The rhetoric of "peace"
Ziyaad Lunat, The Electronic Intifada, 15 April 2009

Benjamin Netanyahu's promise of "economic peace" means the beginning of a new stage of colonization. (Moti Milrod/MaanImages)

The Israelis have offered the Palestinians many types of "peace." Their first attempt to reach out to the Palestinians was in 1948 with an offer of a "racist peace." Ethnic cleansing was the basis of a "racist peace" where Zionist terrorists drove out two thirds of the Palestinian population from their homes. Its logic was that expulsion would end strife between Zionists and Palestinians (by eliminating one side) enabling the Zionists to enjoy peace in an ethnic Jewish haven. The Palestinians, stubborn as they were, refused a racist Zionist state as the basis for "peace."

Israel relentlessly extended its hand to the Palestinians offering them a "military peace" instead. Deterrence was the basis of a "military peace" where a Zionist state armed to the teeth would instill fear in the hearts of the Palestinians. Its logic was that through military deterrence the Palestinians would accept their condition of displacement. Soon after their expulsion in 1948, Palestinian refugees continuously attempted to return to their properties. The Zionists initiated a campaign of reprisals to deny their right to return. Hundreds were killed in this way, massacres included Qibya in 1953, Lebanon in 1982, Jenin in 2002 and Gaza in 2009. Palestinians however rejected Zionist military domination as the basis for "peace."

While the above two peace offers were crude, Israel devised an "apartheid peace" as a more elaborate proposal to the Palestinians, hoping they would finally reciprocate. Physical separation between Jews and Arab Palestinians was the basis for an "apartheid peace." Its logic was that the Palestinians would be given limited autonomy to manage their internal affairs and build their own institutions but their demands would have to eventually fall short of full sovereignty. Some Palestinians were co-opted in signing the Oslo accords in 1993, accepting apartheid as the basis for "peace."

Click here to read more.

A Match Made in Tel Aviv
Will Netanyahu and the neocons live happily ever after?

By Leon Hadar
April 07, 2009 "The American Conservative" -- -Imagine that after Boris Yeltsin was elected president of a free post-Communist Russia in 1991, the Poles, residents of a former province of the Soviet empire, elected former Communist boss Edward Gierek as their new head of state. Then suppose that, upon entering office, he called on Moscow to forget about rapprochement with the West and prepare for military confrontation.
Improbable as it seems, some version of this scenario is playing out here. After their humiliating defeat in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, the vanquished neoconservative legions won a major political victory in one of the provinces of the American empire when the parliamentary election in Israel brought to power a veteran neocon activist. He is calling on Washington to forget about changing U.S. policy in the Middle East and prepare for a military confrontation with Iran.
Initially, the neoconservatives envisioned a grander strategy. In November 2008, Americans would elect Norman Podhoretz’s favorite American politician, Rudy Giuliani, as their new president, followed by a vote in Israel in which Norman Podhoretz’s favorite Israeli politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, would be chosen as the Jewish state’s new prime minister.
It would have been like Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire teaming in “Flying Down to Tehran” and dancing cheek to cheek in “Neocon Time.” Not unlike FDR and Churchill uniting their nations in the struggle against Fascism during World War II, Rudy and Bibi would bring their countries together to fight Islamofascism. How about a special commemorative issue of Commentary to celebrate the day the two tied the knot at the White House?

Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22366.htm to read more.

It's a Lieberman Government
By Uri Avnery – Israel

April 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it's a Lieberman government.

The day started with a celebration at the President’s office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and 8 deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photo. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspired speech, which included the worn-out clichés that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.

Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the foreign Office, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new Foreign Minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.

With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.

Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six-day war.

Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.

With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new Prime Minister as nothing but soap bubbles.

Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22353.htm to read more.

