Excerpts from a 92nd St Y “debate” between Alan Dershowitz and Jeremy Ben-Ami. Unfortunately, try as they might, they seem to pretty much agree about everything. From what is presented in this vid, this was not much of a debate.

The Left, it seems, is getting quite a hangover from their Il Duce, President Obama. What can one howl to the Left? “We told you so?” But voting for those free goodies, and punishing high income producers, was worth getting a lot more folk killed in Afghanistan to them, and now they are wringing their hands in anguish, but still saying that they voted right, even though they voted for death and warmongering. If those people had voted for Ron Paul or Bob Barr, the troops would all be home by now, and the burden could have fallen on the wealthy Saudis and Gulf Arabs or whomever in the region felt threatened by the religionous Fascists of the Taliban. The Taliban are Miscreants, but America or a NATO coalition can never defeat them on the ground, without incurring massive civilian casualties and refugee misery that no American or Englishman would tolerate in their “Homelands”, especially when imposed by countries half-way around the world. Thanks Leftists for getting a whole bunch of women and children butchered; their blood is on your hands. Those of us who voted for Ron Paul and later Bob Barr would have saved many lives if we had succeeded. Those who voted for Obama have caused the deaths of many innocent civilians, and they must bear the weight of their guilt in their minds forevermore. Those who voted for McCain would probably have caused the same misery; perhaps even worse.

And the manifestations of  that hangover of the Left came clearly in two distinct missives, one paper, one shortwave.

Silverwolf happened to peruse an issue of the latest newsletter from Rural Organizing Project, a “progressive” Oregon non-profit which espouses the usual laundry list of demands: tax the rich and give free everything to everybody in the name of “Human Dignity”. The Human Rights violations in robbing someone through the tax system of what they have produced to give to those who have made no effort to produce never seems to occur to these folks, and in a sense what they want is the Power to be able to do this, more than the actual tax revenue. If you can tax someone 40 or 50%, well, then one day in an “emergency” you can tax them 90%, as they did in Britain and Truman’s America, or impose Eugene McCarthy’s idea for a 100% confiscation of one’s Estate upon death. Now that’s an idea that will really appeal to the followers of Robespierre: a financial guillotine for the talented people of the country so that the others can drink the lifeblood of the labour with which they filled up their days for forty or sixty years. The years of drudgery sustained by their victims are soon forgotten by the looters.

Anyway, the writer of the newsletter lamented the high hopes they’d had for Obama (you mean all those flipflops like saying he’d limit himself to public funding during the campaign if McCain would, and then backing out when it was more profitable for him to do so, his overthrow of Wisechief Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation between Church and State” by expanding Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” garbage, his advocacy of mandatory Volunteering, which is involuntary servitude and paves the wave for another Draft in the Hitler-LBJ tradition, his calls for prolonged detention, overthrowing 700 years of Habeas Corpus, his kowtowing to some of the worlds leading Human Rights Violators, like the heads of Saudi Arabia and Totalitarian China, his vowing to end secret CIA prisons, and then permitting them in Afghanistan because they are under the Army Special Forces Division — all these contradictions didn’t make you skeptical? Can’t you tell a lying hypocrite when you see a lying hypocrite?) They’d been suckered by the rhetoric of peace and change — again. Seems to Silverwolf there is something seriously lacking in the political perceptions of these “progressives” who will regress us right back to the economic chaos of the Weimar Republic, and the inflation that made Hitler possible.

And no sign on the Left of a consciousness about how the Obama monetary policy, under Cardinal Timothy Geithner of the First Keynesian Church of Washington, causes inflation, leads to economic chaos, and just makes it more impossible for the poor to survive. Leftist policies cause inflation and inflation kills poor people — a lesson the Left has never learnt, or rather, doesn’t want to acknowledge because it would destroy their “raison d’etre”, their reason to be, and their reason to be is to wage economic warfare on Capitalists. That’s why they’d rather vote in a war under Obama than a Peace under Ron Paul.

Then came a missive by shortwave from the Stralasian “Land Down Under”. The well-known Radio Stralasian interviewer and semi-Leftist, Phillip Adams, (though he is Capitalist enough to own private property and raise cows, belching methane while he laments climate change and the opposition to carbon emissions schemes in Stralasia — also a fanatic when it comes to forcing every to get vaccinated, a most unLibertarian posture) interviewed Rabbi Michael Lerner, the (self-defined) Left-Progressive who edits Tikkun magazine. Now Lerner is one of those in the Jewish Community who is highly critical of Israel’s policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians, and who had high hopes for Obama. (Lerner’s debate with Alan Dershowitz, available on youtube,in which Dersh rips him to pieces in front of Paula Zahn, will give you a good appreciation of his views.) His disappointment in the President, expressed in the Adams interview, was palpable, and similar in tone to the R.O.P. Newsletter writer. Another Left-”Progressive” who voted in the Warmonger. More American lives lost, more Afghani lives lost, more U.S. debt piled on debt.

The Pathetic Left has no comprehension of the principles of true economics, and now the problems that Socialism and its ally, Keynesian Economics, bring eventually to every economy are hitting the people who think like the folks at R.O.P. And since they are economic illiterates and ignore the self-evident Truths of the Austrian School of Economics, they and their policies can never govern efficiently, but their rule only leads to more chaos and misery for the People of America.

And the Left has a vast blindspot where they cannot see that the values that they are trying to force upon everyone in the America Community are religious values, whose proper place is in the realm of the Church, and not the State or the Government. The Left has either forgotten or ignores the fact that the Jeffersonian Constitution is a Libertarian Document, perhaps THE Libertarian Document,  designed to protect the Individual from the arbitrary power of Government, the exact power that the Left wishes to impose, and needs to impose, to extract wealth from the producing class; but that Jeffersonian Constitution makes no Collectivist attempt to impose essentially Religious Values on the populace at large. These are in the realm of the Church, and there is nothing stopping these people from starting a church or civic group to implement their perceived religious values. Or rather, the only thing stopping them is the need to acquire private property and maintain their right to it — the exact thing they want to outlaw for the Capitalist-Libertarian.

Well, Silverwolf’s advice to the Left is: Get used to economic chaos and Warfare for the next three years, because that’s how long Obama’s term as President will last. Thanks for you gift to America.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Joseph Comeaux Jr., 49...escaped Texas child molester

A convicted sexual predator escaped from custody Monday morning in the Baytown area after holding two transport officers hostage, officials with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said.

The AP is reporting that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has confirmed officials are searching for Arcade Joseph Comeaux Jr., 49. The TDCJ says he took two transport officers hostage Monday morning before fleeing the vehicle on foot in the Baytown area.

A statement released by the TDCJ says Arcade Joseph Comeaux Jr., 49, was being transported from the Estelle Unit in Huntsville to the Stiles Unit in Beaumont when he brandished a firearm and directed the officers to stop the vehicle. He took the officers’ weapons and apparently handcuffed them together in the back of the transport vehicle before fleeing.

The inmate, Arcade Joseph Comeaux Jr., 49, should be considered armed and dangerous.

Comeaux last was seen wearing the uniform and black boots. He was described as black, 6 feet tall, and weighing 200 pounds.

The escape happened near the intersection of Lee Drive, Texas Avenue and Market Street, near Lee College. A command post has been set up nearby to coordinate a massive search.

Comeaux is serving a life sentence for indecency with a child in Harris County, aggravated sexual assault in Brazos County and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Fort Bend County.

The officers were located by law enforcement officers at approximately 10 a.m. and were unharmed.

Anyone with information on his whereabouts is urged to call 911 immediately.

Lets find this serial child molester, and put him back behind bars before he sodomizes another innocent victim.

Follow story on these trusted news sites…

http://www.kbmt12.com/news/local/78138627.html

http://www.foxcharlotte.com/dpp/news/national/Armed_and_Dangerous_Texas_Inmate_on_The_Loose_87046402

The following was prompted by my reading this.

There are many laws that scientists have discovered over the past few centuries: Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, the four laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, and so on.  These laws describe forces that exist completely independently of humans; they are true whether or not we humans understand them, or whether we even think about them at all.  This kind of law is referred to as natural law.

In contrast to this natural type of law, Alan Dershowitz says in Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights:

It is we who create morality, for better or worse, because there is no morality “out there” waiting to be discovered or handed down from some mountaintop.  It is because I am a skeptic that I am a moralist.  It is because there is no morality beyond human invention that we must devote so much energy to the task of building morality, law, and rights.  We cannot endure without morality, law, and rights, yet they do not exist unless we bring them into existence. 

I am not so sure about that.  Scientists have had to devote a lot of energy to making their discoveries, and that certainly isn’t any indication that without humans, gravity or electromagnetic forces would cease to exist.

