Israeli journalist and blogger Noam Sheizaf wrote that “the US papers seem to give the talks a greater importance than the Israeli media [that changed on Friday, he noted further down in his post]. Bizarre, to say the least …  It’s easy to tell when things get serious. The settlers make a good litmus test for the intentions of the Israeli leadership. They have good ties with the Israeli administration and army. When the settlers sense danger, they let it show. And while they went after Sharon and Rabin with everything they got, they are awfully quiet now. There wasn’t even a single major protest against Netanyahu, The National Religious Party is still in the government, and the right flank of the Likud has never been more silent. The Israeli tabloids – like all tabloids – reflect their society’s mood: This is clearly not a country on the verge of its most important decision in decades … [T]he diplomatic process is not a sports competition, and pep talks can’t help when the gap between the parties is too big. The Palestinian leadership has lost most of its credibility and legitimacy with its own people, and the bleeding gets worse with every picture of Abu Mazen shaking hands with Netanyahu. Hamas has just given us the first taste of what leaving it out of the process means. Even so, the positions of PM Fayad and President Abbas are incredibly far from those of Barak and Netanyahu. The Israeli leadership – and to be honest, the Israeli public as well – cannot give the Palestinians the minimum they can settle with. Under these circumstances, even if an agreement is reached, it won’t mean a thing. As I’ve written before, the current stage in the conflict is not just about peace. It’s about ending the occupation and getting the Palestinians their rights. Some people in the American administration understood that, but for their own reasons, they decided to pursue the failed policies of the past two decades”.  This analysis is posted here.

The BBC published, after the talks, an almost hilarious “behind-the-scenes” account from two of their journalists embedded with the delegations — “The BBC’s Gidi Kleiman was with the Israelis, while Jeannie Assad was with the Palestinians:

“MOOD BEFORE THE JOURNEY [on board the private chartered plane carrying the Palestinian delegation]
Palestinian:
“They had wanted to go to the talks with a guarantee that Israel would not renew its settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Come to Washington and then we will take it from there, the Americans had apparently told President Abbas. The president agreed to an interview, coming over with Turkish coffee in hand. He told us he was oing to the talks in good faith and because he believed in peace through negotiations. But at the same time he told me it would be difficult for him to continue the talks if the settlements continued. He would pull out, he said, if Israel did not extend the moratorium.
…
“EXPECTATIONS AHEAD OF TALKS
Palestinians:
“It was to be the first time he had spoken to an Israeli leader in 18 months [n.b., it was actually 20 months -- since the end of December 2008]. His people back home were not happy about it. The settlement issue was a tough one. He was to tell the Israelis and the Americans that continuing settlements was a ‘deal-breaker’, one of his aides told me … there were more changes to the speech. By the time Mr Abbas read it out in the White House, it had been changed 39 times.
…
“AFTERMATH OF THE TALKS
Palestinian:
“After the one-on-one with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Mr Abbas said the meeting was positive. He told his aides he had told him about all his concerns and explained to him everything that was discussed with the previous Israeli government.
Not only had Mr Netanyahu listened carefully, but he took down notes, Mr Abbas added. The Palestinian president said he had told the Israeli prime minister that the settlements must stop …
Israelis:
“Has Prime Minister Netanyahu undergone a fundamental change or was it just change of tactics? Were these talks for real or just a way to avoid pressure from the US and the international community to move forward in the peace negotiations with the Palestinians? Did he change? His speeches, his statements, gestures, all suggested a change of heart. In a speech at the White House, he said that he came to find a historic compromise that will enable both peoples to live in peace, echoing the words of such peace-makers as Israel’s slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. He said to the Americans, to the Palestinians, to the travelling press:  ‘I am serious about peace, try me’.”  This “behind-the-scenes” report is published here.  [A rather different take on Netanyahu's position is noted in a blog on our sister site, here....]

Haaretz then reported another comic post-talk report, that picked up an article in the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat which stated that the “Palestinian attitude in peace talks shifting by 180 degrees”.   Really?

