Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu

Quote of the Day – 15th in our series: from Netanyahu's interview with CNN

In a silly but revealing interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu made several noteworthy quotes.

The choice, for our Quote of the Day series, however, will go to his remarks explicitly saying that “several Palestinian terrorists” are responsible — though no one has yet been charged, much less tried or convicted — for the bloody murders, a week ago, of five members of a Israeli settler family in their home in the Itamar settlement in the northern West Bank, not far from Nablus.

It was the first time that Netanyahu — or any Israeli government official, for that matter — had made such a specific accusation, though in the media and among the general population, this was the immediate and enduring assumption.

Netanyahu’s explanation segues into an argument about the settlements, and about who wants peace more…

Here are the exact words, from the CNN transcript, posted :

“MORGAN: Prime Minister, there was a horrific murder of the Fogel family last week. The details of which are chilling to read. What was your reaction to that, and where are you with the investigation into the perpetrators?

NETANYAHU: This was horrific. It was savagery. I mean, several Palestinian terrorists came into the home of this Jewish family in the West Bank. They stabbed a three-month old baby girl in the heart, cut her throat. They stabbed her four-year old brother in the heart, cut him in the throat. They stabbed the father with another child and stabbed the mother and left them dying in their blood. And then I visited the family and I saw the 12-year-old girl, a sister who came home and saw this unbelievable massacre. So obviously the first response is sheer horror. And my second response was to send a message to the settlers to contain their rage and not respond because we’d have a cycle of reprisals so I asked them to – not to take the law in their own hands, not to have vigilante actions because this would – could generate a blood bath. I thought that was important to stop that. But we’re now looking for the killers. We’ll find them.

MORGAN: Are you making progress?

NETANYAHU: Some. Some. I think we’ll find them.

Continue reading Quote of the Day – 15th in our series: from Netanyahu's interview with CNN

Netanyahu makes surprising announcement proposing renewal of efforts to complete deal on Gaza gas

In a move stunning in its timing and significance, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu announced on Friday afternoon – with the Quartet’s Tony Blair standing by his side – that he now thinks it’s time, finally, to develop Palestinian-allocated offshore natural gas deposits buried under the eastern Mediterranean in maritime space, defined by mutual agreement under the Oslo Accords, that extends 20 nautical miles out from Gaza’s coastline.

Netanyahu did specifically mention Egypt in the announcement on Friday, saying: “Most of our [natural gas] supply today is coming from Egypt”, Netanyahu said. But, he added immediately, “It’s important for us to develop additional resources”.

The exact situation on the ground, resulting from the Egyptian-Israeli natural gas deal, is rather unclear.

The announcement – as CNN’s Jerusalem correspondent Kevin Flowers pointed out in a Tweet on Friday afternoon – came on the eve of the first meeting of the Middle East Quartet principles of 2011 on Saturday (February 5) in Germany, on the margins of the Munich Security Conference.

Continue reading Netanyahu makes surprising announcement proposing renewal of efforts to complete deal on Gaza gas

Foreign Press Association in Israel protests security abuse before Netanyahu press conference

The Foreign Press Association (FPA) in Israel issued a formal protest about security abuse and harassment of journalists trying to enter a press conference that was given on Tuesday evening by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyahim Netanyahu.

“All Government Press Office (GPO) cardholders are known to authorities + have already undergone extensive background checks”, the FPA protest noted.

Citing “despicable treatment” in security checks prior to the Netanyahu press conference, the FPA said in a statement that “it is not remotely acceptable to invite people for cocktails at a five-star hotel and then make them undress at the door”.

The FPA said, in a decision approved by its board, that it is “outraged over the treatment members received at the hands of Israeli security personnel at Tuesday’s invitation-only event with the Prime Minister”, and added that it is “incomprehensible that anyone would think such humiliating treatment is necessary at such an event”.

The Israeli news website YNet.com reported in some gruesome detail, here the experience of an Al-Jazeera team.