As I mentioned in “Is Religion Good or Bad?“, there are many people at the other end of the spectrum from Dershowitz.  These are people who believe that all morality comes from God and our only means for knowing what is moral is divine revelation.  It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I fall in the middle. 

I think it’s clear to most people that science can be used either morally (think polio vaccine) or immorally (think chemical weapons).  But, religion can likewise be used either morally (think housing the homeless) or immorally (think Inquisition, World Trade Center attacks). 

Now, in order for us to even be able to speak of a religion (or a government, or any other system that humans use to impose morality) being used immorally, there must be some objective standard, outside of these things, to compare them to.  In other words, I think there must be a natural law of morality – a standard by which we can judge whether a religion, a legal system, or any other human construct is moral.  There are people in all religions, or no religion at all - and people who believe in God, or who believe there is no God - who are moral, and others in each one of those categories who are immoral.  It is not their religion or belief which determines whether they are moral; it is this universal, natural law of morality, to which anything else must be compared to determine whether it is moral or immoral. 

The problem is, discovery of these natural moral laws cannot be reliably obtained from divine revelation.  It happens too sporadically and to too few people.  Even after receiving divine revelations, people have been killing each other for thousands of years over what any given revelation actually means, so this method has not resulted in a sufficient understanding of the natural laws of morality.   

This is what we ought to be pursuing: rational discovery of what the natural laws of morality are, using observations the way science does. Here is where I agree with Dershowitz. His method for establishing what rights ought to be protected by law – in other words, determining morality - seems very promising.  As Dershowitz shows in his book, a methodical observation of the different societies throughout history makes clear the consequences of failing to define and enforce various rights.  Knowing in which cases the lack of a given right has led to harm, tells us which rights must be included in a moral, just society. 

Another avenue to discovery may be comparative religion.  Any one religion by itself does not lead to complete discovery of the natural laws of morality, because we must be able to distinguish moral religion from immoral religion, and no religion is going to declare any part of itself immoral.  As I alluded to in Bonding, Bridging and Religious Appreciation, and as The Charter for Compassion is based on, however, real morality can be found in what all the religions have in common.  The things religions differ on, in general, do not concern how we treat other people.  Where other people are concerned, religions all agree: do not murder, do not steal, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc.  Studying all the religions and compiling that which they all have in common would produce at least a bare minimum set of natural moral requirements.  It would also be based in actual human experience, which I think gives it an advantage over ethical philosophy.  Of course, if people actually followed even just as much of what we already know to be universally moral, the world would be incredibly more peaceful, but that’s a post for a different day.  The point here is, the discovery of natural laws of morality needs to be observation-based, just as discoveries of natural laws of science are. 

Just to be clear: throughout this post I have argued only for the existence of a natural law of morality, and a practical means for furthering our understanding of what it is.  I have not been speaking about it in terms of its having some ultimate source, such as God, at all.  The source of moral laws is no more or no less divine (however you want to look at it) than the source of scientific laws, but what that source is (or even whether there is a source at all) is really of far less importance, in my opinion, than figuring out what the laws are, and then living by them.  This is what will bring about real peace. 

Jacob Bronowski said, “Man masters nature not by force but by understanding.”  Our understanding of science has allowed us to do amazing things like master gravity by building airplanes.  Understanding the natural laws of morality will allow us to do amazing things like achieve world peace, by mastering human nature through understanding rather than force.

Among the articles in this month’s edition of Crescent International are Annual ritual at the UN, The crumbling world order, Iran’s real crime: refusing to venerate the West’s holy cows, The creeping Vietnamization of Afghanistan, and Cageprisoners: breaking cages of hate.

In the editorial of Australia/Israel Review this month, there is the usual mind-boggling nonsense. Take, for example, this comment on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza: “…Israel and its moral military should be congratulated by the international community for keeping civilian casualties so low in extremely difficult circumstances, against an enemy that exploits Israel’s commitment to civilian life and international law.”

In the magazine’s Scribblings section, Tzvi Fleischer reports American law professor Alan Dershowitz as saying the Goldstone Report on Cast Lead “makes a peace deal entailing an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank considerably more difficult” – as if Israel would, under any circumstances, even consider making such a withdrawal. (The words in quotation marks are Fleischer’s, not Dershowitz’s.)

As a former atheist, I listened to Elder Hales talk entitled “Seeking to Know God, Our Heavenly Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ,” with much interest. As much as I believe that Elder Hales is correct in suggesting that there is a light of Christ within us all, I don’t think that most of his talk is effective as a strategy to get those that are cynical about faith to reflect and to consider the gospel. I offer this analysis with hope that we can improve our strategies and ways of talking about and talking to people that doubt.

“As prophesied, we live in a time when the darkness of secularism is deepening around us. Belief in God is widely questioned and even attacked in the name of political, social, and even religious causes. Atheism, or the doctrine that there is no God, is fast spreading across the world.”

Secularism is probably not the word that Elder Haled intends here, as secularism describes a freedom first and foremost from religious imposition in public life. This is something that we as latter day saints affirm in our articles of faith. “”We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

Likewise, Joseph Smith issued one of the most passionate defenses of secularism that I have ever heard from a major religious figure “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it,… but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” (D&C 134:4)

It seems to me that the right to worship freely and the ability to have the freedom of ones soul necessarily must also include the right to NOT worship freely or to firmly believe that there is no God. Thus, we regularly affirm the right of Atheists and non-believers to continue in their doubt and even to actively seek to (de)convert others to their belief in no God. Elder Hales seems to imply that this is a menace, but this is the other side of the coin of free exercise, which we all value so much.

“Some wonder, why is belief in God so important? Why did the Savior say, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent”?2

Without God, life would end at the grave and our mortal experiences would have no purpose. Growth and progress would be temporary, accomplishment without value, challenges without meaning. There would be no ultimate right and wrong and no moral responsibility to care for one another as fellow children of God. Indeed, without God, there would be no mortal or eternal life.”

It seems pretty harsh to declare that without an afterlife life could have no purpose. People can find meaning in fame, family or excellence regardless of the long-term implications of these actions. Most people also conceive of the afterlife as a place where their mortal actions are essentially irrelevant and where they are merely harp playing angels, this is a place where the Latter Day Saint faith offers a big distinction that perhaps should have been emphasized more in this talk. For us, our earthly actions are of vital importance and continue to make us who we are for eternity. Emphasizing the point where our doctrines and beliefs provide additional hope would be a better tactic than this criticism.

Even more starkly, I think that most secular humanists I know would reject the notion that there is no moral responsibility. Secular individuals can live morally upright lives based on the secular ethics of such thinkers as Mill, Rawls, Kant etc. Indeed, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has outlined, very effectively in my view, how we could have easily evolved a secular theory of rights. Based on collective human experience. These models seem like they have great potential. Of course, I think that a great claim can be made that a value system based on a belief in God has unique cohesive power to bind people together in common pursuit. This is the claim that has been advanced by social thinker from Durkheim onwards.  The selling point of our faith should not be that morality without it is impossible, but that human bonds are strengthened by it. I know that I considered myself a moral person before I found the church, but I have found my relationships with others improved and my moral sense attuned through membership in the church.

Elder Hales next goes through a lengthy description of how we know God lives and that he has a physical body etc. I don’t see how this is meant to encourage anyone to look into the faith. People that do not believe in a deity are probably less likely to consider a faith that is anthropomorphic and will laugh at this idea. It would perhaps be better to emphasize that we don’t believe in creation ex nihilo or the idea that something came out of nothing. We instead believe that the same laws of nature and the universe allow for deity to take form and mold the world to his will.

Elder Hales than presents the story of Korihor. This story is absolutely a terrible one to present to a non-believer. A person is struck dumb because he demands a sign! To those that do not believe, this story can only smack of religious egotism and puffed up belief.

The argument from design that Elder Hales presents is also likewise not especially convincing

“Yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.” (Alma 30:44)

Science has been able to explain naturally so many of the patterns of nature. Many secular individuals are actually likely to view nature as the ultimate sign that there is no God. Indeed, the vast and desolate nature of much of the observable sky seems to lead to the conclusion for many that there is no purpose. Latter Day Saints can emphasize that this whole universe is part of God’s plan and once again place emphasis on the fact that we believe that the natural laws that govern the universe are also those that govern deity. There is more common ground than ground for attack.

This talk also misses out on a chance to reach out to humanists—whose ultimate belief is in some notion of human rationality and perfectibility—by emphasizing that we believe in the loftiest potential for man possible. Elder Hales could speak about how it is only through faith and submission that one can possibly overcome the natural man and achieve a higher state of being. This was the first thing that struck me about the LDS faith and attracted me in particular. The language in this talk is simply not equipped to entice or interest non-believers.

I came to learn of a new documentary that has recently come out entitled, American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein.  It chronicles the life of American political scientist Dr. Norman Finkelstein, the son of parents who survived the holocaust.

