An Israeli daily Haaretz report cites a Jerusalem political source who states that 3 Netanyahu government ministers, Lieberman, Begin and Ya'alon have countered defense minister Ehud Barak's possible offer of a "a temporary freeze" of construction in Yehuda and the Shomron arguing that a temporary construction freeze would set a precedent which could become permanent. But the real problem is that by negotiating how much Israel is to be allowed to build, Israel has already accepted the nonsensical idea that outside forces can determine where Jews can and can not build in the Jewish heartland:
Defense Minister Ehud Barak will meet in New York today with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell in an effort to agree on a compromise formula on settlement construction. The meeting takes place in light of a recent disagreement among the "forum of six" ministers over this issue.
A political source in Jerusalem said Monday that a "temporary freeze" of construction in the settlements was met with objections by three of the six senior ministers in the forum.
Monday morning the forum, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and ministers Dan Meridor, Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon, met to agree on a position that Barak would then present to Mitchell.
Barak supported a formula according to which Israel would freeze settlement construction completely, except for projects that have already started, and would require U.S. guarantees on the future of the peace process.
A political source in Jerusalem said that Barak's position was countered by Lieberman, Begin and Ya'alon, who opposed his proposal. The three argued that "a temporary freeze" of settlement construction will create a precedent and may become permanent. "If we start it will be difficult to go back," the three said.
It is unclear what the positions of Netanyahu and Meridor were.
According to the three ministers opposing Barak, Israel must not propose a "temporary freeze" without a commitment for similar and equal concessions by Arab states and the Palestinian Authority, and as part of a broader package deal...
...Israel should offer to temporarily freeze construction if this helped peace talks get underway. He said willingness to do so would alter Israel's "refusing" reputation.
Israel might try instead to enhance its refusing reputation by firmly saying no to this kind of thing. One firm "no" might actually save the need to say "no" later on subsequent demands, as any good negotiator knows. Is it superfluous to add that the Palestinians have refused to budge an inch in their core demands ever since 1993? This intrangience has been amply rewarded, as Israel has been made to split the difference each time, until finally offering close to 100% of the territories in negotiations.
The Haaretz report continues:
"We must explain to the Americans that we, too, have red lines," Deputy Prime Minister Ya'alon said during the meeting.
A novel idea indeed. But first Israel must develop some red lines that it is really not willing to cross.
During the meeting with Mitchell, Barak intends to present a more watered-down proposal, which will include a declared wish to resolve the settlements issue during negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over a final settlement agreement. Moreover, the proposal will be to limit new construction to the addition of stories to existing structures in the settlements, except for projects that have already begun.
As George Bernard Shaw would say, by haggling over the price Israel has already given in on the principle.
The real problem is that Israel, as a nation, has yet to decide for itself what the real future of the territories will be. As a symptom, the pace of building in the settlements is always open to internal debate, and that leads to external forces joining in on that debate. While it is certainly true that outsiders should butt out of Israel's internal affairs, it is incumbent upon Israel to make a decision, the right decision, on this matter once and for all.
Once again, the world is amazed. The massive revolt of Iranian citizens has elicited the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits and commentators. And yet, just like their predecessors in the Soviet Union, Iran's democratic dissidents were right. Every totalitarian society consists of three groups: true believers, double-thinkers and dissidents. In every totalitarian regime, no matter its cultural or geographical circumstances, the majority undergo a conversion over time from true belief in the revolutionary message into double-thinking. They no longer believe in the regime but are too scared to say so. Then there are the dissidents - pioneers who articulate and finally act on the innermost feelings of the nation. More than once in recent years, former Soviet citizens returning from a visit to Iran have told me how much Iranian society reminded them of the final stages of Soviet communism.
Western governments are fearful of imperiling actual or hoped-for relations with the world's ayatollahs, generals, general secretaries and other types of dictators - partners, so it is thought, in maintaining political stability. But this is a fallacy. Democracy's allies in the struggle for peace and security are the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran who, with consummate bravery, have crossed the line between the world of double-think and the world of free men and women. Listen to them, and you will hear what you yourself know to be the true hope of every human being on Earth.
Natan Sharansky spent nine years in the Soviet gulag. He is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.
The Iranian leadership took more measures to calm tensions, instructing a senior judge to investigate the death of protester Neda Agha Soltan and stating that the Islamic republic does not want to downgrade relations with Britain.
According to Al-Alam state television, recounting had started in 22 Teheran districts as well as in provinces. North Teheran is a base of support for opposition Mir Hossein Mousavi, who insists he - not Ahmadinejad - won the disputed election.
The Guardian Council, Iran's top electoral oversight body, said it planned to complete the recount of a random 10 percent of ballots by the end of the day.
