Top Israeli: Israel Assassinated Arafat

It has long been suspected that Israel gave Yasser Arafat some sophisticated poison. Test results were inconclusive, and some reports have been kept from the public. Now we have this:

QUOTE: Recently we got a kind of confirmation. Just before he died, Uri Dan, who had been Ariel Sharon's loyal mouthpiece for almost 50 years, published a book in France. It includes a report of a conversation Sharon told him about, with President (George W.) Bush. Sharon asked for permission to kill Arafat and Bush gave it to him, with the proviso that it must be done undetectably. When Dan asked Sharon whether it had been carried out, Sharon answered: "It's better not to talk about that." Dan took this as confirmation.

From: "Gush Shalom" <otherisr@actcom.co.il>

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:54:48 -0800

Uri Avnery

27/1/07

"If Arafat were Alive..."

Hebrew version at http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery/1169934666

"IF ARAFAT were alive..." one hears this phrase increasingly often in conversations with Palestinians, and also with Israelis and foreigners.

"If Arafat were alive, what's happening now in Gaza wouldn't be happening..." - "If Arafat were alive, we would have somebody to talk with..." - "If Arafat were alive, Islamic fundamentalism would not have won among the Palestinians and would have lost some force in the neighboring countries!"

In the meantime, the unanswered questions come up again: How did Yasser Arafat die? Was he murdered? If so, who murdered him?

On the way back from Arafat's funeral in 2004, I ran into Jamal Zahalka, a member of the Knesset. I asked him if he believed that Arafat was murdered. Zahalka, a doctor of pharmacology, answered "Yes!" without hesitation. That was my feeling, too. But a hunch is not proof. It is only a product of intuition, common sense and experience.

Recently we got a kind of confirmation. Just before he died, Uri Dan, who had been Ariel Sharon's loyal mouthpiece for almost 50 years, published a book in France. It includes a report of a conversation Sharon told him about, with President (George W.) Bush. Sharon asked for permission to kill Arafat and Bush gave it to him, with the proviso that it must be done undetectably. When Dan asked Sharon whether it had been carried out, Sharon answered: "It's better not to talk about that." Dan took this as confirmation.

The secret services of many countries have poisons that are all but undetectable. The Mossad tried to kill Khaled Mashal, the Hamas leader, in broad daylight on a main Amman thoroughfare. He was saved only when the Israeli government was compelled to provide the antidote to the poison it had used. Viktor Yushchenko, the president of the Ukraine, was poisoned and saved only when the specific suspicious symptoms were identified by experts in time. Recently, a former Russian spy, Aleksander Litvinenko, was murdered by lethal polonium-210. And how many cases have gone undetected?

Is there proof that Arafat was murdered by Israeli or other agents? No, there is none. This week I again ran into MK Zahalka, and both of us concluded that the suspicion is growing stronger, together with the conviction that Arafat's absence is felt now more than ever.

IF ARAFAT were alive, there would be a clear address for negotiations with the Palestinian people.

The claimed absence of such an address serves the Israeli government as the official pretext for its refusal to start peace negotiations. Every time Condoleezza Rice or another of Bush's parrots talks about the need to "restart the dialog" (don't mention "negotiations") for "the final status" or "the permanent settlement" (don't mention "peace"), that is the response of Tsipi Livni, Ehud Olmert & Co.

Dialog? With whom? No use to talk with Mahmoud Abbas, because he is unable to impose his will on the Palestinian people. He is no second Arafat. He has no power. And we couldn't possibly talk with the Hamas government, because it belongs to Bush's "axis of evil". So what do you want, Condi dear?

Tsipi Livni, Condi's new buddy, goes further: at the convocation of the billionaires' cabal in Davos she warned Abbas publicly not to strike a "compromise with terrorists". A timely warning. Desperate to create a credible Palestinian address, Abbas had just flown to Damascus to meet Mashal. Thus, by the way, he has admitted publicly that nothing can be done without the Hamas leader, who has become a kind of Palestinian super-president.

Livni recognized the danger at once and rushed to torpedo the mission. No dialog with a Palestinian unity government, much as there is no dialog with Abbas or Hamas. That Ok, Condi honey?

IF ONE wants to see real joy, one has only to look at the faces of Israeli correspondents who appear every evening on television to report on events in Lebanon.

What delight! The "Christians and Sunnis" attack Shiite students at the Arab University in Beirut and kill them! Any moment, a new civil war may break out! Look, a female Sunni student interviewed on television says that "Nasrallah is worse than Olmert!" Look at her again! And again! And again!

"When two quarrel, the third laughs," as the proverb goes. When an Arab hits an Arab - whether in Baghdad, Gaza or Beirut - the government of Israel and its commentators in the media are glowing. That has been a dominant theme in Israeli thought since the founding of the state, and even before: when Arabs are fighting each other, that is good for us.

