wants Israelis protected from “the great power of the media.”

Neither addressed core democratic principles. Free expression is fundamental. Feigning support for civil rights, both want press freedom silenced. At issue is preventing criticism of business, government, and other influential figures.

“For years now, democracy in Israel has been under attack from the right-wing parties….(They) control the Knesset and enjoy” protective Kadima support in their efforts to establish ‘Jewish supremacy’ using the tools of law.”

Israel’s “Prohibition on Instituting a Boycott” law prohibits actions against Israeli products, persons and activities connected to Israel and its settlements.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said passage gravely weakened Israeli democracy. So did other enacted measures. Those now pending may destroy it entirely.

ACRI discussed them in its summer Knesset review. They include:

Committees of Inquiry to Investigate NGOs

Two pending bills seek to establish committees of inquiry into NGO financing. So far neither measure passed. Rejecting them as written in July, they may be reintroduced in new form. At issue is targeting NGOs critical of Israeli policies.

An Amendment to the 2002 Civil Service Law

If enacted, applicants with Israeli military or other national service will receive preferential treatment regardless of qualifications. Arabs will be marginalized.

The measure violates Israel’s Equal Opportunity in Employment Law. The bill passed its first reading. So far, no further action was taken.

An Amendment to Israel’s Anti-Defamation Law

Passage will permit libel suits and criminal prosecutions against anyone slandering Israel or its institutions. It would also let affected persons bring civil suits. NGOs critical of Israeli policies are specifically targeted. No action so far was taken.

Amending Israel’s Income Tax Ordinance (Taxation of Public Institutions Receiving Contributions from Foreign Political Entities)

NGOs, mainly human rights ones, are again targeted by imposing a 45% tax on foreign contributions received. State funded organizations will be exempt. No action so far was taken.

Amending the Associations Law (Prohibition of Support from a Foreign State Entity to Political NGOs in Israel)

If passed, human rights organizations will be prohibited from accepting foreign contributions exceeding 20,000 NIS annually. Bill explanatory notes say:

“(M)any organizations operating under the guise of ‘human rights groups’ come here to influence the political discourse, the character, and the policies of the State of Israel.”

Hearings so far were postponed. Foreign affairs and other officials fear the measure harms Israel’s image. So do others reviewed in this article and bills now law.

The Courthouses Bill Amendment (Transparency in the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices and in the Appointment of the President and Vice-President of the Supreme Court)

The measure seeks to establish public hearings and making appointments dependent on the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.

At issue is politicizing appointments, violating separation of powers, and further weakening checks and balances. The bill was tabled. No further action was taken.

Return of the Wisconsin Program

The bill aims to give far-reaching powers to corporations at the expense of workers. They include authority to deny them income support benefits that provide social safety net protection for families with no other income source.

Privatizing this power will deprive hundreds of thousands of employees of their right to live in dignity, besides issues of liberty, property and privacy.

Passage also will violate Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. It would expand the program nationwide as fixed policy. ACRI strongly opposed the original Wisconsin Plan. It promises strong opposition to this one. It’s being debated in the Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee.

Planning and Building Reform

This measure would replace the current Planning and Building Law. According to the Council for Responsible Planning, the bill damages the public’s interest and violates environmental standards.

Among other issues, it fails to ensure fair representation on planning councils. It gives no clear authority to government over local concerns. It impairs citizen rights to oppose plans and appeal council decisions.

It excludes provisions for public decision making participation. It also omits mechanisms to ensure social interests such as social consulting, social impact studies, assuring affordable housing, and others.

Under debate, the measure’s preparing for its second and third readings.

The National Housing Committees Law

The bill potentially harms public and social interests by bypassing Planning and Building Law provisions. It excludes local planning committee authority to promote affordable housing in neighborhoods of mixed social character. It’s discriminatory and unfair.

It passed the Knesset plenum last August.

Amending the Entry into Israel Law, it authorizes a “Tribunal for Foreign Nationals” to hear issues relating to legal residency, including for children of permanent residents.

It lets both Interior and Justice ministries rule on immigration and residency status of non-Jews. Concentrating executive, legislative and judicial authority this way violates democratic principles, including separation of powers, public court proceedings, and judicial fairness.