Yet it was unclear what purpose the recount would serve. Khamenei and the Council already have pronounced the results free of major fraud and insist that Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, and Mousavi has insisted the government nullify the results and hold a new vote - steps it flatly refuses to consider.
State TV said Mousavi representatives met with a Guardian Council election review panel, but it ended in a stalemate and officials decided to proceed with the recount.
In the second report in which Rafsanjani publically calls for a fair vote probe, sources indicate that Revolutionary Guards and paramilitary Basijis have commandeered ambulances:
Revolutionary Guards and paramilitary Basijis made numerous arrests, Teheran sources said, jumping out of ambulances in some cases to apprehend protesters, and preventing onlookers from halting to watch.
"The regime's agents have taken over the ambulances. Now whenever there are clashes, the hospital ambulances come to the scene. And instead of paramedics, plain-clothed agents [wearing white jackets] emerge and load up the people," one source said.
According to the same source, these ambulances have also been used to secretly transport the dead from earlier clashes and bury them.
"Many of the ambulances are leaving the city and coming back and then leaving the city again. It is obvious... The police, who guard [all exits leading out of the capital], let them pass without question after the driver waves at them... The regime is doing this to cover its bloody tracks."
As the Iranian authorities work to restore order, cameras and other monitoring equipment are being set up in on the main streets, especially Baharestan Square, the sources said.
Plain-clothes agents and special units have also been stationed in other parts of Teheran and are stopping people with injuries for questioning, to establish whether they were involved in protest rallies.
Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy."
Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.
It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of... their own country.
Of course, that would never happen with "a more balanced approach to the Middle East."
It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live...
Why... seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn't even tolerate the mere presence of Jews?
Obama and Clinton... have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people...
Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?
Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?
Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined [under Obama/Clinton policy] for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naive hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.
But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s.... who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich.... who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel's support for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are dismayed at their own governments' silence in the face of the brave Iranian protesters risking their lives for freedom.
However, in writing her piece, she notes that:
...Israel has joined the US and Europe in rejecting the protesters....
For Israel, the arguments for staying clear of events in Iran align with those informing much of the rest of the Western world. Israel's primary concern is Iran's foreign policy and specifically its nuclear weapons program and its support for anti-Israel terror groups. There is no reason for Israel to believe that a Mousavi government will be more inclined to end Iran's race to the bomb or diminish its support for terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas than Ahmadinejad's government is. As prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a major instigator of Iran's nuclear program and he oversaw the establishment of Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
"Dear Israeli Brothers and Sisters," writes Iranian dissident Arash Irandoost, "Iran needs your help more than ever now. And we will be eternally grateful. Please help opposition television and radio stations which are blocked and being jammed by the Islamic Republic (Nokia and Siemens) resume broadcast to Iran. There is a total media blackout and Iranians inside Iran for the most part are not aware of their brave brothers and sisters fighting and losing their lives daily. And the unjust treatment and brutal massacre of the brave Iranians in the hands of the mullah's paid terrorist Hamas and Hezbullah gangs are not seen by the majority of the Iranians. Please help in any way you can to allow these stations resume broadcasting to Iran.
"And, please remember that we will remember, as you have remembered Cyrus the Great's treatment of you in your time of need," Irandoost concludes, signing his blogged call for help "Your Iranian Brothers and Sisters!"
In an interview with Israel National News, Iranian expatriate pro-democracy activist Amil Imani said that Irandoost's message represents the sentiments of much of the youth in the streets in Iran. They have a strong belief in the technological know-how of the Israelis to overcome the Iranian regime's attempts to block communications.
"This is going to be the most massive, impressive revolution of the 21st century," Imani said, "and we're seeing it live." However, he added, it is now too dependent on Internet communications, so the protesters are very much in need of outside assistance to fight the technological and information war.
More generally, Imani said, the Iranian people are lionizing any leader of any nation who comes out strongly against the Islamic Republic at this time.
According to Imani, at least 500 people have been killed by Iranian government forces, with another 5,000 injured. But the hospitals are no longer safe, he added, as the gunmen from the basiji militia enter the emergency wards looking for wounded protesters. Therefore, Imani said, sympathetic doctors have taken to treating the wounded wherever they can, including in private homes...
As for the basijis themselves, Imani reported, many of them are Lebanese and Palestinian Authority Arabs hired by the regime to do its bidding. Iranians reportedly captured seven basijis who spoke no Persian, only Arabic. According to Imani, 10,000 more Arab hired guns arrived in Tehran to serve the mullah-led regime...
Even outside Iran, thousands of protesters are out in the streets every day, especially in the United States. Imani said he thinks the phenomenon represents unprecedented unity in the Iranian community, within Iran and abroad.
"There is no turning back," Imani concluded.