In war, that makes sense. A split between your enemies is a gift to you. In World War I, the German general staff sent Lenin back to Russia in the famous sealed wagon, hoping to create a split between Russia and her British and French allies. In the 1948 war, we were saved because the armies of Egypt and Jordan were more interested in competing with each other than in fighting us. In the 80s, the Israeli army sent officers to North Iraq in order to help Mustafa Barzani to tear the Kurdish region away from Saddam's country.

That is a good strategy in war, which states have followed since the beginning of history. In this respect, Israel is no exception. The question is: is this also a good strategy when one wants to achieve peace?

IF - "IF" in capital letters - the government of Israel desired peace, it would adopt the opposite strategy.

In the 50s, when David Ben-Gurion did his utmost to promote splits between Egypt, Syria and Iraq, Nahum Goldman, the senior Zionist diplomat, opposed this. He argued that the many conflicts between Arab leaders were a danger to Israel, because every Arab leader tries to outdo his rivals in his hostility to Israel.

Nowadays that is more evident than ever. Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen are trying to set up a pro-American bloc consisting of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Abbas and Siniora. On the opposite side there is the "axis of evil" consisting of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas.

The leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, but are quite ready to sell it out in return for suitably lavish American aid. The Israeli government is honored to find itself in the company of the three eminent democrats - President Husni Mubarak and the two Kings Abdallah.

But is this good for Israel? It is good for the continuation of the war against the Palestinians, for annexation and the building of settlements. It is not good for the termination of the historic conflict with the Palestinians, the ending of the occupation and the laying down of arms.

There is no chance of making peace with Mahmoud Abbas, nor would it have any value, without the full support of Hamas. But even a Fatah-Hamas partnership would not be broad enough to ensure a peaceful future for Israel. It would need the support of the whole Arab world.

There lies the immense importance of the "Arab Peace Initiative", the Arab League proposal that was adopted by the 2002 Beirut summit conference. Only a united Palestinian leadership, which enjoys the backing of the entire Arab world, can carry out such a revolutionary historic undertaking. Not only should we not object to it, but we should in fact demand it.

The terms of the Arab initiative are the same as those already set out by Yasser Arafat in the 70s: a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, whose border is the Green Line and whose capital is East Jerusalem; the dismantling of the settlements; an "agreed upon" solution of the refugee problem. Unofficially Arafat agreed to swaps of territory that would enable some of the settlements located near the Green Line to remain in place. There is practically no Palestinian, and indeed no Arab, who would agree to less. It would leave the Palestinians a mere 22% of historic Palestine.

This can be achieved, provided the Palestinian people are united and the Arab world is united. That means the agreement of Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and also Iran, which is of course not Arab.

Therefore, if one wants peace, one will not rejoice in face of the bloodshed in Gaza and the Lebanon. We have nothing to laugh about when Arab hits Arab. Woe to such laughter.

And, of course, if Arafat were alive, everything would be much, much easier.

GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033

info@gush-shalom.org For information, write to

Massive Corruption Undermining Afghanistan

This story comes just as George Bush announced billions more money for Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/wafg28.xml

US military: Afghan leaders steal half of all aid

By Gethin Chamberlain, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 3:04am GMT 28/01/2007

Corrupt police and tribal leaders are stealing vast quantities of reconstruction aid that is intended to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and turn them away from the Taliban, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

In some cases, all the aid earmarked for an area has ended up in the wrong hands. Defence officials in the United States and Britain estimate that up to half of all aid in Afghanistan is failing to reach the right people.

Nato forces in the south of the country say some Afghan police are guilty of corruption and will steal aid if it is handed out. Tribal and mosque elders have also been accused of seizing goods, including building materials and fuel, and selling them in markets. A Pentagon official said thousands of cars and trucks intended for use by the Afghan police had been sold instead.

Last week, the US and European Union announced plans to spend an additional £7 billion on assistance to Afghanistan, of which £1.5 billion will be earmarked for reconstruction. A committee of MPs is to investigate the corruption, which has dogged operations in Afghanistan since the Taliban were driven from power in 2001.

James Arbuthnot, chairman of the Commons defence select committee, said the matter needed to be urgently addressed. "Corruption is something we will be examining," he said.

Nato commanders in southern Afghanistan are deeply concerned at the level of corruption but have resolved to press ahead with reconstruction projects in the hope of winning over the local population and improving security.

advertisement

In one recent example in Kandahar province, aid distribution went ahead despite fears that it would be stolen. Sergeant Major Denis Tondreau, in charge of delivering Canadian army aid to the Pashmul area, said the Afghan police unit in one village was known for corruption and extortion. "I have been told that if I bring aid to Pasab the police will steal it," he said. "They are just a bad, bad unit... extortion, corruption and use of drugs."