It also harms non-citizen and permanent resident spouses, East Jerusalem children, migrant workers, stateless persons and others. The Interior Committee approved the measure for its second and third readings.

Prevention of Infiltrators Law

It authorizes arrest of asylum seekers and their children for up to three years. Israel’s Entry into Israel Law permits up to 60 days.

If passed, every asylum seeker potentially could face criminal prosecution and imprisonment for up to five years. It also applies to anyone aiding and abetting them. Repeat offenders may face 15 years.

The bill trashes fundamental human rights principles. The Committee on Internal Affairs is debating it in preparation for its second and third readings.

Enforcement and Protection of Public Safety Bill

The measure dramatically expands municipal inspectors’ powers, authorizing them to prevent violence in local jurisdictions. It abrogates state responsibility to provide essential services to all its citizens. Instead, it would transfer core services to local municipalities.

The original text was draconian. It’s now softened but still worrisome. It permits conflict of interest and the politicization of law enforcement. At the same time, it widens the gap between law enforcement in various communities.

It discriminates on the basis of religion, ethnicity, and nationality. It lacks an independent, effective way to handle public complaints. It also gives inspectors police powers.

The Committee on Internal Affairs approved it as a Temporary Order. Valid for two years, it applies only to 13 localities already running a pilot project. A final vote is expected soon.

Prisons Ordinance (Amendment 32 – Preventing a Prisoner from Meeting with a Specific Lawyer)

The measure seeks to prevent security prisoners from consultations with specific lawyers, based on secret information. It also applies without having to prove attorneys committed improper behavior.

Israeli law already prevents lawyer/client meetings in cases involving (secret) suspicions it could be used to commit a crime, endangering public security or prison discipline.

The proposed amendment goes further, and lengthens incarceration periods before judicial oversight is required. It violates fundamental prisoner rights. Approved for second and third readings, a final vote is expected soon.

Criminal Procedures Law (Powers of Enforcement – Bodily Searches and Means of Identification, Amendment 3)

Earlier legislation authorized establishing a genetic database. Doing so raised privacy and dignity issues. It also enhances law enforcement. As a result, balances and limits were imposed on what data could be stored, how, and how it’s used.

The current measure overturns this delicate balance, intrusively affecting privacy. It authorizes more bodies (including international ones) to receive information. It also lets more types of information be collected and maintained.

The bill passed.

Biometric Database Pilot

The measure authorizes establishing it with little attention paid to issues causing other governments to reject similar projects. Nonetheless, regulatory oversight was approved by a special Knesset committee with little debate.

Planning and Construction Law (Proposed Amendment – Financing the Demolition of Illegal Construction at the Expense of the Builder)

The measure proposes doing so without judicial review and without letting builders demolish structures themselves. State costs are much higher.

Second and third readings were approved. The bill is seriously flawed despite moderating its original form. Further Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee debate is expected.

Entry into Israel Law (Amendment 21)

The measure pertains to work permits given migrant workers. It seeks to restore binding them to one employer. Israel’s High Court earlier ruled it illegal, calling it “a modern form of slavery.”

The bill was approved to become law after its second and third readings.

Counter-Terrorism Bill

It seeks to legally anchor “state of emergency” regulations regarding the fight against terrorism into permanent legislation. Its provisions are draconian, threatening irreversible human rights damage.

Administrative detention and control orders are established, authorizing anti-democratic authority to arrest and detain people indefinitely without charge.

Secret evidence may be used. Terrorist organizations and acts of terror are broadly defined. Illegal interrogation methods may be used. New rules contradict basic criminal law standards.

Unchecked executive branch authority is granted without trial based on uncorroborated suspicions. The measure is classic police state extremism. The bill passed its first reading in August.

Authority to Protect Public Safety Bill (Amendment – Police Search Authority)

The measure lets police conduct intrusive searches at places of entertainment and in their vicinity, even without suspicion of wrongdoing. It essentially grants police state authority to discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality and other inappropriate criteria.

Proposed Amendment to the Police Ordinance (Obligation to Wear Identification Tags)

The measure seeks to require police to identify themselves. ACRI supports the bill. Earlier it wrote police authorities about concerns regarding masked police and other disguises.

Police now condone it, especially when confronting demonstrations. The bill passed its first reading.