Here’s what Haaretz reported: “Al-Hayat, quoting Abbas aides, says Palestinian skepticism is dissipating over U.S. desire to end process in 1 year, as well as the increased pressure on Israel to extend its settlement freeze. The skepticism which plagued the Palestinian camp prior to the recent relaunch of direct Middle East peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has all but disappeared, aides to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the Arabic language London-based newspaper Al-Hayat on Saturday … Sources told the London-based newspaper that the reasons for the change in attitude were both the United States’ desire to settle all final-status issues within one year as well as U.S. pressure on Israel to extent its soon-to-be-expired moratorium on settlement building. On Friday, chief Palestinian negotiator in peace talks with Israel Saeb Erekat denied reports earlier Friday that the two sides would meet again in the West Bank on Monday after kicking off a new round of negotiations in Washington. In a conversation with Haaretz, Erekat dismissed claims made earlier in the day by another senior Palestinian negotiator, Nabil Shaath, who said the parties would follow up Friday’s U.S. meeting with another in the city of Jericho on Monday. Shaath, who attended the official launch of the direct peace talks in Washington earlier this week, said a United States representative would be present at the meeting, which would also include Erekat and chief Israeli negotiator Yitzhak Molcho. According to Shaath, the unscheduled meeting would lay ground for the next formal negotiating session, scheduled to begin on September 14 in the southern Sinai Red Sea city of Sharm al-Sheikh … Shaath said Israel had decided to postpone the end of its 10-month freeze on West Bank settlement freeze from September 26 to September 30 to give the sides extra time to negotiate. ‘Israelis claim that they can’t continue the settlement freeze while we say that we can’t continue with negotiations if settlement building continues’, Shaath said. ‘We will continue to work seriously until the end of the month’.” This Haaretz article can be read in full here .

In a separate article, Haaretz reported that “Hamas offical Ezzat al-Rashk, a member of Hamas’s political office,al-Rashk told Al-Hayat on Saturday, saying the ‘Zionist settlers are the occupation’s first reserve military force … They are now a real army in every sense of the word, with more than 500,000 automatic weapons at their disposal, on top of the basic protection by the [Israel Defense Forces]‘, the Hamas official said. Another Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, the organization’s Lebanon spokesperson, told the London-based newspaper that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was willing to forfeit ‘99 percent of the Palestinians’ rights, saying negotiations were over before they even began’.  This is posted here.

For a completely different angle, from Ramallah, there is the interview with Diana Butto published [pre-talks] on Electronic Intifada on 30 August. Butto is a regular in Ramallah, a lawyer with Canadian and Israeli citizenship, who was an advisor and often an eloquent spokesperson on CNN for the Palestinian leadership during earlier negotiations. She is an impressive speaker — and, when she gets serious, she lowers her voice and speaks more slowly. She has worked with Sa’eb Erekat, Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad, and Fatah’s Mohammad Dahlan. [It is not clear who, if anyone, she is working for at the moment.]

In the interview with Electronic Intifada, she said:
“The big problem is that while there is this announcement of negotiations, here on the ground [in the occupied West Bank], there is nobody who is greeting this announcement with any happiness, because we have been here before. We know what has happened in the past, and we know what is going to happen. And so, if anything, the direct talks are going to be a direct failure. Unless there is a very strong stance by the international community to stop Israel in its settlement activity, in home demolitions and in setting forth a terms of reference — that Israel is going to abide by the 1967 borders — then the talks are doomed to fail. We have been down this path before” …

Q: [H]ow did the PLO approve the talks, even though none of the non-Fatah parties approve of them? How did this happen, and what has the response been from the opposing parties?

DB: “In terms of the PLO’s response, this is not new. [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas is the same man who hijacked Palestinian elections a year and a half ago, when he unilaterally declared that his term was extended. This is the same man who has failed to hold the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. This is the same individual who has canceled the municipal elections, all under the guise of, “oh, this is too difficult right now.” So it is not at all surprising that Mahmoud Abbas, speaking on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, comes forward and declares that the PLO has accepted such talks when they haven’t. And declares that the Palestinian people are welcoming such talks when they are not. And has the audacity to speak on behalf of Palestine and the Palestinians when he is neither elected nor legitimate any longer, and has not even bothered to ascertain the opinion of other organizations, other factions that are members of the PLO”.

Q: Will this further split and antagonize the political factions against each other?

DB: “That is the one thing that is becoming interesting out of all of this — this is no longer the isolation of Hamas. It’s becoming the isolation of Fatah, in that you see all the political factions lining up on one side, and Fatah lining up on another side. This is not where the situation was a few years ago, or even a decade ago when the majority of Palestinian factions were, in some way, shape or form, in favor of Oslo or in favor of the negotiations process. Today, it is exactly the opposite. So, if anything, Fatah has marginalized itself, and is becoming increasingly more marginalized. The problem is that there is no way to translate that into any real change, because of Fatah holding the key, because of its inability to hold elections, with its refusal to listen to the factions. What it simply means is that we have this rogue party that is acting on behalf of its own interests and not the interests of the Palestinian people. That is going to continue to dictate the future of Palestine. Unless this dissent transforms itself into a real push for internal change, then I fear [Fatah is] going to continue going down this path of isolating itself and marginalizing itself, and holding Palestinians hostage to its lack of vision and lack of strategy for Palestine” …

Q: You attended a press conference on 23 August given by PA spokesperson Saeb Erekat. What was revealed in the press conference, and what are most Palestinians concerned or skeptical about in relation to the talks and what is happening on the ground?