The Israeli General Security Service (GSS, or Shabak, or Shin Bet) commented cooly to YNet that “All guests were subjected to a security check in accordance with the customary security procedures in such events. Three female reporters refused to be examined under these procedures and chose not to attend the event.”

Al-Jazeera producer/reporter Najwan Simri Diab commented to YNet: “So what? Am I supposed to feel better because others are humiliated? I felt I was being humiliated for the sake of humiliation”.

She reported that “Before our arrival, I received an angry phone call from our photographer, who was asked to arrive two hours earlier. He said everyone was allowed in apart from him and that all of his equipment was taken apart, including the screws of his camera’s battery. He said he and his assistant were asked to undress” … [When she and another reporter and their bureau chief arrived, she said, she complained, after waiting for more than half an hour] “that she couldn’t stand up much longer because of her pregnancy. The security guards told her to sit down and wait. They later took me downstairs to the security check cell. They asked me to take off my coat and then my vest. I did. Then they asked me to take off my shirt. I took a deep breath and did it. I was left with just my undershirt and trousers, without my shoes and the rest of my equipment. The female officer felt me with her hands for 15 minutes in any place possible. I told her I was pregnant and asked her not to use the manual device, but compromised on that later too’ … she was later asked to remove her bra. ‘After she examined the bra under my undershirt, she asked me to take it off as well. I asked why, but she insisted. Her supervisor came over later and insisted as well. I refused, and she said, ‘Everyone removed it and so will you.’ I said, ‘I’m not taking it off even if I can’t go in.’ And she said, ‘So you won’t go in.’ According to Simri-Diab, men saw her too. ‘A spokesperson from the office saw me in my undershirt and asked what was going on. When I told him what happened, he said, ‘Don’t create a drama.’ The woman at the security check told him, ‘She refuses to be checked’. They sent me aside for 20 minutes and refused to return my belongings. They checked every single paper and document in my purse. They later returned all my items inside a box, and I had to arrange them for a long time’.”

Menahem Kahana, a press photographer for 23 years, told Haaretz that ” ‘We waited 20 minutes on the side after the security man stopped us … Afterward they took me down to a room for a security check’. Kahana said he was checked with a hand-held security wand, and then asked to remove his trousers. ‘I refused and told them I was going to leave, but the security man said I was in the middle of ‘a security process’ and could not leave. They simply went crazy’.” This Haaretz report is posted here

The Haaretz report added that “The secretary of the Foreign Press Association, Glenys Sugarman, told Haaretz: The Shin Bet [security service] responded by saying that the people who were asked to strip had not cooperated during the regular procedure. But that is a crude lie. In the United States they also do security checks, but the difference is that the security people are not allowed to act in a humiliating, insulting and hostile manner. To hold people for hours and threaten them with arrest is unacceptable to us. It’s terrible treatment’.”

The new Director of the Government Press office, Oren Helman, told Haaretz that many Arab journalists did attend, despite the security procedures. ” ‘I certainly intend to investigate the association’s complaint and ask for answers from those responsible for the check – the Shin Bet’, he continued. “I regret the mishap. We invited the journalists and clearly the intent was for them to get into the event … unfortunately the mishaps that occured are not our responsibility”…

As Dimi Reider reported for +972 Magazine, here the formal protest issued by the Foreign Press Association (FPA) suggested that the organization “will decline further invitations unless given assurances this will not recur”.

In a comment on Reider’s piece, Tahel Ilan wrote: “For the rest of the foreign journalists to attend the event after having experienced similar ‘security checks’ or after realizing this was happening to others, is in a sense, like crossing the picket line. If the FPA wants to get the message across they need to show the PM office that none of them will stand for it, not that some of them will stand for it. And in a case like this, where not only the FPA needs the PM office in order to make their living, the PM office needs the FPA just as much in order to get their ‘Hasbara’ out, it should be made very clear to the PM office that if the GSS doesn’t act according to appropriate and respectable standards, the FPA won’t be willing to play the ‘Hasbara’ game anymore”.