Discrimination against Women within the National Insurance Law

Under current law, the National Insurance Institute (NII) defines women who haven’t worked for four consecutive years as housewives, regardless of how long previously employed.

Housewives don’t pay insurance premiums. As a result, they forfeit some of rights. A Labor, Welfare and Health Committee raised the problem. The NII assistant director said legislation was being prepared to address it. At this time, nothing further is known.

Water

ACRI calls water a fundamental human right. It emphasizes state responsibility to ensure equitable distribution without discrimination. High water rates charged by private corporations pose problems. ACRI seeks legislative relief.

A Final Comment

Israel’s current Knesset under Netanyahu is its worst ever. Repressive legislation threatens Arabs and Jews. Democracy is illusory, not real. Bad conditions worsen.

Civilized societies accept all citizens as equals, or should. Israel rejects that standard, even for most Jews.

Israeli Arabs never had rights. Increasing numbers of Jews are now affected. Wealthy and privileged ones prosper at the expense of others. Israel resembles America. Social justice and democratic freedoms in both countries are fast disappearing.

Recent and current Knesset legislation gravely endanger them. It’s time for Israelis to rally again like last summer for social justice. Otherwise they may lose out entirely.

NOVANEWS

by Philip Giraldi

An increasing number of former intel officers that I network with are convinced that the alleged plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington is not only completely implausible as described by the Justice Department and White House but also possibly the contrivance of an intelligence or security service other than that of Iran. There is a  consensus that the Iranian government has no motive for carrying out the attack, as it would have only further isolated Tehran internationally and could easily have led to massive retaliation.

The “rogue element” theory that Iran’s fractured politics might mean that someone in the Quds group was actually trying to embarrass someone else in the government has a certain plausibility, but no one who knows anything about Iran actually believes it to be true. Nor is it likely that Iran mounted the complicated operation to avenge the assassinations of several of its nuclear scientists. The scientists were killed by the Israelis, who would have been the target if that had been the case. So the only question becomes, who is doing what to whom and why?

The speculation by Gareth Porter that the whole affair might have been a drug deal that morphed or was manipulated by an FBI sting into yet another terrorism story is compelling. If that was the case, then the U.S. government is guilty yet again of taking a vulnerable individual and turning him to make him into what will pass muster as a genuine terrorist. Nearly every terrorism case since 9/11 has been precisely that — finding a disgruntled individual or group through communications intercepts, inserting an informant into the process, and developing the case to enhance its terrorism potential.

Another possibility that has been mentioned is that it might have been an operation planned by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, the Iranian opposition group supported by a number of U.S. lawmakers. But the MEK would not have the resources or technical expertise to carry out such a deception, unless it were working in cooperation with the CIA or the Mossad, which raises the possibility that this has been from the start the work of an intelligence agency rather than law enforcement.

Law enforcement normally begins with some kind of case and then allows it to grow, whereas an intelligence operation would be phony from start to finish. If it is indeed an intelligence operation, there are three principal suspects: the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. All three countries have highly sophisticated intelligence services capable of the technical measures required to carry out what is essentially a false-flag operation, in which they would be portraying themselves as representatives of the Iranian government in order to obtain the cooperation of an expat Iranian living in the United States. All three intelligence organizations are highly knowledgeable of Iranian intelligence service operations, and all three have easy access to Farsi speakers capable of role playing. The operation would be tricky to execute but far from impossible if the right resources were dedicated to the problem and the right spin were put on the narrative used to initiate contact with and then develop Mansour Arbabsiar or someone like him.

The United States would have the simplest task in mounting such a false-flag operation. As immigrants to the U.S. are required to identify close relatives in foreign governments as part of their visa process, it would be easy to come up with a candidate for the plot who has a relative in Iran’s security services through inspection of the immigration records. I am certain that the CIA and the FBI both have been exploiting such records since 9/11. Once you have your candidate, you set up a scenario for him in which he receives a phone call quite possibly innocuous in nature, money is dangled in front of him, and your plot to assassinate and bomb gradually takes shape. After you introduce your own informant into the operation, you then run it like the classic FBI sting operation, which we have seen so many times over the past 10 years.