DB: “There are two things that were revealed during the press conference. The first was that Erekat was unable to explain to journalists or to the Palestinian people what had changed, why they’re entering into negotiations now. He kept referring to pithy Quartet statements — no one really cares what the Quartet says or does, because they don’t really do anything [n.b.- the Palestinian negotiating team said they accepted the American invitation to the direct talks in Washington on the basis of Quartet statements] — and he kept referring to the international community and its support for the peace process. But there was nothing that he could point to to explain why now is the time for direct talks. In other words, there was nothing that he could say — neither in the form of guarantees, nor in assurances, nor in the form of a settlement freeze, or anything that he could take to the Palestinian people and sell. It simply was the result of their utter incompetence. There was no way to explain why they were going to negotiations. The second thing that came out during the press conference, and this was clear to the journalists who were present, is that this is a leadership of lies. If this leadership had come forward and said, “we are under tremendous amounts of international pressure, both financially and politically” (which we know is the case), then at least we would have been able to give them credit for that. Erekat didn’t say that. Moreover, if this was the same individual who came forward and said they would halt negotiations, unequivocally, in the event that Israel does not impose a complete settlement freeze — not a partial freeze, not a moratorium — and a complete halt to home demolitions, then at least we would have been able to feel that this is a leadership that is responsive, a leadership that is honest. Instead, Erekat came forward and said that there are going to be no negotiations. In fact, he used the phrase that Netanyahu will have chosen — no negotiations — in the event that settlements and home demolitions continue. What we know is the opposite. If they have not pressed for a complete settlement freeze now, if they have not pressed for a halt in home demolitions and land confiscation now, then the PA has to explain to us that somehow, magically, on 26 September — when the so-called settlement moratorium has expired — that suddenly the Palestinian Authority and the PLO are going to get a backbone? So rather than him making these slogans and statements, we wanted to hear the truth. And instead we are faced with a leadership that lies. It lied about the pressure that has been put upon the PLO in order to enter into negotiations, and it will be proven on 26 September that the same leadership is going to — once again — lie to us about halting negotiations if there is no settlement freeze”…

Q”: What are your major concerns about the Palestinian political atmosphere right now?

DB: The major concern is that we all know that this is going to fail. It doesn’t require anyone with any particular knowledge or foresight to realize that these talks are going to fail. The real question is what is going to come afterwards, and here is where I’m most concerned. For the past 17 years, the PLO, and in particular, Fatah, has had one strategy and only one strategy: negotiations, negotiations, negotiations. And they have had only one strategy as regards to themselves, and that is survival. We are now at a stage where we are seeing that this is going to be — and I really hope that it is — the final blow to the logic and the ideology of negotiations, that people somehow have to negotiate their freedom. The real question is, what is this leadership going to do? Is this leadership going to continue to hold us hostage to this tired, visionless lack of strategy? Or is something different going to come? I’m not concerned with the talks, we know they are going to fail. My bigger concern is about what is going to happen once the talks fail, and is there going to be anybody who is going to come forward with a different plan, a different strategy, a different vision? And that is my fear. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” … This interview with Diana Butto was published here.

Nicholas Pelham touches on the same Palestinian aversion to resuming direct talks under the current conditions, echoing some of Diana Butto’s points, in an article in MERIP in which he notes [in connection to the pre-talk shooting attacks, claimed by Hamas, on cars carrying Israeli settlers in the West Bank] that “In contrast to the international media, where the attack was roundly condemned, in Palestine the attack earned plaudits not only from Hamas’ core constituency, but also from a broad swathe of Fatah and secular activists, including some senior actors, disillusioned by 19 years of negotiations based on an ever flimsier framework. Unlike the Annapolis process or the ‘road map’, the twin Bush administration initiatives that the Obama administration chose to ditch, the current negotiations lack any terms of reference or agreed-upon script. Palestinians ask why Abbas agreed to meet Netanyahu given that none of the Arab targets required to turn proximity talks into direct ones were reached prior to the Obama administration’s announcement of the meeting. When American elder statesman George Mitchell presented the parties with 16 identical questions on the core issues requiring yes or no answers, Israel responded to each with a question of its own. In his August 31 press briefing before the White House meeting, Mitchell again declined to specify if Israel had agreed even to extend its (partially honored) settlement freeze past the September 26 expiration date”. This article can be read in full here.