But people in the area said tribal and mosque elders were also guilty of stealing aid. In the nearby town of Panjwaii, workers said aid distributed by Nato's provincial reconstruction teams had not reached the ordinary people.

Abdul Ghany, 20, said: "When the soldiers came here they gave things to the rich people. The elders took things for themselves and we received nothing."

Noor Ullah, a police intelligence officer in the neighbouring Zharey district, said tribal leaders had to be persuaded that the aid was not intended for them alone. At a heated meeting he warned them: "The equipment is not to rebuild your own homes, it is for the mosques and the whole village. It is not for individuals, it is for the community. It is not for you to take and sell it."

Aid and reconstruction work are seen as key elements of the Nato strategy in Afghanistan, and were cited by the British Government as the main reason for deploying thousands of additional troops last year.

On Friday, Nato foreign ministers signalled that they would boost their military and economic contributions amid calls for more investment in development projects to win the support of the Afghan population. Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman, said he had heard first-hand of corruption affecting the reconstruction programmes when he visited Afghanistan last summer. "There is increasing corruption from top government officials down, which is making efforts to get reconstruction off the ground much more difficult," he said.

Charles Heyman, a defence analyst and former British Army major, said millions of pounds earmarked for reconstruction were being siphoned off. "It almost comes with the programme," he said. "You have to build in an element of that into any programme because you know it will leak into people's pockets."

A joint report by the Pentagon and the US state department, circulated to congressional committees last month, concluded that the Afghan police force was corrupt to the point of ineffectiveness. One Pentagon official told The Sunday Telegraph that police officers had stolen and sold at least half of the equipment supplied by the US, including thousands of cars and trucks.

The Department for International Development said progress had been made. "We work closely with local people, the governor and representatives of the national government in drawing up projects, to make sure that what we do meets the needs of local people," said a spokesman.

Among the projects funded by the department are the purchase of uniforms and winter coats for the Afghan police, a hospital generator and a mortuary.

But it confirmed that some of the £2 million allocated to projects intended to help internal refugees had been diverted to build vehicle checkpoints.

Another Smear of Jimmy Carter

In November, 1938, a Jewish youth, Herschel Greenspan, assassinated an official of the German embassy in Paris. He was arrested and put on trial. Dorothy Parker, a popular American journalist, started a fund to pay for the legal defense of Greenspan. Parker said she didn't want any Jews to contribute money. Keep that in mind when you read this latest attempt to smear Carter with the "too many Jews" notation. Dorothy Parker didn't want money from Jews because she didn't want the Germans to turn the defense fund into anti-Semitic propaganda. We may speculate that Carter wanted to broaden the base of support for the Holocaust memorial to include more than just Jews as an indication what ALL Americans, not just Jews were concerned to memorialize the Holocaust.

As for the crimes of the 17-year-old youth, remember that it has long been a principle of American law to hold those under the age of 21, and especially those under the age of 18, to a more relaxed standard of justice in view of their youth, and submit them to lesser punishments. By American standards, the appeal for mercy is not unusual.

So what is Carter's real "sin"? He criticized Israel. Let us remember the case of Kurt Waldheim. The smear of him began only after Austria stopped forcing Russian Jewish refugees to go to Israel, but let them emigrate elsewhere or remain in Austria (where many were given Austrian citizenship so they could qualify for welfare benefits). Even Simon Wiesenthal, the famous Nazi hunter, issued a statement of support for Waldheim as the smear intensified. Today it's Carter's turn to face endless smearing because he criticized Israel: remember the smear for the pro-Israel propaganda it is, and recognize that it is an attempt to intimidate Carter into silence.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3357792,00.html

Report: Carter says too many Jews on Holocaust council

Former US president also rejected Christian historian because name sounds 'too Jewish,' council's former executive director tells WND

Aaron Klein, WND

Published: 01.28.07, 13:04

Former US President Jimmy Carter once complained there were "too many Jews" on the government's Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council's former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter's term as president, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council's board by Carter's office because the scholar's name "sounded too Jewish."

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the council's chairman, author Elie Wiesel, to serve as executive director in 1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC.

Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter's office containing recommendations for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, "Too many Jews."

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter's handwriting and was initialed by Carter.

Freedman said at the time the board he constructed was about 80-percent Jewish, including many Holocaust survivors.

He said at the behest of the White House he composed another board consisting of more non-Jews. But he said he was "stunned" when Carter's office objected to a non-Jew whose name sounded Jewish.

Freedman said he could not provide the historians name to WND because he did not have the man's permission.

"I got a phone call from our liaison at the White House saying this particular historian whose name sounded Jewish would not do. The liaison said he would not even take the time to present Carter with the possibility of including the historian on the board because he knew Carter would think the name sounded too Jewish. I explained the historian is Presbyterian, but the liaison said it wouldn't matter to Carter."