Netanyahu: "Massive forest fire" continues

Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said in Sunday’s cabinet meeting (held in the Carmel region where a massive fire has been burning out of control since Thursday): “We are still in the midst of a massive forest fire. The firefighters are doing holy work but it must be understood that this kind of wildfire can only be defeated and extinguished from the air. On this we have been working day and night. We have mobilized over 30 aircraft from the nations of the world. Today, a gigantic ‘Supertanker’ plane that we rented from an American company is due to go into action. I believe that with these tools, it will be possible to contain and extinguish the fire. It must be understood that massive forest fires are fundamentally different from routine fires. The only way to deal with these wildfires is to integrate not only ground forces but aerial forces as well, local and international alike. Thus the major powers have acted. In a massive wildfire in California a few years ago, the US received assistance from eight countries; it neither hesitated nor was ashamed to request this assistance, including from countries from which we have made similar requests. In last summer’s massive wildfire in Russia, Russia neither hesitated nor was ashamed to request assistance from Ukraine and from other countries. We also did not hesitate, nor were we ashamed, in requesting such assistance. This is what we did and it has led to results. We will take control of, contain and – in the end – extinguish the fire. An additional subject is the establishment of a local aerial firefighting force. Even if we had such a force, and we are working on it, it will not always free us of the need to mobilize international support, but it would give us the possibility of bringing an aerial ‘cup of water’ to fires. The issue of closing the gaps in the conventional, ground-based, not aerial, firefighting network is an important issue. The Government has begun to deal with this issue, which has demanded a solution for 62 years. We have started to deal with it. We have added budgets. We are promoting changes but this issue has always been separate from that of massive brushfires”…

Continue reading Netanyahu: "Massive forest fire" continues

Netanyahu elaborates on what he means by "Jewish State" – and, he says, it is also a democratic state

One of the main critiques of recent insistent Israeli demand for Palestinian recognition of a “Jewish State” as a key part of any negotiated solution is: What, exactly, does it mean?

This questions have been asked by persons [including senior European diplomats with long experience in the region] who have what could be argued is a neutral position. Some Israelis also ask the same question.

Palestinian reaction is more visceral: anger. They believe they know what it means: they believe they are being asked to agree to another denial of their rights, and to another Palestinian expulsion.

This issue of a “Jewish State” was first prominently raised, in this decade, by the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in his 14-point letter of reservation about the U.S.-backed Road Map in 2003. There was no strong public reaction at the time, though, it has to be said, most people have not read the Israeli reservations to the Road Map.

It came up again, suddenly, from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, before the start of the Annapolis process of negotiations sponsored by the U.S. and launched in November 2007, with the goal of the creation of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008 [or, at very latest, by the end of the George W. Bush administration in January 2009]. Though it might have made all the difference in arriving at an early and successful conclusion of those direct Israeli-Palestinian talks, it was set aside upon American advice, because of the strong and confused Palestinian reaction. The Annapolis talks were terminated when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in Gaza on 27 December 2008.

Then, Israeli Prime Minister Benyahim Netanyahu replied, to U.S. President Barack Obama’s highly-publicized speech reaching out to the Muslim world from Cairo, with a speech of his own delivered from Bar Ilan University in which he mentioned the possibility of a demilitarized Palestinian state, if Palestinians recognized Israel as “the state of the Jewish people”.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen] brushed this off by saying, several times, that he didn’t care what Israel called itself.

Netanyahu made another recent attempt to be more descriptive, concurrent with U.S. efforts to relaunch “direct” Israeli-Palestinian talks with U.S. participation, in September. In a teleconference call with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations [as we reported on our sister blog here], Netanyahu said that this “would be a central part of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. ‘Just say it’, Netanyahu called on Abbas. ‘Say yes to a Jewish state’. The prime minister explained that he was insisting on this because ‘this is a move the Palestinians have refused to make for 62 years. Its significance is Palestinian recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-definition in their historic homeland. I recognized the Palestinians’ right to self-definition, so they must do the same for the Jewish people’.”