Thanks to our technical support for restoring it online.

The person who maintains this blog’s server has been attentive, and has speedily attended to the situation — which was then repeated. “I’m starting to think the server is being attacked”, he said to me today.

Now, new security measures have been implemented.

I’ve just read Richard Silverstein’s post on his Tikun Olam blog today, reporting troubles on his own California-based blog and on two blogs in Israel: “After mounting an intense DoS [Denial of Service] attack against this blog and two others in Israel, my web host seems to have figured out a defense against the assault”…

He links the cyber-attacks with death threats he has received, reporting that: “some members at the Rotter forum, among whose circle this assault may’ve originated, have resorted to homicidal ranting. One poster wrote the following (Hebrew): ‘I’m in favor of erasing Silverstein from this world at the hands of a Mossad hit squad‘.” This is posted here.

We are now nearing the first anniversary of an anonymous death threat, reported last 22 August, here. In this case, the person or persons who made this death threat — written both in Arabic and [just to make the point perfectly clear, and to make sure it was understood] in English — has still not identified either him/her self [or themselves], or his/her/their exact motivation[s]…

Israeli warships are reportedly tracking the Amalthea. The Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak earlier called this expedition “provocative”. Israeli military officials say that the cargo this ship is carrying is redundant, because these materials are now entering Gaza relatively freely via Israeli-controlled crossings. However, there are still logistical limitations.

Although Israeli officials continue to be suspicious about the ship — and there have been contradictory claims about the intended destination coming from various people involved with the Libyan aid group that hired the ship and from some of their supporters — they say that as things appear at the moment there does not appear to be any security threat involved. However, they say, they are watching, and will be taking no chances.

The Amalthea appears to have turned off its transponder in recent hours… Or, according to some reports, the ship’s communications are being jammed, and the ship is surrounded by 8 Israeli warships.

Interesting — on the Live Ships map at the Marine Traffic website here, there are now NO ships at all shown from the Suez canal up to Beirut — how is that possible?

UPDATE: At about 10:30 this morning Jerusalem time, SMS reports from Israeli sources indicate that the Amalthea has begun to move toward Egypt…

UPDATE TWO: By about noon in Jerusalem, the Amalthea was back on the Live Ships map, and moving in the direction of El-Arish. It is now 32 nautical miles away from the Egyptian port in the northern Sinai, not far from the Rafah crossing in and out of Gaza — about 4 hours away, at the ship’s present speed of 7.5 knots…

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MFA] website has a post citing “A report published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [that] claims that the sole mission of the Libyan foundation responsible for sending out this ship to Gaza is to ‘break the siege’. According to the published findings, the Libyans intend to pressure Israel to agree to allow the entrance of goods into the Gaza Strip according to the ‘rules of the game’ determined by Hamas. In addition, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report shows that there are political considerations behind the Libya-sponsored flotilla, as Libya is interested in strengthening its position within the Arab League” … This MFA post is published here.

The Israeli MFA post also cites the U.S. State Department briefing in Washington on Tuesday 13 July [which can be consulted in full here] in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley tells journalists: “We are conscious of the fact that there is a Libyan aid ship en route to Gaza as we speak, and that we, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected by the Government of Israel and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. We have urged the Libyan Government to avoid unnecessary confrontations. We call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza.”

The Jerusalem Post’s Defense Correspondent Yaakov Katz reports today that Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has claimed, in an interview on Israel Radio’s “This Morning” program, that “calls by the US and the European Union to the ship’s captain to accept Israel’s diversion requests legitimizes Israel’s policy”…

A few months after Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Foreign Ministry (MFA) offered a briefing to journalists on its response to criticisms about the Gaza war. Despite the nicely-air-conditioned auditorium, five journalists came.

Some days before that, the MFA offered a similar briefing on the same topic to the diplomatic corps. I was told that five diplomats attended….

Now, Israel’s YNet website has reported that “Weeks before the Gaza-bound flotilla left port, at the end May, 2010, the Israeli government was aware of the problem and the potential whiplash. Israel’s Defense Ministry, under Ehud Barak, worked out plans to enforce the blockade and apprehend the ships; Israel’s Foreign Ministry was responsible for PR and the legal justification for stopping the flotilla”…

The YNet article continued: “According to Israeli government sources, journalists were ‘unofficially’ referred to a Danish government report on IHH, US court and CIA documents several days prior to the arrival of the flotilla. ‘Unofficially?’ Why not officially? Why wasn’t the IHH thoroughly exposed and the Turkish government held responsible? According to the Australian-based Talk Gaza organization, which provides information on the incident, Israel’s Foreign Ministry circulated information on IHH ‘to some people at least five days before the incident’. ‘Some people?’ Who? Why not circulate it to everyone? ‘A number of journalists were also referred by various official sources to the few news articles that did discuss IHH days before the incident’. How many journalists? And when? Was the FM staff overloaded, understaffed, or simply unaware of the magnitude of the problem? Asked why a press conference wasn’t called before the engagement at sea, this journalist was told: ‘No one would come’.” This is posted here.