Freedman said he was "outraged by this absurdity."

"If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant number of board members to be African American. If I was memorializing Native American figures I'd expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the board.

"I do not for a moment consider it inappropriate to build a Holocaust council with a significant majority of the board being Jewish," Freedman stated.

Freedman describes himself as "self-proclaimed liberal." He said he decided to speak out after the release of Carter's latest book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid," which some have accused of being biased against Israel .

Another Holocaust-related scandal

This would not be the first time Carter's messages on right hand corners of letters generated a Holocaust-related scandal.

Last week, in an interview with the Tovia Singer Show on Israel National Radio, a former US Justice Department official said he received a letter advocating "special consideration" for a confessed Nazi SS officer accused of murdering Jews in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria.

Neal Sher, who served in the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation, said that in 1987 he received a note from Carter petitioning for re-entry into the US for Martin Bartesch, who had been deported by Sher's office to Austria after it was established he served as an SS officer.

Sher said his office had "extraordinary evidence" Bartesch shot Jews. Bartesch originally immigrated to the US and lived in Chicago. He later admitted to Sher's office and the court he had voluntarily joined the SS as a teenager and served in its Death's Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp where many thousands of prisoners were gassed, shot, starved and worked to death. Bartesch also confessed to having concealed his SS service at concentration camp from US immigration officials.

Sher said the Justice Department obtained a journal kept by the SS and captured by the US Armed Forces listing Bartesch as having shot to death Max Oschorn, a French Jewish prisoner.

Bartesch's daughters, who still lived in the US, attempted in 1987 to appeal to politicians to allow the former Nazi officer to enter the country. They wrote a note in which they claimed it was "un-American" to persecute a man for crimes committed when he was only 17 and 18 years old.

Sher said he was shocked when he received the daughter's letter replete with a handwritten note from Carter on the upper right corner stating the former president wanted "special consideration" for the Bartesch family for humanitarian reasons.

The note, containing Carter's signature, was obtained this week by the NY Sun.

Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism

A previous post addressed the current smear of Jimmy Carter for his criticism of Israel. This post deals with the definition of anti-Semitism, and particularly with attempts to equate it with anti-Zionism. In recent decades, supporters of Israel have frequently attempted to smear opponents of Israel as anti-Semites. Note the points in the quote and some comments on them.

QUOTE: Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel include:

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor

The above criterion is at the heart of the attempt to twist anti-Zionism into "anti-Semitism." The issue is not the right of Jews to a homeland, but where that homeland should be. Is it fair to displace Arabs from their homes to make room for somebody else? (Mahatma Gandhi said that to do so would be a crime against humanity.) Does objecting to this make one an "anti-Semite"? (Another example is the condemnation of Israel's "security fence" by the International Court of Justice. Contrary to pro-Israel propaganda, the ICJ NEVER SAID Israel can't build a security fence, it only objected to building the fence ON PALESTINIAN LAND, yet pro-Israel propaganda attempts to twist the ICJ ruling into an "anti-Semitic" denial of Israel's right to defend its people.)

* Applying double standards by requiring Israel to behave in a manner not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

This is true, and the opposite is also true: that "excuses" should not be made for Israel when it misbehaves. If Jimmy Carter's book uses the word "Apartheid," and if some Israeli policies in the occupied territories are very much like South African policies in the Bantustans, it is applying a double standard of "special rights" to Israel if Carter is condemned when he applies criticisms in an even-handed manner.

* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis

Certainly the use of lies is to be condemned, but this must not be confused with the use of symbols associated with Israel, e.g., its flag. There is an unfortunate "gray" area here, which is that Israel claims to be a "Jewish State," and to speak for all Jews all over the world (even though 20% of Israelis are not Jews). When Israel brings "Jews" into the discussion, it is not fair to require the other side to remain silent (but the other side should take care that its comments are clearly aimed at Israel, and not at "Jews").

* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

But if Israel brings the Nazis into the conversation, as it often does, shouldn't it be appropriate for others to do the same? Why should members of the Israeli parliament be allowed to liken opponents of Israel to Nazis but nobody else should be allowed to shame Israel by reminding them of how their enemies once behaved toward them?

* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel

This is certainly true, and the proof that there is no "collective responsibility" is that many Jews speak out against Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818365.html

Sat., January 27, 2007 Shvat 8, 5767 | | Israel Time: 01:52 (EST+7) Ha'aretz

What makes an anti-Semite?

By Dina Porat

In January 2005, an international working definition of anti-Semitism was accepted for the first time since the term was coined in the late 19th century. This definition, approved in June 2005 at a conference in Cordoba, Spain, is the result of a joint effort on the part of two institutions - a center established in Vienna by the European Union to monitor racism and xenophobia, and a center set up in Warsaw by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to strengthen the institutions of democracy and human rights among its 55 member countries.