YNet reported last week that “The Prime Minister’s Office said the matter should have no bearing on the peace talks with the Palestinians, since Israel’s first prerequisite in the negotiations is for recognition as the Jewish state”. This is reported here.

Palestinians have, of course, already accepted Israel as a Jewish State when Yasser Arafat issued the Declaration of Independence of the Palestinian State in November 1988, then more explicitly [at U.S. insistence] at a UN meeting and then press conference in Geneva in December 1988. In these events, Arafat [with the endorsement of the PLO’s Palestine National Council] accepted UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, which — at Britain’s request for the newly-created UN to decide on the disposition of the British mandate of Palestine awarded by the UN’s predecessor, the Geneva-based League of Nations — divided Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.

The Palestinians, however, seem to have forgotten…

Today, at the start of the regular weekly cabinet session, Netanyahu linked the argument back to the controversial Citizenship oath he has backed, saying: “Today, the Cabinet will discuss an amendment to the Citizenship Law, to the effect that anyone seeking to become a naturalized Israeli citizen will declare the he or she will be a loyal citizen of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. In 1896, Theodor (Binyamin Zeev) Herzl wrote: ‘The Jews who are seeking a state will have a state. Finally, we will live as free people on our own land’. Fifty-one years later, on the eve of independence, David Ben-Gurion wrote: ‘The state that will be established will be Jewish in its purpose, designation and objective; not a state of those Jews who reside in the country but a state for the Jews, for the Jewish People’. Our Declaration of Independence says: ‘We hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel, to be known as the state of Israel”

[There was no mention of Israel being a democratic state in 1948 — the democratic system was not universal at the time, nor was it until the end of the Cold War in 1989 + 1990…]

Netanyahu continued today: “In 1992, the Knesset – in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty – determined: ‘The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state’.

[This was the first official declaration of Israel being a democratic state…]

Continue reading Netanyahu elaborates on what he means by "Jewish State" – and, he says, it is also a democratic state

Avner Cohen on Israel's policy of nuclear opacity – Part 3

In a Op-Ed piece Avner Cohen co-authored with Marvin Miller [a research associate in the Science, Technology, and Society Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] that appeared in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune on 25 August, the two wrote that “Opacity was first codified in a secret accord between President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel in September 1969. As long as Israel did not advertise its possession of nuclear weapons, by either declaring it had them or testing them, the United States agreed to tolerate and shield Israel’s nuclear program. Ever since, all U.S. presidents and Israeli prime ministers have reaffirmed this policy — most recently, President Obama in a July White House meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during which Mr. Obama stated, ‘Israel has unique security requirements. … And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine [its] security interests’. Opacity continues to have almost universal support among members of the Israeli security establishment, who argue that, by not publicly flaunting its nuclear status, Israel has reduced its neighbors’ incentives to proliferate and has made it easier to resist demands that it give up its nuclear shield before a just and durable peace is established in the Middle East”. This piece was posted here.

The article argued that “In the early days of its nuclear program, Israel had no concerns about legitimacy, recognition and responsibility; its focus was acquiring a nuclear capability. Today, the situation is different. Israel is now a mature nuclear weapons state, but it finds it difficult under the strictures of opacity to make a convincing case that it is a responsible one. To the extent that opacity shields Israel’s nuclear capabilities and intentions, it also undercuts the need for its citizens to be informed about issues that are literally matters of life and death, such as: Whose finger is on the nuclear trigger and under what circumstances would nuclear weapons be used? Opacity also prevents Israel from making a convincing case that its nuclear policy is indeed one of defensive last resort and from participating in a meaningful fashion in regional arms control and global disarmament deliberations. Israel needs to recognize, moreover, that the Middle East peace process is linked to the issue of nuclear weapons in the region. International support for Israel and its opaque bomb is being increasingly eroded by its continued occupation of Palestinian territory and the policies that support that occupation. Such criticism of these policies might well spill over into the nuclear domain, making Israel vulnerable to the charge that it is a nuclear-armed pariah state, and thus associating it to an uncomfortable degree with today’s rogue Iranian regime … in order to deal effectively with the new regional nuclear environment and emerging global nuclear norms, Israel must reassess the wisdom of its unwavering commitment to opacity and realize that international support for retaining its military edge, including its nuclear capacity, rests on retaining its moral edge”.