Our first report on the composition of the Freedom Flotilla and what might happen was published on 6 May, in our post entitled “Can Turkish involvement help Free Gaza – Freedom Flotilla challenge Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza?”, which is published here.

Yesterday, as we noted, YNet reported — after some journalists were briefed by Gen. Eiland — that “The report adds that the IDF had begun preparing for the flotilla in February. In mid-May Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak requesting their cooperation in order to prevent a violent incident“. This is published here.

Nevertheless, the Eiland report, released last night — which focuses on the IDF — stated that “The expert team determined that regarding media relations, the preparations made in advance were good. However, [n.b. - here the report seems to be referring to the period after the Israeli naval assault at sea] the release of press statements and visual materials was delayed due to the need to maintain reliability, the obligation to notify the families of the critically injured soldiers and the long authorization process at the levels above the IDF Spokesperson Unit [who does this mean?]. The team noted with favor the work of the IDF spokesperson following the incident and emphasized the need for better coordination between the IDF, the foreign ministry and other foreign affairs institutions?…

As we noted here on 26th May — five days before the interception of the Freedom Flotilla, in a post entitled “Israel lining up options to deal with Freedom Flotilla” — we asked: “there are reports of Turkish-Israeli contacts, and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls this big operation a ‘publicity stunt’. (Do you use military force against a publicity stunt?)”

We also reported in the same post that “Yesterday, the Israeli MFA sent around a message saying that one of its legal experts, Sarah Weiss Maudi said: ‘The reason why ships can’t come into Gaza currently is because a maritime blockade is currently in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such a blockade has been imposed by Israel because Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza. Hamas has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel proper with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza by various routes, including the sea. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no vessels can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian vessels and enemy vessels. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate the maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law, and may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea’. Is there an ‘armed conflict at sea’ – at least until now? Weiss Maudi is, the MFA says, the ministry legal expert on maritime and humanitarian law — but she is very young. No senior Israeli government official has spoken so clearly, publicly, on these matters. She duly notes ‘the requirement to give due notice’ of the blockade, and to ‘publicize the existence of the maritime blockade in effect’ — and, she says, Israel has ‘published the exact coordinates of the blockade via the accepted international professional maritime channel’. (See the Youtube video starting at 1′16″.) IDF spokespersons refused to return my calls recently, when I asked for confirmation that its naval blockade of Gaza still exists. Other Israeli government spokespersons have appeared, generally, to evade this issue, and have appeared to make efforts to refrain from calling it a naval blockade” This post is published here.

This CNN story continues: “The U.S. State Department classifies the Lebanon-based Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization”.

Parisa Khosravi, senior vice president of international newsgathering for CNN Worldwide, said in an email to staff: “As she [Octavia Nasr] has stated in her blog on CNN.com, she fully accepts that she should not have made such a simplistic comment without any context whatsoever … However, at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward”

CNN noted that “In her position, Nasr provided on-air context for Middle East events and monitored the media from that region”. This story is published here.

The New York Times posted the story, saying that “Despite her senior editor title, Ms. Nasr did not run CNN’s Middle East coverage, a spokesman said. She reported and provided analysis about the region for CNN’s networks. Her explanation of the Twitter message was apparently not enough for her CNN bosses”. here.

A report on the Mashable Social Media blog reported that “in an internal memo SVP for CNN International Newsgathering Parisa Khosravi announced Nasr would be leaving the company as a result of her comments, citing that her credibility has been compromised”. here.

So now, we know: in order to give context, she should have called Fadlallah a “terrorist” in her original tweet.

[That seems to be what is meant by providing "context" -- but wouldn't calling him "terrorist" be a violation of the obligation to be "objective"?]

*************************

UPDATE: Now we learn, from AP via the Jerusalem Post, that the UK Ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy “paid homage to Lebanon’s Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah who died Sunday, on her government internet blog.. This is published here.