And this is the essence of the international working definition of anti-Semitism: "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." However, why was a new, international, practical definition needed, and why did non-Jewish organizations invest ongoing efforts in discussions on its formulation? After all, there has been no shortage of different definitions of anti-Semitism ever since the term was first coined 125 years ago in Germany and they can be found in encyclopedia and lexica, reflecting both temporal and geographic circumstances.

A long list of personalities and institutions sought to define the anti-Semite and the Jew he so hates: Jean-Paul Sartre, who sarcastically defined an anti-Semite, blaming the Jews for every tragedy, as a man who fears not Jews, but himself and the need to accept his responsibility; Encyclopedia Britannica, which as early as 1966 defined opposition to Zionism as anti-Semitism, but whose dictionary still features to "Jew Down" as a verb meaning to insist on haggling and deception; the Jewish Encyclopedia, published in the United States about one hundred years ago, includes a description of Jews as being perceived by others as greedy people, who are tribal in nature, devoid of tact and patriotism, and evade hard work; or the definition of Prof. Jacob Toury, of Tel Aviv University, who in the 1970s described anti-Semitism as a manipulation of sentiments directed against an unrealistic figure for political purposes.

Advertisement

However, our focus here is not on the definitions of learned people, but on international bodies and their perception of anti-Semitism as a problem that needs fixing. It is hard to believe, but even the United Nations, for example, did not define anti-Semitism or racism after World War II; no international organization mentioned these two basic terms in the basic conventions that were formulated and signed after that war, even though racism and anti-Semitism were among the primary causes of its outbreak.

Various international conventions mention tolerance and minority rights in very general terms, indicating a desire to forget the past and not to blame a specific person or regime. When the Cold War began, U.S. efforts were directed at the Soviet Union and in this undertaking, even the contribution of former Nazis was welcomed. Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who headed the group that in the late 1940s formulated the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, several years later wrote the preface to the first edition of "The Diary of Anne Frank" in English. In her introduction, she makes no mention at all of the fact that Anne was Jewish or that she was forced to hide from German persecutions.

For almost 50 years, from the end of the Second World War until the early 1990s, anti-Semitism is not mentioned and is certainly not defined in the documents, conventions or summaries of European and international conferences. Since 1990, with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the reunification of Germany and the waves of immigrants who started flooding the industrialized countries, new questions regarding definition and legislation in all matters relating to foreign labor, political asylum seekers, immigrants, their offspring and their rights made it onto the agenda.

At the same time, expressions of anti-Semitism were clearly voiced by the extreme right, which blamed the Jews for bringing in foreigners and profiting from their labor; and by the left, which accused the Jews of being behind the spread of globalization because of their being owners of giant corporations and international banks; and by the immigrants, primarily Muslims, who were not absorbed by their host countries and occasionally vented their frustration on the veteran Jewish communities.

Therefore, the 1990s were filled with conferences and initiatives whose goal was to strengthen human rights and to promote the fight against racism. At a huge conference (numbering 5,000 participants) organized by the UN in Vienna in 1993, a decision in principle was adopted and approved several months later, stating that anti-Semitism should be considered as a form of racism. This resolution was described as "historic" and considered a great accomplishment by UN institutions, as if this fact had not been obvious. In the same manner, xenophobia, fear of foreigners, Negrophobia (fear of Blacks) and Islamophobia (fear of Muslims) were also defined as racism. Yet racism and anti-Semitism itself were not defined at that conference.

Even the August 2001 Durban conference in South Africa, which the UN's bodies had prepared for more than two years and which was supposed to have been the world conference with a capital "W" against racism, strayed from its set agenda and turned into a forum for anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism. The conference did not resolve a single one of the many problems and tensions experienced by immigrants. Violent anti-Semitism continued to increase, at first parallel to the second intifada but later, especially in Western Europe, also without any connection to the Middle East. The definition approved some two years ago indeed reflects the need to ease tensions and reach a form of coexistence for the European host society, the immigrants and the Jewish communities. It tries to be a clear and practical tool that is not academic or theoretical, does not discuss the motives of anti-Semites, and does not try to portray the traits and images of a Jew or the gap between these and reality.

The definition presents a list of acts and statements that are anti-Semitic because they are directed against Jews, harm them, or incite against them, and therefore their perpetrators can be tried and punished. Laws prohibiting anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial already exist in a dozen countries and if anti-Semitism is a form of racism, it is also possible to punish perpetrators under laws prohibiting racism.

One may argue with the approach behind the definition, which disconnects the motive from the action and focuses solely on the action and the statement. Even the boundary between freedom of speech and incitement needs to be refined and it will be difficult to find or enact a single, uniform law that will address all components. However, this does mark a courageous step and an effort to find ways to deal with acts of anti-Semitism. Whether the definition will truly be able to serve as a solid foundation that remains relevant in the face of an intensification of anti-Semitism, and as the elements included in it become the bon ton, only time will tell.