Avigdor and Netanyahu: an Evil Marriage
By Mohamed El Mokhtar Sidi Haiba



Taking office as Israel's new leader Tuesday, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to supposedly seek 'full peace' with the Arab and Muslim world while deliberately avoiding to even mention the only word that really matters here. The word that matters the most to the Arab and Muslim world .The word without which Israel will never, ever, live in peace. The word whose continuous negations will ultimately be dearly costly to Israel's very existence: “Palestinian state."
"Under the permanent status agreement, the Palestinians will have all the authority to rule themselves, “Netanyahu said in comments echoing an old mantra of negationism and deep-seated racism at the core of the Likud political philosophy: There is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinian people.
Netanyahu's hysterical obsession to carry on his father’s racist fascisto-zionist phantasms could put him at odds with his indispensable benefactor and much of the rest of the world. His refusal to embrace the idea of Palestinian statehood and decision to appoint ultranationalist politician Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister don’t bode well for a hopeful time for peace in the Middle-East or the world for that matter.
From the outset, he announced the true nature of his colors when he painted a grim picture of the future in the region by putting the onus exclusively on radical Islam and Iran which he describes in his acceptance speech as “the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.” A danger therefore that needs to be dealt with, swiftly and militarily, before it is too late for a nuclear weapon is a critical threshold.
That will be the focal point of his agenda. Not peace. In other words a settlement with the Palestinians based on the two-state solution which, not so long ago, he compared to a danger akin to the Nazis will be the last preoccupation of Bibi.
But Netanyahu’s "basic" extremism is somewhat overshadowed these days by the Nazi-like fascism of his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberma, the leader of the ultranationalist party, Yisrael Beiteinu.
The political ascension of this hawkish racist, ex-nightclub bouncer from Russia and former member of the party Kach who espoused overtly the idea of forced mass expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel and has even recently suggested, as final solution, that Gaza be nuked, constitutes an eloquent expression of the moral decay and suicidal irrationalism infecting the Israeli society at large. It is a wake-up call, a warning sign. It is an invitation for reflection on the reality of Israel and the pervasive nature of Zionism. Better, a clear indication of the direction the country is hurriedly taking. A trend so visible in the upwardly shift toward the right of Israel entire political spectrum.

Click here: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14977 to read more.

Israel accused of indiscriminate phosphorus use in Gaza
Human Rights Watch report claims Israel committed war crimes in its use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 16.00 GMT

Israel's military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately in its three-week war, killing and injuring civilians and committing war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed "a pattern or policy of conduct".
It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a "deliberate or reckless" way. The report says:
• Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.
• It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.
• In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.

"In Gaza, the Israeli military didn't just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops," said Fred Abrahams, a senior Human Rights Watch researcher. "It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren't in the area and safe smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died." He said senior commanders should be held to account.
Human Rights Watch called on the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to launch an international commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of violations of international law in the Gaza war by the Israeli military and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls Gaza.

Click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza to read more.

Click here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2009/mar/26/gaza-white-phosphorus-human-rights to hear audio.

AlJazeera report from January 11 2009 on Israel's use of White Phosphorus

“Two States”
Sanctimonious Hypocrisy
By Uri Avnery

Binyamin Netanyahu has a similar vision, but differently worded: the Arabs will “govern themselves”. They will govern their towns and villages, but not the territory, neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip. They will have no army, of course, and no control of the airspace over their heads, neither will they have any physical contact with neighboring countries. Menachem Begin used to call this “autonomy”.But there will be “economic peace”. The Palestinian economy will “flourish”. Even Hillary Clinton ridiculed this idea publicly before meeting with Netanyahu.Tzipi Livni wants “Two Nation-States”. Yes’ Ma’m. When? Well… First of all there have to be negotiations, unlimited in time. They did not come to fruition during the years she has been conducting them, nor have they got anywhere at all. Ehud Olmert speaks about the “Political Process” – why did he not bring it to a successful conclusion during the years of his stewardship? How long must the “Process” go on? Five years? Fifty? Five hundred?So Hillary speaks about “Two States”. Speaks with great vigor. Is ready to speak about it with any Israeli government that will be set up, even if inspired by the ideas of Meir Kahane. The main thing is that they talk with Mahmoud Abbas, and that Abbas in the meantime receives money, a lot of money.

Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22175.htm to read more.