UPDATE TWO: The Guardian reported on Friday 9 July that “Britain has moved to quash a row over its Middle East policy by taking down a controversial blog post by its ambassador in Beirut praising the late Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a staunchly anti-American cleric who was a mentor for Lebanon’s Hezbollah … William Hague, the foreign secretary, ordered the ambassador’s offending item removed yesterday. The Guardian has learned that Britain also downgraded its diplomatic representation at Fadlallah’s funeral in Beirut on Tuesday, sending just a second secretary. France and Italy were represented by their ambassadors. Guy’s comments drew outrage in Israel, where a foreign ministry spokesman said Fadlallah had inspired suicide bombings. The British ambassador had to decide ‘whether promoting terror and giving it religious justification can be considered a heritage to be cherished’, Yigal Palmor was quoted as saying … … Palmor was quoted as saying: ‘Sheikh Fadlallah was behind hostage-taking, suicide bombings and other sorts of wanton violence, but Ambassador Guy said he was a man of peace, and Ambassador Guy is an honourable woman’ … In London, a Foreign Office spokesman said today that Guy’s post had been removed ‘after mature consideration’.”

Apparently, diplomats have blogs on behalf of their employers, just as media personality do — this has been a required step for fast-track career advancement. Ambassador Guy’s blog is maintained on the Foreign Office website. The Guardian also reported that “Diplomats’ personal blogs, which flourished under Hague’s digitally aware Labour predecessor, David Miliband, may be more closely vetted in future”.

There is no evidence that Fadlallah ordered or organized any suicide attacks or “wanton violence”. He did, apparently, praise some of the attacks, after the fact. This, it seems, is what Palmor means when he argues that Fadlallah encouraged more violence.

The Guardian noted that “Fadlallah was as a key figure in the founding of Hezbollah after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, but both he and the group denied he was its spiritual leader … Britain has a more nuanced view of Hezbollah than the US and Israel, though it has proscribed the military wing as a terrorist organisation … British diplomats, including Guy, have contacts with its MPs in the Lebanese parliament, and with local officials in south Lebanon. Guy’s obituary described Fadlallah as the politician in Lebanon she enjoyed meeting most”. This was reported on Friday 9 July here.

UPDATE THREE: Reuters reported that Ambassador Guy put a new post on her blog on the Foreign Office website, dated 9 July, in which she explained that “her earlier posting had been an attempt to ‘acknowledge the spiritual significance to many of Sheikh Fadlallah and the views that he held in the latter part of his life’. Guy said she had ‘no truck with terrorism wherever it is committed in whoever’s name’, and that it was possible for Hezbollah ‘to reject violence and play a constructive, democratic and peaceful role in Lebanese politics’.” This is posted here.

*************************

Juan Cole has written on his blog, Informed Comment: “So help me understand this. Nuri al-Maliki, still the Iraqi prime minister for the moment, expressed his appreciation for the accomplishments of the late Grand Ayatollah Hussein Fadlallah … But when Octavia Nasr of CNN tweets the same thing that al-Maliki said, she is fired … The firing of Nasr is just a latter-day privatized McCarthyism … This is posted here.

Juan Cole links to Glenn Greenwald’s views, here, who wrote: “What makes Nasr’s summary firing even more astonishing is that Nasr herself was an unremarkable journalist who rarely if ever provoked controversy, had no history of anti-Israel or pro-Terrorist sentiments, and blended perfectly into the American corporate media woodwork … This was a banal and very cautious establishment journalist who survived and advanced at Time Warner, Inc. for 20 years by adhering to all the prevailing codes … But no matter: as we’ve seen repeatedly, in American media and political culture, Middle East orthodoxies are the most sacred and inviolable. Thus, her 2o-year loyal service is brushed to the side because of a 140-character blip of blasphemy … hat’s what Nicholas Kristof meant when, writing today from Jerusalem, he observed that Israel ‘tolerates a far greater range of opinions than America’: it’s even more acceptable to utter blasphemy about Israel in Israel than it is in the U.S., as Octavia Nasr was but the latest to discover … With the Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free ‘objectivity’ is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions”…

Nasr’s first job was for LBC, Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, affiliated with a Christian national-political movement in Lebanon.

To explain her tweet, Nasr wrote in her CNN blog on 6 July that: “My tweet was short: ‘Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot. #Lebanon‘ — Reaction to my tweet was immediate, overwhelming and a provides a good lesson on why 140 characters should not be used to comment on controversial or sensitive issues, especially those dealing with the Middle East. It was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I’m sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah’s life’s work. That’s not the case at all”.

What is she thinking? If she felt she had to, she could have said she felt she made an error, without explaining her position [now, after she was criticized, and after her job was on the line] on Fadlallah’s life or work. This only makes things worse, and on top of everything it looks like revisionist history.