Prof. Dina Porat is the head of Tel Aviv University's School of Jewish Studies.

The working definition of anti-Semitism

The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with anti-Semitism. The practical definition of the phenomenon: "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collective.

Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, in visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or about the power of Jews as a collective - including, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a global Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions

* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoings committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews

* Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters during World War II (Holocaust denial)

* Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust

* Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel include:

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor

* Applying double standards by requiring Israel to behave in a manner not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis

* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property - such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries - are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Anti-Semitic discrimination means denying Jews the opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

US Enlist Israel in Iran Fight

Given Iran's constant verbal attacks on Israel, nobody can fault its cooperation with the US in this matter, but it does give unfortunate propaganda to Iran, which can now present the forces arrayed against it as allied with the "Zionist entity," as it refers to Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818600.html

Sun., January 28, 2007 Shvat 9, 5767 | | Israel Time: 18:47 (EST+7) Ha'aretz

Last update - 16:32 28/01/2007

Israel to assist U.S. in efforts to boycott Iranian bank ventures

By Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondents

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will appoint a special coordinator responsible for monitoring the flow of funds from Iran to elements hostile to Israel. The coordinator will assist the United States in its efforts to boycott Iranian banking operations.

An Israeli delegation headed by Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and participating in the strategic dialogue forum with the United States, informed U.S. officials of the decision at a meeting in Tel Aviv last week.

During the meeting, the U.S. delegation presented its plan to isolate Iranian funds, in order to make it difficult for Tehran to fund its nuclear program and support militant groups around the world. The project is headed by Stuart Levey, under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the U.S. Treasury, who is also coordinating efforts with European and banking authorities. Levey visited Israel last year.

According to an Israeli official, the Israeli coordinator will monitor the transfer of funds to Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups, both in Israel and the territories. "Enormous sums are being transferred and an organization is necessary to counter this," the source said.

The coordinator will function as part of the unit to prevent the funding of terrorism, which was established early during the intifada and has focused on locating and blocking means of funding Palestinian terrorism.

The American government has asked for help from Israeli sources to comprehend the internal developments in Iran and elements that affect the stability of the regime.

The intelligence community in the U.S. has hired Farsi speakers and experts on Iran, but U.S. officials believe that Israeli intelligence has more experience with the subject and has great advantages in this field.

Last week's meeting signaled a tightening of Israel-U.S. cooperation in the struggle against Iran, aimed at countering Tehran's nuclear program and preventing its efforts to achieve hegemony in the region.

US, Israel Promoting Civil War in Palestine

Like it or not, Hamas gained the government of Palestine in a very fair and democratic election a year ago. But since Hamas won't recognize Israel, the Bush administration wants to overthrow the legitimate Palestinian government (so much for Bush's "Arab democracy": it stands exposed as a total fraud, and the Arabs are taking note).

Israel (at least Ariel Sharon) has always wanted the Palestinians to fight and weaken each other. The Neocons in the Bush administration agree, but they don't seem to give consideration to the wider implications of their conniving. Many are saying there's already civil war in Iraq (and worse, a religious war between Sunni Moslems and Shi'ites). Lebanon is on the brink of civil war -- and this time also religious war between Sunnis and Shi'ites. There was fighting this weekend between Shi'ites and Sunnis in Yemen. Yet the United States is willing to ignite another civil war in Palestine. Is this wise? (The King of Jordan perhaps is treading the most dangerous course: if he sends in the militia mentioned in the story, he'll draw on himself the same sort of wrath that led to the assassination of his great grandfather, Abdullah I, who conspired with Israel to deny the Palestinians their rights to a state under the 1947 UN partition plan.)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818672.html

Sun., January 28, 2007 Shvat 9, 5767 | | Israel Time: 22:31 (EST+7) Ha'aretz

Last update - 19:14 28/01/2007

PA source: Abbas security aides amassing arms to bolster forces

By Reuters

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's security advisers have been amassing weapons in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to build up a wider range of forces than just the presidential guard, Palestinian security sources said.

The sources said several thousand assault rifles and other weapons have been set aside in storehouses for members of Preventive Security and other services that are dominated by Abbas's Fatah faction and are locked in an increasingly violent power struggle with the ruling Hamas movement.

Previous arms shipments were earmarked solely for Abbas's presidential guard with U.S. and Israeli backing. Up to $170 million, including U.S. funds and Palestinian tax revenues released by Israel, will provide training, equipment and other support to the guard, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

Palestinian sources did not disclose the source of the weapons or when they arrived in the Palestinian territories.