What is Abu Mazen doing?

DOES THIS NEW YORK TIMES PHOTO SAY IT ALL?
NY Times photo as U.S.-brokered direct talks resume in Washington on 2 September 2010 by Stephen Crowley

NETANYAHU CALLS ON PALESTINIANS TO RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS “THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE”

At the official launch of direct peace talks at the White House on Thursday (2 September), according to a report in Haaretz, “Netanyahu explained, addressing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas directly, that just as ‘you expect us to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people … Mutual recognition between us is indispensible to clarifying to our people that the conflict between us is over … I respect your people’s desire for sovereignty and I’m convinced its possible to reconcile that desire with Israel’s needs for security”. These remarks of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are posted here.

This is the time for the Palestinians to ask for guarantees to prevent what they say they fear as a result – more ethnic cleansing.

A day earlier, on Wednesday (1 September), with Obama + Abbas at White House, Netanyahu said: “The Jewish people are no strangers in our homeland, the land of our forefathers … But we recognize that another people share this land with us. And I came here today to find a historic compromise that will enable both peoples to live in peace, security and dignity … President Abbas, we cannot erase the past, but it is within our power to change the future. Thousands of years ago, on the very hills where Israelis and Palestinians live today, the Jewish prophet Isaiah and the other prophets of my people envisioned a lasting peace for all mankind.” This is published here .

ANNAPOLIS bis

Netanyahu and Abbas have agreed to meet again, here in the region [apparently, in Sharm ash-Sheikh], on 14-15 September [after Ramadan and the three-day Eid, as well as after the Jewish Rosh Hashona or New Year but before Yom Kippur] – and biweekly from then on.

However, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has reportedly warned in the Washington meetings that all bets will be off, and the talks will not continue, if the Israeli settlement freeze is not maintained after its 26 September expiry date…

WHAT’s NEW – A FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT?

This is a phrase we’ve heard before, mainly from published reports based on privileged leaks given to cooperative or valuable journalists by previous and present negotiators. In public remarks to the attending press corps yesterday in Washington, the U.S. Special Envoy for this process, George Mitchell, announced to journalists that “The parties agreed that a logical next step would be to begin working on achieving a framework agreement for permanent status. The purpose of a framework agreement will be to establish the fundamental compromises necessary to enable them to flesh out and complete a comprehensive treaty that will end the conflict and establish a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians … As both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have said, the United States pledges its full support to the parties in these talks. We will be an active and sustained partner throughout. We will put our full weight behind these negotiations and will stand by the parties as they make the difficult decisions necessary to secure a better future for their citizens”.

In response to a question from a journalist, Mitchell added that “Our goal is to resolve all of the frame – all of the core issues within one year. And the parties themselves have suggested and agreed that the logical way to proceed, to tackle them is to try to reach a framework agreement first. And as I said – and I think this ought to be made clear because there has been a good bit of misunderstanding or not a full meeting of minds publicly regarding a framework agreement – a framework agreement is not an interim agreement. It’s more detailed than a declaration of principles, but is less than a full-fledged treaty“.

Mitchell said that some of the meetings that were held in Washington on Thursday were “trilateral” meetings — involving Israel, the Palestinian leader, and American officials.