You monitor and guide your target, going step by step, getting him more involved and committed. You provide him with money that comes out of an overseas account that you have set up, which is no problem at all for a sophisticated intelligence agency. You can even redirect calls using a switch so that when your target thinks he is dialing Tehran he is actually connected to a listening post in Washington. When the operation is ready to go, you arrest him, claiming as Preet Bharara, the federal attorney for the southern district of Manhattan recently did, that “no one was ever actually in any danger.” You time the arrest and the revelation of the case to the media to obtain maximum possible advantage from it.

Israel would run the operation in precisely the same fashion, assuming that it has access to U.S. immigration records, which may or may not be true, either with the consent of the federal government or clandestinely through one of its many friends in the bureaucracy. The rest of the operation would proceed just as if the CIA were running it. Indeed, one should not rule out the possibility that Israel might have run the operation jointly with the CIA.

Saudi Arabia would likely not have any access to U.S. immigration records, but it is possible that it could come up with a candidate using other resources, including work and travel records from the nearby Emirates, which are much frequented by Iranian travelers.

Given the fact that all three countries’intelligence services could have run the false-flag operation, who would have the strongest motive? Cui bono, who benefits? Undoubtedly Israel would. Tel Aviv has been demanding military action against Iran for many years. A terrorist plot to assassinate a friendly ambassador in Washington would be considered a godsend by the Benjamin Netanyahu government, which has stated repeatedly that Iran is a threat and Washington should be taking the lead against it.

The United States has much less motive to create a new crisis with Iran, even accepting that the president would like to appear to be strong against terrorism and what he chooses to call state sponsors of terror in the lead-up to elections. If an armed conflict were somehow to start and go wrong, there would be considerable downside, making this far too risky to contemplate. The White House has several times warned Israel against starting a war with Iran, most recently three weeks ago when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Tel Aviv. President Obama might be willing to push hard against the Iranians to satisfy demands from Congress, the media, and the Israel Lobby, but he appears unwilling to employ military force.

The Saudis have no love for Iran but would be fearful of the consequences of what could quickly become a major war escalating on their doorstep, so their motivation for heightening tension is also very questionable, even if they would welcome someone else dealing with what they see as the Iranian threat.

The final question: Was it a conspiracy that was designed to fail? It would be a mistake to assume that just because the plot appears idiotic it could not be the product of a sophisticated intelligence service. In my own experience in the CIA, many operations were poorly planned and executed, and often something that appears implausible might be driven by its own perverse logic. In this case, the involvement of an identifiable DEA informant in the plot, if that was done deliberately, suggests that exposure was desired, perhaps due to some laudable squeamishness about blowing up a restaurant or killing an ambassador in cold blood.

That might mean that whoever constructed the operation was willing to have it become public knowledge because the publicity itself would be nearly as damaging as success, which is frequently how covert intelligence operations are designed. Would Israel be bold enough to stage a major terror operation in the United States capital? The Lavon Affair, the USSLiberty,Jonathan Pollard, and the still unexplained actions of Israel before 9/11 suggest that it might. If an Iranian plotter had killed the Saudi ambassador in Washington while blowing up a restaurant full of people, it would have been an act of war, a Pearl Harbor moment. If Tehran had apparently plotted to do so and failed because the plot was discovered, it could still be construed as an act of war by those willing to see it that way (Sen. Carl Levin, for instance). Either way it is blamed on the Iranian government, not on the actual false-flag perpetrator.

I am not suggesting that the above scenario necessarily took place, just describing how it might have been accomplished. My account differs in several details from the information that the U.S. government has either revealed through its court filing, stated in press briefings, or leaked to the media to bolster its case. At least some of the leaked material, most notably the information provided to The Washington Post’s Peter Finn, might reasonably be described as disinformation. Above all, the Obama administration and the  FBI have made no effort to explain the role of the informant, who might have been an instigator or enabler of the terrorist plot, if such a plot ever existed, nor will they be generous in releasing information when Arbabsiar is tried.

Of course, if the entire affair was a broadly based conspiracy orchestrated by the White House for political reasons, it would have been easy to carry out, as all the evidence and corroboration could have been fabricated from start to finish. That is perhaps the scariest possibility of all, a “homegrown”answer to the question “Whodunit?”