For those that are not familiar with Dr. Finkelstein, he used to be a professor at DePaul University before he was denied tenure in 2007.  Through his academic work, he is best known as one of the greatest opponents to the occupation of Palestine and a fervent critic of Israel and the United States vis a vis Palestine.  It is speculated that because of his critique of the Israeli and US body politic through his academic work and a famous debate with himself and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Democracy now that DePaul regarded Finkelstein as being ultimately a liability to the University.  Dr. Finkelstein has written 5 books, all of which have gained a significant amount of notoriety.  Finkelstein, a Jew himself, was banned from entering Israel in May of 2008, citing Finkelstein as being a security threat which landed him a ban from Israel for ten years.

I have not yet seen the film but based on the trailer, it seems to offer a fascinating look into the life of one of America’s foremost scholars.  The film shows clips of various confrontations with anti-Palestinian protesters during his talks, chronicles the whole DePaul University debacle and interviews people close to him and even those that are enemies of Dr. Finkelstein, including Professor Dershowitz, who many claim is the primary reason why Dr. Finkelstein was overlooked for tenure.

The film first premiered at the Chicago Underground Film Festival on September 17 , 2009 and is slated to premier in Europe at the Scheffield Doc Fest on November 4, 2009.  The film has also been chosen to premiere at the Montreal International documentary Festival on November 11, 2009.

Have a look at the trailer and if you get a chance, go and see the film.

The Obama Administration’s intentions to relocate plans for “missile defense systems” from along the Russian border in Eastern Europe in order to aid Israel’s systems in intimidating Iran comes as an influential “bipartisan report” from Likudniks recommends an aggressive U.S.-Israel strike on Iran and secret U.S. intelligence reports to the White House say there are ‘no nukes in Iran’.

Mark Hosenball at Newsweek reports of “two counterproliferation officials” confirming that “Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program” that “U.S. agencies had previously said that Tehran halted… in 2003″ when it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.):

The officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed since the formal National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) on Iran’s “Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities” in November 2007. Public portions of that report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies had “high confidence” that, as of early 2003, Iranian military units were pursuing development of a nuclear bomb, but that in the fall of that year Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program.” The document said that while U.S. agencies believed the Iranian government “at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,” U.S. intelligence as of mid-2007 still had “moderate confidence” that it had not restarted weapons-development efforts….

According to the two officials, the latest update to policymakers has been that as of now—two years after the period covered by the 2007 N.I.E—U.S. intelligence agencies still believe Iran has not resumed nuclear-weapons development work. “That’s the conclusion, but it’s one that—like every other—-is constantly checked and reassessed, both to take account of new information and to test old assumptions,” one of the officials told Newsweek….

Officials of Israel’s conservative-led government have been delivering increasingly dire assessments of Iran’s nuclear progress and have leaked shrill threats about a possible Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities….

An Obama administration official says that top policymakers are being told that there is no significant disagreement among U.S. intelligence agencies and experts about the latest assessments regarding Iran’s nuclear effort.

“Iran insists that its nuclear energy research program is for the purpose of producing fuel for the Bushehr reactors when their construction is complete—i.e. they are seeking an ‘exotic way of boiling water’ (the ironic definition of nuclear power for electricity generation),” Middle East scholar Professor Juan Cole writes at his blog, Informed Comment, adding:

As far as U.S. intelligence can tell, the Iranian claim is correct. The Israelis and Germans are wild men on this issue, but a) the U.S. has better intelligence on the nuclear issue than do they; b) the Israeli and German intelligence agencies got Iraq badly wrong; c) Israel in particular wants to strike Iran for political reasons, to take it down a notch, and may be seeing the raw intelligence through that lens….

As for the Western press leaks that Iran now has enough nuclear material to make a bomb or now has the technical ability to make a bomb, both are nonsense. You need to enrich uranium to 90% to make a bomb. Iran claims to be able to enrich to 4% and a lot of observers think that is an exaggeration. So ipso facto Iran cannot possibly have produced enough fissile material for a bomb. Moreover, you need to have a weapons program trying to enrich to 90% to produce a bomb, which Iran does not have, from everything US intelligence can discover. Either the journalists are being fed fraudulent documents or they are just orally being misled.

Many American Jewish organizations are dismayed by the right-wing Likud Party’s beating of war drums against Iran.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is putting pressure on Iran about its nuclear research.

I talked with MSNBC’s Alex Witt on Saturday about Iran’s nuclear research program (3:42):

“Of course, the Likudniks and their enablers don’t care what the Iranians are doing or are not doing. They regularly announce their intention to attack and destroy—in violation of the U.N. Charter and of the ‘restraining order’ placed upon them by U.N. Security Council Resolution 487—Iran’s I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] Safeguarded guaranteed-to-be-peaceful nuclear facilities,” Nuclear physicist Dr. Gordon Prather wrote at AntiWar.com—after “several of our Likudnik enablers issued a ‘report‘… warning President Obama that: ‘If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its [I.A.E.A.-Safeguarded] enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.’… Understand that all these Likudniks and their enablers are advocating a military strike on I.A.E.A.-Safeguarded facilities!”

Russian President Dmitry Medveded told Fareed Zakaria on CNN that, when Israel President Shimo Peres visited Russia, “he said something very important for all of us: ‘Israel does not plan any strikes on Iran, we are a peaceful country and we will not do this’ “. Pres. Medvedev described a potential Israeli strike on Iran as, “the worst thing that can be imagined,” adding: “What would happen after that? Humanitarian disaster, a vast number of refugees, Iran’s wish to take revenge—and not only upon Israel, to be honest, but upon other countries as well.” Pres. Medvedev “trusts them”—Israel—to be confident in this same assessment of reality as reason that it is “not planning to” strike Iran, adding that Iran’s continued cooperation with the I.A.E.A. since 2003 “is a duty and not a matter of choice”—a duty that is “absolutely obvious, if it wishes to develop its nuclear dimension, its nuclear energy programme.”

“Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, sees Iran’s program as an imminent danger. It ‘is something that threatens Israel and threatens the region and threatens the peace of the world,’ he said during a recent visit to Germany. ‘There is not much time.’,” Howard Schneider reports at The Washington Post—contrasting to Pres. Medvedev’s relay to CNN—on a “recent unannounced trip by Netanyahu to Russia”, confirmed by Pres. Medvedev, though, “Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this week that he did not consider Iran’s nuclear program an ‘existential issue’ because ‘Israel is strong’. Part of that strength lies in its nuclear capabilities—never acknowledged but widely presumed to exist—and part in the assumption that the United States would stand behind Israel if it came under attack.”

Mr. Schneider’s report is from an article on Israel “steadily assembling one of the world’s most advanced missile defense systems” to be stationed near—and in—the Gaza Strip, extending Israel’s occupation and enhancing Sderot civilians as a target for Palestinian resistance, “designed with that country”—Iran—”in mind.”:

The effort, partly financed by the United States and incorporating advanced American radar and other technology, has been progressing quietly for two decades. But Israeli defense and other analysts say it has now reached a level of maturity that could begin changing the nature of strategic decisions in the region…

Uzi Rubin, a private defense consultant who ran Israel’s missile shield program in the 1990s. Iran, he said, now cannot be assured of a successful first strike against Israel…

The Obama administration decided this week to scrap a Bush-era plan to deploy a longer-range-missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland, and said it would move toward a more intermediate system that better matches its assessment of Iran’s capabilities….

Iran “is radical, but radical does not mean irrational,” Rubin, the defense consultant, said. “They want to change the world, not commit suicide.”…

The Arrow was deployed in 2000, and Israel and the United States have since conducted a joint, biennial missile defense exercise, called Juniper Cobra, to work on integrating the weapons, radars and other systems of the two countries. Israel, for example, has the advanced U.S. X-Band radar stationed in the Negev desert. Israeli defense industry officials say the country also has almost real-time access to some U.S. satellite data, an important part of its early-warning system.

The next joint exercise is scheduled for October….

Beginning next year, Israeli officials say, the Iron Dome system should provide some relief. The mobile launchers initially will be placed around towns and facilities near the Gaza Strip, but they ultimately may be deployed in locations nationwide.

The system has sparked some controversy. It has not, for example, proved effective against mortar shells and could leave the towns closest to the border areas vulnerable, including chief targets such as Sderot. Critics have pushed for other systems, including a chemical-laser one that Israel was jointly developing with the United States, or the rapid-fire Phalanx guns that can be used to protect key facilities such as power plants.

There is also concern that militant groups could try to overwhelm the system by firing large barrages of comparatively cheap, homemade Qassams—perhaps not expecting to do damage so much as forcing Israel to spend tens of thousands of dollars a shot to knock them down.

But Israeli officials say systems such as Iron Dome are crucial to the country’s military planning—in terms of preventing damage and diminishing the need to retaliate.