In response to another question from another journalist, he did reveal that “yes, there were discussions that touched on subject – on substance, although I don’t want to suggest to you that the meeting was such that there was a detailed and extended discussion or debate on a specific substantive issue”.

He said that he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would be “at the meeting in the region on September 14th and 15th”.

And, Mitchell said: “I look forward to reporting to you on a regular basis”.

SELLING THE TALKS – CLINTON GIVES JOINT INTERVIEW TO OFFICIAL ISRAELI + PALESTINIAN TVs

Clinton joint interview

The full text of this unrevealing interview is posted on the U.S. State Department website here.

In it, Clinton says “I mean, if you look at the economies that are now growing, much of the world is still coming out of a recession. In the Palestinian business community, in Israel, you have vibrant, growing economies that are making a difference. In Nablus, last year, unemployment was 30 percent; it’s down to 12 percent. It’s clear to me that the forces of growth and positive energy are in a conflict with the forces of destruction and negativity. And the United States wants to weigh in on the side of leaders and people who see this as maybe the last chance for a very long time to resolve this”. [n.b. — It’s hard to get a reliable grasp on the economic figures, which are easy enough to “cook”. A recent BBC TV report on Ramallah said that unemployment in the de facto capital city of the Palestinian West Bank was 20 percent, and 47 percent of the Ramallah population was living at or below the poverty line…]

And, here’s a hard-hitting question from Amira Hanania Rishmawi, the woman from Palestine TV [though it certainly skids off the tracks at the last moment]: “Your Excellency, peace doesn’t only come through beautiful words, but needs to be backed by actions. We all know that the PA government now is through a financial crisis. So what is your message to the donors? And we really need, as a Palestinian, your message to them because they are – start losing hope in peace”.

And to this, Secretary Clinton replies: “…the United States, as you, I’m sure, know has increased dramatically our direct support for the Palestinian Authority. And I have encouraged and urged all the donors to do that and more. Last year was a good year. We got a very robust amount of contributions. This year, we are upping our request to all of the donors to support the peace process by supporting the Palestinian Authority”.

Incitement – cont'd

Now, at last, at long last, the U.S. government has spoken out, and called incitement, “incitement”.

And it was on a Sunday, too, a day on which Washington is normally quiet.

The U.S. went further, and said that the remarks made by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in a sermon in a Jerusalem synagogue over the weekend (and reported after Shabbat, overnight on Sunday, by Israel Army Radio), were also “inflammatory” [a word used by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office to describe the comments several hours after criticism of Yosef’s words intensified] , and “deeply offensive”.

In a statement from Washington — apparently issued because there was a clear and urgent need, in advance of meetings the U.S. has convened for 1 + 2 September to relaunch direct Israeli-Palestinian talks that the Palestinians called off at the end of December 2008, as Israel began a massive three-week military attack on Gaza — U.S Assistant Secretary of State, spokesperson for Hillary Rodham Clinton, said: “We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. We note the Israeli statement that the Rabbi’s comments do not reflect the views of the Prime Minister. These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace. As we move forward to relaunch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it”.

Hours earlier, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday distanced himself from inflammatory comments made by Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef over the weekend in which he wished a plague on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian people. [Yosef apparently wished that Abbas would “disappear from the earth”, or die; see our previous post here.] A statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office said that Yosef’s comments ‘don’t represent the views of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or the Israeli government. Israel entered into negotiations out of a desire to progress with the Palestinians toward an agreement that will end the conflict and ensure peace, security and good neighborly relations between the two nations’.” This Israeli reaction — correcting an earlier position, in which Netanyahu didn’t have much to say about Yosef’s comments, was posted here.

Yosef, who was born in 1920 in Iraq, was brought by his family to Jerusalem in 1924. [He apparently worked as a Rabbi in Egypt from 1947 until about 1949 or 1950 — during the most intense phase of the conflict surrounding the creation of the State of Israel, and during the war waged against Israel by neighboring countries, including Egypt.]