The Palestinian security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abbas has yet to authorize distribution of the assault rifles in storage to the other security forces.

But Hamas officials say forces loyal to Abbas appeared to be better equipped during clashes over the weekend across the Gaza Strip, which killed at least 24 people. In most previous flare-ups, Fatah suffered heavier losses than Hamas.

Violence between the factions has increased sharply in the last month since unity government talks broke down and Abbas called for new elections.

Islamist Hamas beat secular Fatah in parliamentary elections a year ago. Hamas says holding another vote would amount to a coup.

The senior Palestinian security sources said between 3,900 and 4,900 Kalashnikovs and M-16 rifles and other weapons were being stored in the West Bank city of Jericho and in Gaza for Preventive Security as well as Abbas's National Security and General Intelligence services.

Several previous shipments of guns, ammunition and other lethal equipment were delivered to Abbas's presidential guard from U.S. allies Egypt and Jordan with Israeli permission.

A senior Israeli official said Israel was unaware of any weapons going to forces beyond the presidential guard.

Of the $100 million in Palestinian tax revenues that Israel transferred to Abbas's office earlier this month, $85 million will go towards a U.S.-led program to bolster the guard, said Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Washington plans to use $86 million of its own money in coming months to provide the presidential guard with training and non-lethal equipment, officials said.

Though its leaders are seen as loyal to Fatah, Preventive Security is not eligible for direct U.S. assistance because it technically falls under the jurisdiction of the Hamas-led Interior Ministry.

Western officials said Abbas's military build-up was meant to counter strides by Hamas in smuggling more powerful weapons into Gaza for its fast-growing "Executive Force" and armed wing, known as the Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

The West Bank is dominated by Fatah but the group fears Hamas is secretly training forces there. Of the new weapons for Abbas's wider forces, 3,000 have been earmarked for the occupied West Bank, Palestinian security sources said.

Some analysts have warned that fighting between Hamas and Fatah could turn into a proxy war, with the United States supporting Abbas and Iran backing Hamas.

But David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said the security aid was "defensive" and that the goal was to avoid a situation in which "Hamas believes it can swallow or even intimidate non-Hamas forces and take over Gaza."

Western diplomats say Hamas appeared to have a military edge in any prolonged fight with Fatah for control of Gaza.

First deployed by the Hamas-led government in the narrow coastal strip in May, Hamas says its "Executive Force" has grown from an estimated 3,000 members to nearly 6,000.

With U.S. support in the coming months, Abbas's presidential guard is expected to expand from 4,000 to 4,700 men. Palestinian officials say the force could eventually grow to 10,000 members.

Preventive Security and Abbas's General Intelligence service have about 6,000 members each. The National Security forces have up to 40,000 members in total.

The United States and Israel have also backed a proposal by Abbas to let about 1,000 members of the so-called Badr Brigade, a Fatah-dominated force based in Jordan, into the Palestinian territories, though no date has been set.

Israel Vetoes Palestinian Compromise

While the Europeans have looked favorably toward a unity Palestinian government of the democratically elected Hamas movement and President Abbas's Fatah faction, the US and Israel absolutely refuse to have anything to do with it. Abbas and Hamas have been trying hard to reach an agreement that would satisfy the Europeans so they resume financial aid, but it looks as if Israel has laid down the law: any compromise with Hamas, and there will be no peace talks with Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818069.html

Fri., January 26, 2007 Shvat 7, 5767 | | Israel Time: 19:41 (EST+7) Ha'aretz

Last update - 07:30 26/01/2007

Livni warns Abbas against striking deal with Hamas

By Ora Coren, Haaretz Correspondent

DAVOS, Switzerland - Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas Thursday that should he reach a compromise with Hamas, that would send the diplomatic process into a deep freeze.

"Compromising with extremists will not promote anything, but it can lead to further stagnation," Livni told Abbas during a session of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Abbas, though not mentioning Hamas by name, responded by saying that should the Islamic organization refuse to honor agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization or to accept proposals that have the support of the Arab world - an apparent reference to the Arab League's Beirut declaration of 2002 - he will call new elections.

Any Palestinian government, he said, must accept previously signed agreements and ease the suffering of the Palestinian population. Thus if the various Palestinian factions cannot agree on such a platform, he will call new elections and let the Palestinian people choose their leadership and their platform.

Both Livni and Abbas stressed a desire for a two-state solution, but disagreements were evident on the subjects of borders and the Palestinian refugees.

Livni said that under any deal, the refugees should be resettled in the Palestinian state. This state, she explained, will be the national homeland of all Palestinians, including the refugees, and it is therefore the only appropriate solution for resettling them.

Regarding borders, Livni said this must be a subject for negotiations, and that while she did not want to outline her ideas now, she felt obligated to respond to Abbas' statement that a Palestinian state must be established "in the 1967 borders."