Measures such as these increase and encourage—as opposed to deterring—that “Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians” during the Gaza Massacre—a “reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians”— Judge Richard Goldstone wrote in his The New York Times op-ed that coincided with the release of his 575-page report on the U.N. fact-finding mission he led on the Gaza Massacre. Surrounding civilians in Israel and Palestinian territories creates the hybrid civilian-military zones to manufacture cases where: “Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require.”

Former Ha’aretz editor David Landau wrote—in a separate NYT op-ed—that the Goldstone Report “stunned even seasoned Israeli diplomats” because they “they never imagined that the report would accuse the Jewish state of intentionally aiming at civilians”, adding:

Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children, who died during “Operation Cast Lead.” They believe, therefore, that Israel is not culpable, morally or criminally, for these civilian deaths, which were collateral to the true aim of the operation — killing Hamas gunmen.

It is, some would argue, a form of self-deception.

When does negligence become recklessness, and when does recklessness slip into wanton callousness, and then into deliberate disregard for innocent human life?

But that is the point — and it should have been the focus of the investigation. Judge Goldstone’s real mandate was, or should have been, to bring Israel to confront this fundamental question, a question inherent in the waging of war by all civilized societies against irregular armed groups. Are widespread civilian casualties inevitable when a modern army pounds terrorist targets in a heavily populated area with purportedly smart ordnance? Are they acceptable? Does the enemy’s deployment in the heart of the civilian area shift the line between right and wrong, in morality and in law?…

It is possible, and certainly arguable, that the Israeli policymakers, or individual Israeli field commanders in isolated instances, pushed the line out too far….

Judge Goldstone could have contended that just as Israeli leaders themselves have frequently called off pinpoint assassinations of terrorists because civilians were in the line of fire, so too they should have refrained from bombing and shelling Hamas targets in Gaza when that bombing and shelling was bound to exact a large civilian toll.

The question: Is Israel deliberately setting up civilian targets for those it chooses to isolate and intimidate?

Why not, when it systematically transforms the writings of obscene apologists like Professor Alan Dershowitz and American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris into self-fulfilling prophesies?

Palestine-Israel scholar (and my former pedagogue) Professor Norman Finkelstein discusses the U.N. report finding that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead—the 22-day massacre of 1,400+ Palestinians, including hundreds of children, in Gaza that began 27 December 2008, backed by then-President-elect Barack Obama and then-President George W. Bush—on Democracy Now! (DN!) with its host, Amy Goodman. Prof. Finkelstein discusses the details of the report in comparison to those from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the misleading rhetoric of calling the Gaza Massacre a ‘war’ and of media equivalence of the crimes from within Gaza to those committed by the Israel Defence Force (IDF).

“We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there is strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza,”  Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed the six-month inquiry, stated on the 575-page report. “The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity were committed by the Israel Defence Force.”

In response to the report—what’s become commonly referred to as the “Goldstone Report”—the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) strongly recommends: “The perpetrators of the serious violations of international law detailed in the report must be held accountable and the victims provided reparations and justice.” Amnesty International joined the CCR, adding that “Despite powerful evidence of war crimes and other serious violations of international law which emerged during and in the aftermath of the conflict, both Israel and Hamas have failed to carry out credible investigations and prosecute those responsible”, noting:

Key findings of the UN-mandated international independent fact-finding mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone:

• Israeli forces committed violations of human rights and international humanitarian law amounting to war crimes and some possibly amounting to crimes against humanity. Notably, investigations into numerous instances of lethal attacks on civilians and civilian objects revealed that the attacks were intentional, that some were launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population and with no justifiable military objective and that Israeli forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields.

• Israeli forces committed grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, notably wilful killing, torture and inhumane treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility.

• Israel violated its duty to respect the right of Gaza’s population to an adequate standard of living, including access to adequate food, water and housing. Notably acts which deprive Palestinians in Gaza of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to an effective remedy and could amount to persecution – a crime against humanity.

• Palestinian armed groups violated the principle of distinction by launching rocket and mortars attacks which cannot be aimed with sufficient precision at military targets and that their attacks into civilian areas which had no intended military target constituted deliberate attacks against civilians. Such attacks constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.

• Palestinian combatants did not always adequately distinguish themselves from he civilian population and they unnecessarily exposed civilians to danger when they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings.

• The Fact-Finding Mission found no evidence that Palestinian armed groups directed civilians to areas where attacks were launched or that they forced civilians to remain within their vicinity, nor that hospital facilities were used by the Hamas de-facto administration or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities, or that ambulances were used to transport combatants, or that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from within hospitals or UN facilities that were used as shelters.

UN Inquiry Finds Israel “Punished and Terrorized” Palestinian Civilians, Committed War Crimes During Gaza Assault

16 Sept 09 | DN!

A United Nations fact-finding mission has found Israel “punished and terrorized” civilians in its three-week assault on Gaza earlier this year and cited strong evidence that Israeli forces committed “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions. More than 1,400 Palestinians—about a third of them women and children—were killed in the assault. We get analysis from author and Israel-Palestine scholar Norman Finkelstein (17:26):

Guest:

Norman Finkelstein, author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah. His forthcoming book about Israel’s assault on Gaza is due out on December 27th, the first anniversary of the attack.

Part One (9:29):

Part Two (7:57):

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: A United Nations fact-finding mission has found Israel, quote, “punished and terrorized” civilians in its three-week assault on Gaza earlier this year and cited strong evidence that Israeli forces committed “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions. More than 1,400 Palestinians, about a third of them women and children, were killed in the assault. Thirteen Israelis died.

The 575-page report came at the end of a six-month inquiry and was based on dozens of interviews and investigations. The inquiry was led by Judge Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor of the international courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Judge Goldstone said Israel deliberately attacked civilians and failed to take precautions to minimize loss of civilian life.

JUDGE RICHARD GOLDSTONE: We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there is strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza. The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity were committed by the Israel Defense Force.

AMY GOODMAN: Judge Goldstone also said there was evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes by firing rockets into southern Israel.

JUDGE RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Turning to the Palestinian armed groups, there is no question that the firing of rockets and mortars was deliberate and calculated to cause loss of life and injury to civilians and damage to civilian structures. The mission found that these actions also amount to serious war crimes and also possibly crimes against humanity.

AMY GOODMAN: Judge Goldstone’s report will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council later this month. The investigators recommended that the UN Security Council should call on Israel and the Palestinian authorities to launch their own investigations into the conflict within three months. If either side failed to do that, the council should refer the matter to the International Criminal Court prosecutor in The Hague within six months.

Israel, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation, claimed Goldstone’s investigation was biased against Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held consultations with top government officials last night. A senior Israeli staffer told Ha’aretz newspaper, quote, “The goal is to avoid a slippery slope which would lead Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.”

Well, Norman Finkelstein joins us here in our firehouse studio, the author of a number of books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah. His forthcoming book about Israel’s assault on Gaza is due out at the end of the year, on the first anniversary of the attack.

We welcome you to Democracy Now! Now, this report has just really come out hours ago. Perhaps you’re among the few people outside those who have written the report who have actually read the majority of its contents. Talk about the significance of this.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the report is the last in a large number of reports that have been issued on the Gaza massacre. There were two significant reports issued by Amnesty International, five reports issued by Human Rights Watch, and a whole slew of Israeli-based human rights organizations have issued reports. But this was the most awaited report of all of them. It was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. And Richard Goldstone, as you mentioned in your own introductory remarks, is a significant international figure, legal figure.

So the report basically is consistent with the findings of the other human rights organizations, that Israel targeted civilians, Israel targeted civilians who were carrying white flags, Israel systematically targeted the Palestinian infrastructure. The findings were consistent with those of the other human rights organizations: Israel is guilty of a very significant number of war crimes. And also, the findings which were—other reports, the same conclusions, that the Palestinians were not using hospitals to hide Hamas officials. There’s no evidence that the ambulances Israel targeted were carrying Hamas militants or ammunition. And most significantly, in terms of the coverage during the Gaza massacre, the report found, as did Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, there’s no evidence whatsoever—and I would want to underline that—there’s no evidence whatsoever that Hamas was guilty of human shielding. But on the other hand, there is significant evidence, actually copious evidence, that Israel was guilty of human shielding.