Was it a personal tweet, or a corporate one? (This was clearly a corporate tweet.)

And — [for objectivity?] – she should not, or course, have said she was “sad” — or that Fadlallah was a “giant”. Worst of all, was she — a journalist from Lebanon who followed developments in the region for her job — not also a bit imprecise in describing Fadlallah (a Shi’ite leader) as belonging to Hizballah?

There is a larger issue here, and that is how the corporate world is looking at how they might be able to use social media to increase their profits or market shares or whatever.

This is one of many examples of a news corporation, one of the major media organizations, pushing their media “stars” to reveal more about themselves, to take a more personal tone, and to tweet and blog — to promote their own careers at the same time as their employers’ commercial interests.

But, for going too far, for getting too personal, that CNN journalist is now punished.

The rest of Octavia Nasr’s blog explanation is embarassing. How she liked Fadlallah because he supported women’s rights etc., then stating that “Fadlallah himself was designated a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department … Sayyed Fadlallah. Revered across borders yet designated a terrorist. Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It’s something I deeply regret”. Her explanation is posted here.

Also via Juan Cole, here is a very small part of what Stephen Walt wrote about Nasr’s firing on walt.foreignpolicy.com: “Because the United States had labeled Fadlallah a ‘terrorist’, expressing any sort of positive comment about him was a firing offense. … Mind you, I’m not defending Fadlallah’s views on terrorism or Nasr’s ill-advised tweet. CNN’s spineless response to this incident strikes me as one more reason why mainstream journalism is increasingly seen as morally bankrupt and why the blogosphere is slowly taking over”. This is posted here.

It had to be coaxed, and it was in response to a journalist’s question, but there it is.

Here is the full transcript of the brief exchange:

QUESTION: This was June 17th … it also happens to be the same city where a young boy was tortured to death by the Egyptian police. I’m just wondering if the State Department is joining the EU on calling on the Egyptian Government to investigate it and hold those accountable for torturing this boy to death … The boy’s name was Khaled Said. He was a 27-year-old Egyptian blogger and he was tortured to death.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Right. We have called for – and I believe there is an ongoing investigation in that case, so we support that investigation.

QUESTION: Any concerns that Egypt is boiling – could implode as far as the political upheaval that’s taking place there right now calling for constitutional and democratic reform. Are you worried that that might have something – it might make the peace process problematic given the Egyptians are the intermediaries between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

MR. TONER: We always encourage and urge for calm and an adherence to the democratic process.

QUESTION: Do you pressure the Egyptians?

MR. TONER: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Because it doesn’t – it looks like that’s been happening for years, but there’s been no pressure.

MR. TONER: I’m not aware of any contacts we’ve had in that regard”…

Why? Because, the Border Police person said, because he believed Ziad was a “terrorist”.

This has been, for years, the excuse and justification for almost everything here. Until now, it is almost impossible to refute.

The Israeli general public, the media, and the country’s Supreme Court all fall into line “and salute”.

Apparently, this is so far published only on the Hebrew-language website of Haaretz — and not yet presented to the somewhat more sceptical English-language audience.

Silverstein reports, on his Tikun Olam posting, that “The Justice Ministry has begun an internal investigation and Jilani’s body has been exhumed and an autopsy will be done [n.b. - the autopsy is apparently complete, but results are not yet reported]. As part of the investigation, the murder scene and entire incident were reconstructed. During this event, the shooter admitted, according to Haaretz’s report (Hebrew), that he shot Jilani at point-blank range. He claimed, however, that he believed Jilani was a terrorist and killed him because he feared he was wearing a suicide vest. Further, he claimed he fired to protect the lives of innocent bystanders”.

Then, Silverstein notes: “There are a few problems with his account. First, by approaching Jilani so closely he could clearly see he was NOT wearing such a vest. Second, proper training for such an incident (and common sense) demand that an officer not approach a potential suicide bomber at close range so as not to be blown up if a detonation occurs. In other words, only a suicidal Israeli policeman would get that close to a potential bomber (or a policeman who knew the victim was NOT a bomber). Third, it should’ve been clear from Jilani’s two previous wounds (one in his back) that if he did have a suicide vest, these bullets would’ve detonated it. Fourth, no border policeman would care for the lives of the Palestinians living in Wadi Joz where the killing occurred. In fact, several residents went to Jilani’s assistance before he was killed and according to their accounts they were beaten by the police and shoved aside”.