In 1967, she said, there was no Palestinian state, or any connection between Gaza and the West Bank; something new is being created. And while a Palestinian state is also an Israeli interest, she added, the borders must be the result of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Any Palestinian state must also recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce terror, Livni said.

Abbas, in contrast, insisted on the pre-1967 lines and a "just solution" to the refugee problem based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194. That resolution states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes ... should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date."

Abbas added that a comprehensive solution is needed, rather than another partial or interim solution, and he urged Israel to begin final-status talks now.

Vice Premier Shimon Peres, who also addressed the gathering, announced a trilateral Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian agreement to develop a joint economic zone in a 500-square-kilometer region of their mutual border, and urged all those attending the WEF to invest there.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Haaretz that Israel and the Palestinians have also agreed to establish a joint, $25 million venture capital fund that will invest in technology projects in Israel and the PA.

In a brief reference to Israel's domestic woes, Livni also said in her speech she hopes Peres will be the country's next president - a remark that drew a lengthy round of applause

Israel Still Occupying Lebanon

Despite claims that Israel has pulled out of Lebanon since international peace keepers arrived, this story reveals that the Israeli army still occupies parts of Lebanon. Apparently Israel built a "security fence" on Lebanese territory, just as it has built a "security fence" on Palestinian territory. (The International Court of Justice issued a non-binding ruling that the fence in Palestine violates international law because it has been built on Palestinian territory. Pro-Israel propaganda, as could be expected, has claimed that the court doesn't want Israel to keep out terrorists, but the truth is that the court's only objection to the fence was that it's on Palestinian instead of Israeli territory -- it's as if your neighbors built a fence to keep your dog out of their yard, but built fence on your lot instead of their own.)

QUOTE: Faucker said the bunkers were located some 300 meters (984 feet) north of the border in an area that remains under the IDF's control, which, according to him, is indicative of Hizbullah's close proximity to Israel.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3357257,00.html

IDF detonates 2 Hizbullah bunkers

Soldiers operating along northern border uncover bunkers apparently used by Lebanese terrorists to monitor IDF activity prior to war; battalion commander says there may be more Hizbullah outposts in area

Hanan Greenberg

Published: 01.26.07, 12:23

Israel Defense Forces detonated two Hizbullah bunkers along Israel's border with Lebanon Friday Morning.

The bunkers, which were uncovered on the Israeli side of the security fence, were apparently used by the Lebanese terror group to monitor soldiers operating in the area, this according to Lieutenant Colonel Eran Faucker, commander of the Engineering Corps' 603rd Battalion.

Faucker said the bunkers were located some 300 meters (984 feet) north of the border in an area that remains under the IDF's control, which, according to him, is indicative of Hizbullah's close proximity to Israel.

The bunkers contained food and digging tools used by Hizbullah terrorists before the war; Faucker said there may be additional Hizbullah outposts in the area.

A number of weeks ago IDF soldiers uncovered weapons and additional military equipment that the army believes belong to the Hizbullah cell that kidnapped Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser six months ago.

Another Israeli Lie Exposed

QUESTION: why do Condoleezza Rice and George Bush allow Israel to lie to them and get away with it?

Condoleezza Rice thought she had extracted a promise from Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to ease the life of Palestinians by removing barriers to movement within the West Bank. The object was to boost support for "friendly" Palestinian President Abu Quisling Abbas by giving him results to show to the Palestinians that they should support him instead of Hamas. Olmert agreed, among other things, to remove 44 barriers that closed off roads into various Palestinian villages. As this story shows, it was all a fraud and a lie.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/816063.html

Mon., January 22, 2007 Shvat 3, 5767 | | Israel Time: 02:14 (EST+7) Ha'aretz

IDF source admits: 44 'removed' barriers didn't exist

By Avi Issacharoff

The Israel Defense Forces admitted yesterday that the 44 dirt obstacles it said had been removed from around West Bank villages did not actually exist.

Last Tuesday, the IDF announced that it had removed 44 dirt obstacles that blocked access roads to West Bank villages, to fulfill promises made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas during their meeting a month ago. Olmert had pledged measures to ease the lives of Palestinian civilians.

However, a military source admitted yesterday that these obstacles "had either been removed before the political level decided on the alleviations or had been bypassed by Palestinians earlier, and a decision had been made not to rebuild them."

This statement confirms a claim made recently by United Nations organizations operating in the territories: that most of these barriers were not removed, because they had not existed for months.

In response, the IDF Spokesman's Office said: "The IDF recently removed 44 barriers in an effort to ease the movement of the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria. These actions are being carried out in line with assessments of the situation."

The IDF has erected close to 400 such dirt obstacles in recent years.

Please excuse any email on this. It is a "placeholder" attempting to correct a problem with the website hosting this blog (which is not posting recent entries in their correct order).