AMY GOODMAN: But on other issues, of Palestinian militants committing crimes against humanity.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The report found that the Palestinians were guilty of war crimes because of its indiscriminate and intentional firing on civilians in Israel. I’m not trying to make any apologies, but I want to get the facts right. The Goldstone report, like the Amnesty report and the others, you have to look carefully at the proportions. About nine-tenths—literally, about nine-tenths of the Goldstone report, like the Dugard report, like the Amnesty report, about nine-tenths was devoted to Israeli war crimes; about one-tenth was devoted to Palestinian war crimes. And you have to understand why, because you have to look at the comparable damage. The ratio of killings was about a hundred to one: about—exactly thirteen on the Israeli side, about fourteen hundred on the Palestinian side. If you look at the damage, the damage is actually quite astonishing. Israel just systematically blasted everything in sight and reduced it to rubble, whereas on the Israeli side they say that several houses were damaged and one was almost completely destroyed. So if you look at the facts, the facts on the ground, the proportions in the reports, including the Goldstone report, are correct. It’s about ten to one.

And that’s why yesterday’s—or today’s headline in the New York Times is so misleading. It’s like a Pravda headline. It says the Goldstone report finds both sides guilty of war crimes. Well, that’s technically true, but an accurate headline would have read, “Goldstone reports Israel guilty of massive war crimes and also faults Hamas.” That’s what a true headline would have read.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation and has claimed the UN Human Rights Council that ordered it was biased against Israel. This is some of what the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor had to say about the inquiry.

YIGAL PALMOR: This fact-finding mission was established in sin. This is why Israel was unable to cooperate with it. The resolution, in virtue of which the commission was established, was so extreme in its phrasing and in its prejudging of any conclusion that all European countries and other democratic countries did not support it. It was adopted with the support of human rights models such as Libya, Bangladesh, Cuba. This, of course, has no moral value whatsoever. So we didn’t feel that this was binding in any way.In spite of everything I’ve just said, Israel is going to study this report and to examine it very carefully, as we have with all the national and international human rights reports. We are taking this seriously, and we are committed, as always, to abide by international law.

AMY GOODMAN: Israel’s response to the Goldstone report. Your response, Norman Finkelstein?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, Richard Goldstone is a very respected jurist, and he also has a long record of being very supportive of Israel. If I’m not mistaken, he sits on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem board of directors.

Now, when the UN Human Rights Council asked Goldstone to chair the mission, originally his mandate was just to investigate Israeli crimes. He himself said he couldn’t fulfill that mandate, unless it was modified and included crimes on all sides. The Human Rights Council said, “Fine. We’ll modify the mandate, and we’ll accept your terms.” At that point, Richard Goldstone accepted to head the mission.

So you have to ask yourself the question: if what the gentleman said were true, why did Goldstone accept? If it were so biased, he always had the option of saying no. Why would a well-known supporter of Israel have accepted that mandate if it were biased against Israel?

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think, Norman Finkelstein, are the limitations of the report?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The main limitation of the report is it’s all cast in the language of violations of the laws of war. And the fundamental fact about what happened in Gaza is it wasn’t a war. There was no war in Gaza. That’s the main misunderstanding about what happened there. In fact, one of Israel’s leading strategic analysts, he said—after what happened in Gaza, he said the one mistake Israelis are making is that there was a war there. He said there was no war. There were no battles in Gaza.

The picture is fairly clear. Israel flew about 3,000 sorties over Gaza. Every plane came back. None was damaged. None was downed. There was no fighting in Gaza. If you read the reports that were issued by the—the testimonies of the Israeli soldiers, the one consistent theme in all of the testimonies was they never met any Hamas militants, they never engaged in any battles. Some of the Israeli soldiers expressed exasperation: “We came here to fight. We’re not fighting anyone.” There was no—there were no battles. There were no Hamas militants in the field. The basic fact was, as a couple of Israeli soldiers said—one of them said, “This was like PlayStation, a computer game.” Another Israeli soldier said, literally—I’m quoting exactly, almost word for word—he said, “It was like a child with a magnifying glass burning ants.” That’s what Gaza was like.

One soldier after another, literally—I wish listeners would just bring up the report. It’s called “Breaking the Silence.” And then, under—enter under the search mechanism, just enter the word “insane.” One soldier after another after another after another said Israel used insane amounts of firepower. Insane amounts of firepower. There were no soldiers, no battles, but they’re using insane amounts of firepower. One soldier said—two soldiers, actually, talked about how the ground was trembling because of all the bombing and all of the missiles and all of the rockets. Another said that “We were told—even though we were firing in the distance, we were told to evacuate the houses we were in, because the shaking from the distance was going to cause the house to collapse over our heads.”

It was a massacre in Gaza. And you don’t really see that, because they’re measuring everything against what they call the laws of war. But you’re applying laws of war to a massacre. There was no war there.

AMY GOODMAN: Israel called the attack Operation Cast Lead. It’s interesting, Judge Goldstone’s daughter was interviewed on Israeli army radio. She spoke in Hebrew. And she responded about her father. She described him as a Zionist who loves Israel. She said that “My father took on this job, because he thought he’s doing the best thing for peace for everyone and also for Israel.” The significance of this report now? The UN Human Rights Council will meet the day after Yom Kippur—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mm-hmm.

AMY GOODMAN: —in about two weeks, to meet specifically in a special session on this report.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mm-hmm.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for Israel? The quote of the Israeli official to Ha’aretz, saying, “We don’t want to be put into the International Criminal Court.”

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I personally don’t think that’s yet going to go very far, because the US has effective power to block it.

What’s significant about the report, in my opinion, and what’s significant about what happened in Gaza, I think it marks a major turning point. It’s like the Sharpville massacre in South Africa. Now, Sharpville is not Soweto, but Sharpville was a turning point. Richard Goldstone is a liberal. Richard Goldstone is very supportive of Israel. And it’s now marking the breakup of liberal Jewish support for Israel. And as we both know and as all of your listeners know, Jews are overwhelmingly liberal in their sentiment. Seventy-nine percent of Jews in the last election voted for Obama. And what you’re seeing now is the breakup of Jewish support for Israel.

You saw during the Gaza massacre you had some of the old-timers like Alan Dershowitz, Michael Walzer, characters—Martin Peretz, characters like that, you know, kind of comical figures coming out supporting Israel. But if you looked at the younger Jewish—the younger Jewish constituency—bloggers like Matt Yglesias, Glenn Greenwald and so forth—they all opposed the Gaza massacre from almost like day one or day two. And then you had significant defections, like Andrew Sullivan, who—not Jewish, but still a significant figure, who also came out against the Gaza massacre.

So I think now what you’re seeing, especially with the Goldstone report, especially with his stature, especially because he’s Jewish, especially because he’s a liberal, what it’s signaling now, is the breakup of Jewish support and liberal support—and those are basically the same thing—the breakup of liberal Jewish support for Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, I want to thank you for being with us, just recently back from Gaza, visited in June. Norman Finkelstein has written a number of books—among them, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah. His forthcoming book about Israel’s assault on Gaza is due out on the first anniversary of the attack, on December 27th.

But to Avi. He recalls arguing with the late Edward Said – and there is a titanic voice to be ever missed, irreplaceable is the only word – over the Oslo agreement. Here is what Avi writes: “In the years since 1993, I have often asked myself: who was right and who was wrong? When things were going well, when progress was being made, when Oslo II was signed, for example, I thought that I was right and that Edward was wrong.

For full article, visit http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-lessons-in-justice-and-fairness-from-a-nononsense-historian-1760726.html

HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 28. August 2009

Eine Zusammenfassung neuer Entwicklungen und Kommentare zur schwedischen Ritualmordlegende.

• Wenn Sie die englische Übersetzung von Donald Bostroms Originalartikel noch nicht gelesen haben können Sie das hier nachholen.

• James Savage listet einige stichhaltige Gründe auf, warum die schwedische Regierung Aftonbladet nicht verurteilen wird.

• Stephen Dubner sprach mit einem skeptischen Experten für Organtransplantation:

Harvard-Wissenschaftler Al Roth, dessen Arbeit zu Überkreuzlebensspenden das Organtransplantationsverfahren grundlegend verändert hat, sagte mir, dass die Anschuldigungen schon allein wegen der logistischen Methoden des Organhandels unglaubwürdig seien. „Organe sind zeitlich nur sehr begrenzt haltbar und müssen passgenau transplantiert werden“, so Roth. „Es wäre also sehr schwer, sie auf Verdacht dem internationalen Markt anzubieten. Deshalb glaube ich, dass Schwarzmarktorgane von lebenden Spendern stammen müssen. Lebendspender können vorab Blutproben nehmen und zum Wohnort des Spenders anreisen. Organe Verstorbener müssen aber sofort in Eis verpackt werden, da sehr wenig Zeit zur Transplantation verbleibt.“

• Rechtliche Mittel gegen das Blatt einlegen? Alan Dershowitz und Yossi Klein-Halevi haben schlagende Argumente dafür, Paul Schneidereit ebenso überzeugende dagegen.