Here is the picture posted on Silverstein’s blog, originally published by Ma’an News Agency, which shows the shots to the face that finished Ziad off after he was already wounded in his body:

Silverstein also states in his post that “However, and possibly unbeknownst to the authorities, there is footage they didn’t manage to get. I have not seen it yet. But I have been advised that it presents a powerful graphic and visual record of what really happened“.

This happened, apparently, just after Friday prayers, in a crowded area of Wadi Joz, in downtown East Jerusalem, as we reported earlier here. It is an area that has been almost completely subdued by a long military occupation.

It does not matter whether or not Ziad had a prior run-in with Israeli Border Police (in March, at Friday prayers on ther streets in East Jerusalem, when many were barred from entering the Old City to participate in worship at Al-Aqsa Mosque). It does not matter that he apparently hit some Israeli Border Police with his truck before he was pursued, wounded, and then finished off. It does not even matter, really, whether this was by accident — as is almost certain — or if it might have been deliberate.

What matters is the rule of law — or the lack of it — and respect for human life.

Ziad Julani should not have been murdered in cold blood when he could have been apprehended.

The Julani family lawyers — say that what happened was nothing more, nor less. than a traffic accident.  Witnesses have reported that Ziad did not see the Israeli Border Police he apparently injured.  He may have been doing a maneuver, or “backing up” — or trying to do a 180-degree turn on a narrow street to get out of a heavy congestion of slow-moving cars in order to go in the opposite direction, or turning to go and visit a friend or relative until the post-Friday-prayer rush-hour traffic thinned.

He may have then panicked, and run.

In human circumstances, he could also have been having a heart attack, or stroke, or any other kind of accident, when he lost control of his car — normally, a person should not be shot, and then finished off,  for that.

Reflecting on the explanation given by the Israeli Border Police shooter — that he believed Ziad was a “terrorist” — it is interesting to read these words published recently on the mondoweiss blog: “…many observers with an interest in justice for Palestinians take offense at the New York Times’ complicity in papering over the reality of Jewish terrorism. Yet here’s the irony: the effort to promote an unbiased use of the term ‘terrorism’ simply plays into the hands of the Israelis. The word has only one purpose: to forestall consideration of the political motivation for acts of violence. Invoke the word with the utmost gravity and then you can use your moral indignation and outrage to smother intelligent analysis”. This is posted here.

The author adds that “We live in an era in which ‘terrorism’ — as a phenomenon to be opposed — has become the primary bulwark through which Zionism [here, I might have written Israel] defends itself from scrutiny”.

Haaretz has recently published an opinion piece by Nimrod Aloni, entitled “Us, us and us”, in which he wrote: “…think about, even just as a theoretical exercise, our Palestinian neighbors, for the most part enemies for these 43 years, who every day see their children and parents shot, beaten and bloody, barely conscious and completely helpless, under our occupation. And if they are indeed human beings, in the intellectual spirit of conjecture, they bleed when shot, and they scream in pain when beaten and call out to be freed when imprisoned. And when they are treated with contempt they feel humiliated and miserable. So imagine how their hearts break, stomachs turn and rage boils as their desire for revenge fills their lives and daily routine. There is nothing new or revolutionary about this intellectual exercise. All it requires is a simple step away from a tribal mentality and family feeling toward a universal moral awareness, about which uncounted artistic, philosophical and religious texts have been written. In other words, to look at the other, even if he is a stranger or an enemy, as a human being in the full sense of the term, exactly like you and your near and dear ones. And here lies our big problem; here is where our process of barbarization begins. This fundamental human value of seeing others as human beings just like us is disappearing; some people even consider it a betrayal. From so much self-love and narcissism about the Land of Israel, the dogma of Israel and the Israeli people, we have sealed our eyes and ears and shut down our minds and consciences until we can no longer see or hear others. We can no longer be attentive to their point of view and give legitimacy to the logic of their claims and cultural narrative. We are so full of ourselves and so good at understanding our own arguments that others have become invisible; for us, there’s no one else but us. No one wants peace more than we do, the Israel Defense Forces is the most moral army in the world, and no one can investigate our actions better than we. As Jews it’s obvious that we’re allowed to settle everywhere; of course it’s our right to wipe out enemies in every country and on every continent, and anyone who denies this is nothing but an anti-Semitic non-Jew or a traitorous Jew consumed by self-hate … We don’t see others, especially the Palestinians, as human in the full sense of the word … we, the Israelis, seek more rights for ourselves than we grant others. One’s heart breaks over the insensitivity that’s having a field day here, and its many victims – ours and the others“. Nimrod Aloni is identified as “director of the Institute for Educational Thought at the Kibbutz Teachers College in Tel Aviv”, and his article is published here.