Renowned for his Talmudic scholarship and his innovative interpretation, Yosef became Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, and was later elected the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. Now, he is said to be the spiritual leader of the Shas political party, one of the major haredi (ultra-orthodox and more) religious parties seated in the Israeli following February 2009 Israeli national elections.

Shas leader, Eli Yishai, who now heads the powerful Israeli Interior Ministry in what has been called Israel’s most right-wing government ever, put together by Netanyahu after the last elections, said earlier Sunday that the party stood by Yosef’s remarks.

Yosef reportedly holds an ambivalent attitude towards Zionism. One of Yosef’s sons is reportedly about to be elected as Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (representing the Sephardic or Mizrahi Jewish community, those from Arab countries), in a complicated religio-political trade-off [in which, one of those who have been described as “religious Zionist” Rabbis will be simultaneously elected as the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem (representing those with views and traditions developed from centuries of living in Europe), and this deal has been described as an effort “to lessen haredi influence” in rabbinical and religious issues]. See here for this report.

Shas, incidentally, is one of the main opponents of continuing Israel’s supposed (and in any case only partial) settlement freeze beyond its 26 September expiry date. Palestinian President Abbas has said that if there is continued settlement construction, negotiations will be meaningless.

Was it convenient that Yosef spoke in such an inflammatory way at this juncture? Will the outcry over Yosef’s remarks make it easier, now, for Netanyahu to argue for the extension that the U.S. is pushing for?

IDF Chief of Staff Ashkenazai also takes responsibility for Flotilla Fiasco

According to a report in Haaretz, the IDF Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi testified Wednesday, at the Turkel Commission investigating the “maritime incident” which occurred when Israeli forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and five other ships sailing toward Gaza in a “Freedom Flotilla” on 31 May, that “the raid quickly became ‘chaotic’, and the soldiers had no choice but to ‘continue with the plan’ … From the moment the operation began, it was clear that the circumstances were unprecedented’, he said, adding that as commander he took full responsibility for the troops’ actions”.

Ashkenazi is the third high-ranking Israeli official to take responsibility for the Flotilla fiasco. Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak also said the responsibility was theirs.

Haaretz also reported that “despite initial reports that military personnel would not testify before the Turkel committee, Ashkenazi has authorized Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit to testify before the panel. Ashkenazi also approved the questioning of General (Res.) Giora Eiland, who headed the IDF’s internal inquiry into the deadly raid”. This is reported in Haaretz here.

Continue reading IDF Chief of Staff Ashkenazai also takes responsibility for Flotilla Fiasco

More on Flotilla fiasco from Netanyahu and from Ehud Barak

Barak Ravid wrote in Haaretz about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s testimony before Israel’s non-IDF commission of inquiry into the Flotilla fiasco that Netanyahu yesterday called a “maritime incident” that: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed visibly unprepared for his public testimony before the Turkel Committee yesterday – hesitating over key details, evading questions and finally [later] publishing three statements clarifying and even denying what he had said just hours earlier … [The committee is headed by former Supreme Court justice Jacob Turkel.] But while his [Netanyahu’s] opening address, in which he enumerated Hamas’ crimes and Israel’s attempts to persuade the Turkish government to stop the flotilla, went smoothly, the subsequent questions – on issues such as the government’s decision-making process, Israel’s intelligence on the flotilla and Netanyahu’s personal responsibility for the incident – showed no evidence of these preparations. He refused to answer six questions entirely, saying he would do so only at a closed hearing. And he said he didn’t know the answers to many other questions – such as how much humanitarian aid was entering Gaza before the raid. But the Turkel Committee’s spokesman, Ofer Leffler, said Netanyahu did answer all six questions in his subsequent closed-door testimony, and had promised to respond in writing to those to which he did not know the answers yesterday”.

Ravid wrote that when asked who decided on the raid, “Netanyahu replied that it was the Israel Defense Forces’ decision”…

Continue reading More on Flotilla fiasco from Netanyahu and from Ehud Barak