• Ist die israelische Reaktion politisch motiviert? Dies vermutet Daniel Korski:

Diplomaten, mit denen ich gesprochen habe, spekulieren nun darauf, dass die israelische Regierung in Erwartung eines Friedensvorschlages von Obama im Oktober, der ihnen nicht passt, diese Episode nutzen könnte, um Schweden während einer Zeit auszumanövrieren, da es die rotierende EU-Präsidentschaft inne hat. Auf diese Weise könnte der EU-Rückhalt für den zu erwarteten „Mitchell-Plan“ geschwächt oder neutralisiert werden. Man spricht bereits darüber, dass Bildt seinen geplanten Besuch in Israel verschieben muss.

• Video: Donald Bostrom und Mordechai Kedar beharken sich.

• Und die arabische Reaktion? Nichts Überraschendes.

“Dr. Gordon’s article is repugnant and should be scorned,” Education Minister Gidon Saar said. He spoke by phone with BGU President Rivka Carmi and indicated that Gordon should be dismissed from his post.

Earlier in the day, Carmi had already made it clear that Gordon should seek work elsewhere. “We are shocked by Dr. Gordon’s irresponsible words which we absolutely condemn,” she said in a statement. “Academic personalities who feel this way are invited to look for an academic and personal home elsewhere.”

For full article, visit http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133048

August 22, 2009

Conventional wisdom asserts the Palestinians are suffering from an Israeli apartheid in much the same way as the blacks were in South Africa under the apartheid regime there. Moreover, it’s fashionable to further hold that Israelis are racist like the Nazis, and that Israel, alone among all nations of the globe, has no right to exist. It is additionally asserted, incredibly, that the Jews are perpetrating a holocaust upon the Arabs of Palestine such as the Jews themselves had inflicted upon their own lives by the Nazis.

Thus, Richard Corliss of Time magazine recently reviewed the new movie District 9. It’s set in South Africa, so the proximity to the former scene of apartheid is built-in. Corliss points out that the extraterrestrials in the movie are being deprived of their rights similarly to, according to him, the Gazans in Palestine and the blacks under apartheid. But it is outrageous in the extreme to make an analogy such as this, given the implied correlative, that Israel and the former apartheid regime are morally equivalent. They most certainly are not.

Jimmy Carter’s book, Peace Not Apartheid, has apparently given currency to these tragic beliefs. But Alan Dershowitz, in his book, The Case Against Israel’s Enemies, tears Carter’s book apart, exposing in Carter’s book what Dershowitz sees as sloppiness and disingenuousness. One has to feel that Carter has it coming for the distortions in just the title of the book. Also, Dershowitz shows how Carter works for the so-called Arab lobby, which funds the Carter Center generously. But Dershowitz’ denunciation of Carter is of no avail, sadly, if even a distinguished, senior writer at Time, albeit an organ for liberal policy positions, can so cavalierly take it as settled, established fact that one may imply with impunity an apartheid nature to Israel’s government.

In the world of truth now, not fiction, Arab leaders have been attacking the Jewish national revival since the 1920’s. For almost 100 years, Middle Eastern despotisms have been lying to their “constituencies” about their motives concerning Israel. But the “catastrophe” that the Arabs suffer from in Gaza, the deprivation of rights they experience, is very much one imposed upon them from within — their own leaders have brought it about. That is, the violence in the Middle East is not because Israel has no right to exist, but indeed does; rather, the violence is inherent in one version of Islamic, Koranic teaching that a present-day totalitarian movement, born from Hitler and Stalin’s ashes, insists upon. That teaching, in conjunction with the disturbed totalitarian ideology of a fictitious world conspiracy that must be stopped, would promulgate the same level of violence even if the Jews had not conceived and realized their fully-justified Zionist project. The violence has nothing to do with the Jews or Israel.

If the Arabs had accepted Israel’s existence immediately, in 1920 or so, both Israel and Palestine would now be much the better for it: both countries would be rife with economic development, intellectual development, athletic and artistic achievement – anything you can think of that’s good. Accepting Israel’s existence wouldn’t have been very hard (without a totalitarian ideology in the way of doing so), and would have involved no shame to the Arabs or injustice to them. It would have been all to their benefit. It was only ideology that motivated the rejection of Israel. The Arab leaders have always known that Israel would make itself into a Euro-American style democracy, and so they wouldn’t have it.

To claim the dispute is over a piece of land is as outlandish as saying Israel is the aggressor. Why would Israel wish to be the aggressor? Israel wants to pursue development, whereas most Arab capitals wish to prevent a democratic neighbor from taking root close by. It’s an inversion of truth that accuses Israel of the chief wrongdoing – it’s an overemphasis, to the point and beyond of indefensibility, on the last frame of the story. Israel is desperately attempting to defend itself against the pathological, murderous, and anti-Semitic assaults upon its existence. The willful blindness on campus that denies this obvious fact is arrogant, naïve, clueless, and deeply troubling, at least. It could even be coming from a vague, poseur sympathy with pseudo-Marxist stances.

It can only be fatuous, vast ignorance (and simple laziness) that unwittingly falls prey to the pernicious new anti-Semitism taking up residence so confidently in Europe and America. This new anti-Semitism trendily and casually posits a criminal nature to Israel in supposedly oppressing the Palestinians. But it is the Arab countries, those superannuated despotisms, those quasi-totalitarian regimes of the Middle East, that spin this fable, and that actually deprive the Palestinians of their right to accept Israel, to work in Israel, to run for office in Israel, to reject medieval autocracy, and to live freely and productively. Israel an apartheid state? Only if you’re bought and paid for, too, like Jimmy Carter.

While many of us are rightly gratified by the news that Troy Davis has been granted a new trial, I think it is important to consider how long a shot his appeal to the Supreme Court truly was (as the New York Times tells us in an editorial here today, Davis was convicted of the 1989 murder of an off-duty Savannah police officer and had resided on Georgia’s death row ever since; many witnesses have since recanted their testimony, according to Amnesty International).

The Times’ editorial also points out the frightening extent to which Antonin “Red Queen” Scalia and Clarence Thomas felt “considerable doubt” that Davis’ claim was “constitutionally cognizable” (and by the way, kudos to Prof. Alan Dershowitz for claiming here that Scalia’s remarks are an “outrage against his church,” which would be the Roman Catholic one, by the way…not sure exactly what it says about those in the hierarchy of my faith that that needs to be pointed out a Jew, and I use that term towards Dershowitz with all due respect).

As the Times tells us, the supposed legal rationale for Scalia and Thomas’ dissent in the Davis case was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which the two claimed “prevent(ed) the courts from intervening on behalf of a death row inmate who claims to have proof of his own innocence” (fortunately, Justice John Paul Stevens explained in a separate opinion that Scalia and Thomas were wrong).

And Elaine Cassel of Counterpunch tells us here that…

The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 was a response to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. (Authors David) Cole and (James X.) Dempsey describe the Act as a massive assault on First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition, and a deeper entrenchment of the “guilt by association” tradition active in the FBI.

As noted above, the Act removed barriers to FBI investigation of activities protected under the First Amendment. It also removed some restrictions on the famous FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court–where federal judges sit in secret to consider, and mostly approve, Justice Department requests for widespread surveillance of “terrorists,” including pen registers and “trap-and-trace” surveillance, methods that can capture income and outgoing telephone calls. The law also opened the door for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport mostly Muslim citizens. The deportations were based on largely secret evidence, and no overt acts needed to be alleged.

And this tells us that the 1996 Act “was introduced as part of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress.”

More fool them, including President Clinton for signing it into law.

Finally, bmaz of firedoglake makes the following points here about the Supreme Court verdict that granted Davis a new trial…

Scalia is right, this particular form of relief is exceedingly rare (that is the only thing he is right about here). What is even more shocking is that it got done in this case, with this court, at this time. While Davis’ family and attorneys maintained their optimism relief would be granted, scant few other folks experienced in these things did including, quite frankly, me. Sonia Sotomayor did not participate, so the majority had to find five votes somewhere, and this is a real head scratcher. The majority opinion was unsigned, but an attached concurring opinion was noted as “Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring”. Thomas, predictably, tagged along with Nino on the dissent. That would appear to mean the majority found two more votes for Davis among Kennedy, Alito and Roberts. Now that is shocking.

At the very least, I hope this prods Congress into reviewing the ’96 Act reinstituting the legal protections that were foolishly gutted in the panicked wake of the ‘90s terrorist attacks (all of this occurred before 9/11, of course).

However, since this Congress is primarily the bunch that gutted FISA last year, I’m definitely not holding out much hope.

Den 1 november 1978 bevistade jag  en välbesökt presskonferens i Wennergren-skrapan i Stockholm. Detta i anledning av att säkerhetsexperten Dragan Jovius, som jag kände väl, gav ut sin bok Sovjetspionage i Sverige – dess taktik och verksamhet (S:t Georgs förlag). Till presskonferensens muntrationer hörde att Jan Guillou blev nekad inträde; man måste nämligen ha en speciell inbjudan, och det hade nu inte Guillou.

Men det var inte bara munterhet vid presskonferensen. Bland inbjudna gäster fanns även en drygt 40-årig, lätt fetlagd och undersätsig man med tjusarmustasch och rikligt med pomada i håret. Han hade en yrkesbakgrund inom svensk underrättelsetjänst och ansågs vara en “stenhård antikommunist” och därför sovjetätare. Mannens namn var Stig Bergling. Han dömdes påföljande år till livstids fängelse för grovt spioneri efter att ha gripits i Israel av underrättelsetjänsten Mossad.

 Den Stig Bergling jag träffade vid ett par tillfällen.

Jag hade stött på Bergling åtskilliga år tidigare, då han dök upp vid de försäljningsaktioner som anordnades i Stockholms city varje helg av den antitotalitära organisationen Demokratisk Allians inom vilken jag var engagerad. Jag minns inte exakt vad han sade vid dessa tillfällen, men troligen orerade han vitt och brett om hur fantastiskt bra vi ungdomar var som vågade stå upp mot kommunismen och gå emot vänstervridningen i samhället.

Landsförrädaren Stig Bergling dömdes alltså till livstids fängelse efter att bland annat till Sovjetunionen ha lämnat ut den så kallade befästningskoden med datoriserade uppgifter om samtliga försvarsanläggningar i Sverige. 1987 avvek Berling från en permission och lyckades rymma till Moskva. Han levde därefter omväxlande i Ryssland, Libanon, Ungern och Israel innan han återvände frivilligt till Sverige 1994. Han fortsatte här att avtjäna sitt straff innan han 1997 blev villkorligt frigiven.

Stig Bergling, alias Eugen Sandberg, alias Stig Sydholt, född 1937, är numera inhyst i ett äldreboende i Stockholm. Han har fortsatt att göra avtryck i massmedia. 2006 väckte det visst uppseende då det framkom att han blivit medlem i Vänsterpartiet, med en partipolitisk bakgrund som landsförrädarpartiet par preference i Sverige; dess närmaste föregångare, Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna, var hårt Moskva-styrt ända fram till sovjetväldets implosion 1991.

I en debattartikel i Expressen den 13 juli 2008 uttalade Bergling/Sydholt sitt starka stöd för den omdiskuterade FRA-lagen, bland annat med följande händelsevis alldeles korrekta motivation:

“Det kalla kriget avslutades aldrig i Ryssland, samtidigt som resten av världen lät sig duperas om avspänning och fred. Den ryska generalstabens underrättelsetjänst (GRU) har vuxit sig så stark att den blivit en stat i staten.”

Såvitt jag vet har Stig Bergling aldrig visat någon ånger över att sannolikt ha åstadkommit mer skada för Sveriges militära försvar än någon annan spion, också i jämförelse med “spionöversten” Stig Wennerström som dömdes till livstids straffarbete 1964 och släpptes tio år senare. Exempelvis den beryktade Enbomligan var rena småhandlare vid en jämförelse med Berglings spioneri.

Stig Bergling tillhör den kategori landsförrädare som inte drivs av någon som helst övertygelse, utan gör vad de gör på grund av pengar, spänning och/eller känslan av att känna sig betydelsefulla. Dessa personer besväras inte av något samvete eller fosterlandskärlek, men kan i efterhand söka försvara sitt agerande med att de – exempelvis – i själva verket befrämjade världsfreden. Wennerström påstod på fullt allvar i sina memoarer att det var bra att ryssarna fick västliga hemligheter, eftersom detta var tjänligt för balansen mellan stormakterna under det Kalla kriget. Själv var han naturligtvis den största av fredkämpar.

Också Bergling har varit inne på liknande tankar i TV-intervjuer – hans spioneri har gynnat såväl Sverige som nationalstat som freden i världen. Och det är inte så märkligt att personer utan vare sig övertygelse eller samvete tillgriper sådana befängda ursäkter, som väl bara de allra mest naiva och historielösa medlemmarna i Röd ungdom kan tro på. I avsaknad av inre övertygelse måste de sannolikt inför sig själva rationalisera sina illgärningar för att över huvud taget orka stå ut med att leva.

Det vore lätt för mig att säga att jag känner förakt för i grunden ynkliga personer som Bergling och Wennerström, men sanningen är att jag känner stort medlidande. Här en länk till ett insiktsfullt blogginlägg om Bergling:

http://safflemannen.se/?p=9956

Men är alla spioner ynkliga och värda förakt? Så kan man möjligen resonera om man anser att det egna fosterlandet är det högsta goda och därmed alltings mått. Detta är dock inte min uppfattning. Det helt avgörande är, utifrån min måttstock, huruvida en person med sitt spioneri främjar det onda eller goda. I fallen Bergling och Wennerström är det enkelt – de lämnade under det Kalla kriget ut statshemligheter till fientlig makt, som därtill var världens kommunistiska supermakt, Sovjetunionen, motståndare till den fria världen och därmed värden som frihet, demokrati och yttrandefrihet. Bergling, Wennerström och deras gelikar förtjänar därför dubbelt fördömande.

Sedan har vi spioner och “landsförrädare” såsom Oleg Penkovskij och Ryszard Kuklinski.

Oleg Penkovskij hade 1960 utsetts till överste i den sovjetiska militära underrättelsetjänsten GRU. Bakom den oklanderliga sovjetmasken dolde han ett gränslöst förakt för det kommunistiska Sovjetunionen, säkerligen delvis beroende på att hans fader hade varit officer i tsararmén och medlem i de vita styrkorna under inbördeskriget mellan röda och vita 1917-20. Penkovskij bestämde sig för att förse Väst med hemligheter sedan han i Moskva stött på den engelske affärsmannen och säkerhetsmedarbetaren Greville Wynne.

 Penkovskij offrade sig för friheten.

Penkovskij överlämnade en mängd topphemliga och strategiskt högintressanta dokument till Storbritannien och USA under några år i början på 1960-talet och bidrog därmed i hög grad att stärka Västs försvar gentemot Sovjetunionen. Till slut avslöjades emellertid verksamheten, och både Penkovskij och Wynne greps av KGB. Penkovskij fick det i sammanhanget enda tänkbara straffet – döden – under det att Wynne dömdes till åtta års fängelse.

Penkovskij avrättades efter grym tortyr, medan Wynne efter en tid utväxlades mot sovjetspionen Gordon Lonsdale (egentligen Konon Molody) som gripits i London. (Om Penkovskij, Lonsdale och andra spioner kan man läsa i boken Sanna historier om spioner, Historiska media).

Ryszard Kuklinski (1930-2004) överlämnade under tioårsperioden 1971-81 stora mängder hemligstämplade, främst sovjetiska, dokument till USAs underrättelsetjänst CIA. Kuklinskis fader hade varit antinazistisk motståndsman under Andra världskriget och dog i koncentrationslägret Sachsenhausen. Också sonen skulle bli motståndsman på sitt sätt, men då under den sovjetkommunistiska ockupationen av Polen.

Förre CIA-chefen George Tenet har sagt att Kuklinski var “en av det Kalla krigets sanna hjältar” och vidare:

“Denne passionerade och modige man bidrog till att det Kalla kriget inte blev hett när han försåg CIA med värdefull information  på vilket så många viktiga säkerhetsbeslut vilade. Han gjorde det för den ädlaste av orsaker – att främja frihetens och fredens helgade ideal i sitt hemland och över hela världen.”

 Kuklinski – polsk patriot och frihetsvän.

Kuklinski valde således att arbeta för Väst just därför att han var en äkta polsk nationalist och därmed såg till sitt lands sannaste intressen. Som tack för hjälpen fick Kuklinski av den amerikanska underrättelsetjänsten utmärkelsen Distinguished Service Medal samt en bostadsort i USA. 2006 invigdes ett museum i Warszawa till Kuklinskis minne av den polske försvarsministern Radoslaw Sikorski.

Genom sin tjänstgöring inom den polska armén kom Ryszard Kuklinski i kontakt med dokument som vittnade om sovjetiska planer på ett militärt angrepp mot Västeuropa. I dessa planer ingick att Polen i ett krigsläge skulle komma att offras och riskera att utsättas för 400-600 kärnvapenträffar. Kuklinski insåg att han måste förhindra detta och sökte samband med CIA; han överlämnade i Polen vid 63 tillfällen hemlig information till CIA.

Militära bedömare anser att det material Kuklinski vidarebefordrade fick ett avgörande inflytande på NATOs militära planering för Europa, vilken korrigerades på basis av den information Kuklinski bistått med. CIA vidarebefordrade jämväl viss information till Vatikanstaten, som vid denna tid styrdes av den polskfödde påven Johannes Paulus II (Karol Wojtyla), som ju var en av de personligheter som allra verksammast bidrog till Västs seger i det Kalla kriget.

Denne polske hjälte fick dock betala ett högt pris. Själv dömdes han till döden av en militärdonstol i Warszawa 1984, och hans båda söner omkom under misstänkta omständigheter i USA på 1990-talet.

En av de mest intressanta landsförrädarna i modern tid är Jonathan Pollard, den ende amerikanske spion som dömts till livstids fängelse utan att ha varit anklagad för högförräderi. Dessutom spionerade han för ett allierat land, Israel, ett brott för vilket det normala straffet är två till fyra års fängelse. Den 55-årige Pollard är nu inne på sitt 25e år bakom lås och bom.

Jonathan Jay Pollard föddes i ett judiskt hem i Galveston, Texas 1954. Han var ett begåvat barn som tidigt blev medveten om sin judiska identitet. Han var vid gripandet en civilanställd analytiker vid den amerikanska flottans säkerhetstjänst i Washington, D. C. Pollard ansågs vara en kompetent om än något excentrisk tjänsteman. Ett av hans förslag hade varit att man skulle lagra underrättelseinformation från den vita minoritetsregeringen i Sydafrika. Förslaget bedömdes så kontroversiellt att Pollards möjlighet att få tillgång till hemlig information tillfälligt drogs in.

 Jonathan Pollard, orättvist dömd?

Det var när Pollard upptäckte att USA, trots ett ömsesidigt avtal med Israel om utbyte av säkerhetsinformation, inte vidarebefordrade viktiga uppgifter till israelerna om hot från arabvärlden och terrorismen. Han började då kopiera hemliga dokument som han mot betalning överlämnade till israeliska kontakter; Pollard fruktade att den judiska staten stod inför hotet om en ny Förintelse. Enligt somliga underrättelseuppgifter skall Jonathan Pollard ha överlämnat så många som en miljon hemliga handlingar inklusive satellitfoton.

När Pollard som en  följd av sin spionageverksamhet till slut blev okoncentrerad på jobbet fattade hans överordnade misstankar. Innan han greps 1985 körde han och dåvarande hustrun, Anne Henderson Pollard, i sin bil i rasande fart, med FBI hack i häl, i riktning mot den israeliska ambassaden. Paret lyckades ta sig in på ambassadområdet men avvisades bryskt av en säkerhetsvakt, varefter de greps, åtalades och dömdes. Hustrun var snart ute igen, men inte Pollard.

Fallet Jonathan Jay Pollard är komplicerat och motsägelsefullt, och jag tänker här inte gå in på alla dess enskildheter.  Klart tycks emellertid vara att försvaret inte skötte sina åligganden på bästa sätt, och det verkar också som om domstolen agerade under starka påtryckningar från USAs regering när den dömde Pollard till livstids fängelse. Den välkände judiske amerikanske advokaten Alan Dershowitz har i en TV-intervju som sin mening framfört, att orsaken till att Jonathan Pollard alltjämt hålls i fängsligt förvar är hans judiskhet – vilken icke-jude som helst i hans situation skulle ha frigivits för länge sedan.

Varken Pollard själv, hans nuvarande hustru Esther Pollard eller hans anhängare i Israel eller på andra platser har givit upp hoppet om hans slutliga frigivande. Man förnekar inte att Pollard bedrivit spionageverksamhet men hänvisar till, att straffet är alldeles för hårt i förhållande till brottets art och att han, trots allt, spionerade för en allierad makt. Pollards officiella hemsida “Justice for Jonathan Pollard” finns här:

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/

 Esther Pollard hänvisade i en intervju i det israeliska TV-inslaget “Frontline” 2007 till att det finns liknande fall där domarna blivit helt annorlunda. En person som avslöjats spionera för Kina dömdes således till tre månanders fängelse, medan Michael Schwartz, som överlämnade hemligstämplad information till Saudiarabien, inte behövde skaka galler alls!

Av de spionfall som redovisats här ovan står det klart att Stig Bergling och Stig Wennerström är “dåliga” spioner då de, helt utan ideologisk motivation, sålde ut sitt fosterland för en grynvälling. “Flottspionen” Hilding Andersson och medlemmarna i Enbomligan hade i alla fall en ideologisk övertygelse som grundplåt.

Penkovskij och Kuklinski är däremot “bra” spioner, eftersom de ville rädda sina länder – Ryssland och Polen – undan det totalitära förtrycket och göra en insats mot den omänskliga kommunismen.

Med Pollard är det mer komplicerat. Han förrådde sitt påtagliga fosterland USA till förmån för det andliga hemlandet Israel. Man kan säga att han handlade fel, men utifrån en god bevekelsegrund, och fick ett omänskligt straff. För mig framstår det som en gåta att USAs regering låter honom försmäkta i sitt fängelse år efter år medan personer som begått liknande brott klarat sig lindrigt undan.

Shmuel Rosner touches base with the Dershowitz-Phillips debate, designating himself as mediator. Conclusions? Typically, both are right and both are wrong. My opinion is that Rosner is sympathetic to Dershowitz, however, while keeping Melanie Phillips at a respectful arm’s length. Here is his conclusion:

Here’s George W. Bush, from January the 10th, 2008, on the same topic: “It should happen and could happen by the end of the year”. Was Bush also the kind of leader that Phillips would call “lethal for both Israel and the free world”?

Compare to my own:

Israel pulled out of Gaza when George W. Bush was in the White House and Ariel Sharon in the Knesset. Would this today not be labeled “suicidal” by Melanie Phillips?

So Rosner and I are on the same page, which is good news as far as I’m concerned.

Yaakov Lozowick takes a stab, as well. I like Lozowick because he has the deft touch of making criticism sound breezy, even if he’s sticking a finger in your eye. He writes words that make a point without stooping to name-calling. Obama’s more vocal critics could learn a thing or two from him.

I’m of the camp willing to cut the Obama administration some slack on their diplomacy of winning hearts by respectful gestures. I doubt it will work, and I hope that once it doesn’t they’ll recognize the significance of the failure, but I don’t see the harm in trying. Learning through experience is the best way there is. At the end of the day, however, the purpose of the new diplomacy is to have results. By alienating the large segment of Israeli society who are his natural allies, Obama is needlessly reducing the chances of his own success.

So pull up a seat. It’s going to be a long summer. And if you get bored with this debate, try this one.

I love the fact that Melanie Phillips can come down on Alan Dershowitz, who has written a trilogy of books in outright support of Israel, for his support of Barack Obama. I applaud Phillips for her steadfastness in defending Israel and Jews from bigotry, and Dershowitz wrote as much in his blog for JPost. His point, I think, was that support of Israel should be bipartisan. Which is why I smile when my more conservative friends ask how I can vote Democtratic and still support Israel. As if one position naturally informed the other.

They don’t, unless we think support of the Jewish state goes hand in hand with social issues like abortion, separation of church and state, minority rights, immigration, scientific research, the economy, etc…conservatives and liberals are split on most of these issues, which do not regard support for Israel in the least. Obama, for his part, hasn’t deviated from previous American policy very much at all. The Bush administration, too, was dedicated (in theory, at least) to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, as is the Netanyahu government and, yes…even the Sharon government. Tzipi Livni, who actually won more votes than Bibi, is outspoken on the issue.

Israel pulled out of Gaza when George W. Bush was in the White House and Ariel Sharon in the Knesset. Would this today not be labeled “suicidal” by Melanie Phillips? That an eventual Palestinian state should pose no threat to Israel is a position shared by all of them, Obama included. He cannot and will not say, “Let the Jordanians take them in and give historic, biblical Judea to the settlers.”

Is this what Phillips advocates? Dershowitz, in his book The Case for Peace, lays out a point by point peace plan. Has Phillips ever proposed a viable solution to a problem that will not go away until it is resolved? What exactly does all this fiery criticism of Obama’s supposed ransoming of Israel come to? His “roots” on the hard left? Or is he the de facto President Chomsky? What was it about the Bush administration that people think was so much more friendly to the Jewish people and their only country than the current one? Is it that Bush is perceived as having been “tough” on Islamists-Iran-the Palestinians? The man who lost no opportunity to proclaim that “Islam is a religion of peace?” Why was he not the “dhimmi in the White House?”  The Bush years solved nothing. They did nothing to curb the Iranian threat in its infancy, knowing that could be left to the incoming administration.

The Bush years were not the golden years of American-Israeli relations any more than Muslim Spain was a golden age for convivencia. We should stop lionizing George W. Bush just because Obama’s middle name is Hussein.

Support for the State of Israel is a moral position that should have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, religious or atheist, black or white, male or female. It is a moral issue just as women’s rights are a moral issue, just as racism and bigotry are moral issues. It should, as Dershowitz wrote, be a bipartisan issue. There is no other way.