The bottom line: The technical assistance being requested by the Iranian revolutionaries in their battle with the the fundamentalist Islamic regime presents an opportunity for Israel to make a tangible contribution to assist in bringing about change in the region, eliminating the nuclear danger posed by the Achmedinejad/Khameini regime, without high profile public statements which the Netanyahu government may deem counter-productive toward Israeli diplomacy.
Below is an analysis of an absurd asymmetry in plans for "peace" in the Middle East.
It comes under the title "2 states for 2 peoples". Because of the implied symmmetry it sounds fair, but the name is anything but correct and the symetry is non-existent.
Most of those that support the plan do NOT mean that the Jews will get a state (Israel) and the Palestinian Arabs will get a state (Palestine).
What they actually mean is:
1) A 2nd Palestian Arab state (in addition to Jordan, which has a majority of Palestinian Arabs) and a 21st Arab state will be created where no such state existed before. All Jews currently living in what will become Palestine will be removed.
2) The one Jewish state will be made non-Jewish by the influx of millions of third generation Arab "refugees" who apparently could not possibly be settled in the new Palestinian Arab state. All Arabs already living in Israel would stay.
In short, a new, extraneous state would be created ex nihilo for the Arabs and made Judenrein; simultaneously, the one existing Jewish state would be destroyed by flooding it with hostile Arabs.
Does that sound fair to you? No? Keep it in mind the next time someone preaches that there should be 2 states for 2 peoples.
The absurdity of the whole idea was recently brought out by Binyamin Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a prerequisite for peace, and the subsequent rejection of that prerequisite by the 2-states-for-2-peoples crowd, as explained by The Jerusalem Post's Evelyn Gordon:
To mainstream Israelis, Binyamin Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is self-evidently just. Yet many in the West, the Arab world and even Israel's left reject it utterly.
Meeting in Luxembourg last Monday, European foreign ministers said conditions such as this were unacceptable. Former US president Jimmy Carter echoed this comment. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak declared that "nobody in Egypt or anywhere else... can recognize Israel as the state of the Jews"; pro-government papers in Jordan and Saudi Arabia published similar statements. The Palestinians said they will never accept this demand...
Specifically, they demand the right to relocate 4.6 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants (UNRWA's figure) to Israel - a demand from which they have never budged in 16 years of negotiations. This influx, combined with the 1.5 million Arab citizens, would make its 5.6 million Jews a minority in their own country, effectively eradicating the Jewish state.
Thus it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who have placed its Jewish character on the negotiating table. Netanyahu, far from raising new and irrelevant demands, is merely responding to theirs.
Moreover, far from being an obstacle to peace, Netanyahu's demand is indeed essential to it - because the Jewish state will never agree to abolish itself via a peace treaty. Hence until the Palestinians stop demanding that it do so, no treaty will be possible.
This is not exactly true -- the whole point of 2 states for 2 peoples is to trick or bludgeon Israel into suicidal self-emasculation, as was done to Czechoslovakia before World War II. But Netanyahu's demand, if met, would make the emasculation much less likely -- see below:
Since this already is a Jewish state, Palestinian recognition of this fact would in no way worsen Israeli Arabs' existing situation...
Indeed, the only effect Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewish character could have on Israeli Arabs is forcing them to abandon the delusion of someday eliminating it via mass Palestinian immigration...
Successive Israeli governments have committed explicitly to the goal of a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians have yet to abandon their demand for the demographic elimination of the Jewish one. It has thus become increasingly clear that the real problem is not the refugees, but Palestinian unwillingness to accept the very existence of a Jewish state. And since Israel will not agree to commit suicide, further talks will be pointless unless this unwillingness changes.
Yet the justice of making recognition a precondition for talks goes far deeper than that, as a Palestinian parallel ironically demonstrates. Prior to his speech last Sunday, Netanyahu had refused to commit to the goal of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians refused to resume negotiations unless he did... Essentially, the Palestinian position was "we will not agree to negotiate about whether we have a right to exist; we are only prepared to discuss the details." But the Jewish state is also not prepared to negotiate about whether it has a right to exist. It, too, is only prepared to discuss the details: borders, water rights, compensating the refugees, etc. And despite its initial belief in Palestinian good faith, it never should have allowed the "right of return" onto the table: No sane country would agree to make its very existence a subject of negotiations.
Netanyahu, however inconsistently, is belatedly trying to correct this fatal error, and he deserves the world's wholehearted support. And this is not merely because, practically speaking, no peace deal will be possible unless the Palestinians accept the Jewish state's existence.
Primarily, it is because the Jewish state cannot be the only state in the world whose very right to exist is subject to negotiations. And the Jewish people cannot be the only people in the world whose right to a nation-state of its own is deemed negotiable.
According to an article in last weekend... written in collaboration with a journalist inside Iran, the protests were started not by supporters of Mousavi but rather by supporters of his wife Zahra Rahnavard.
It was Rahnavard, a professor of art history, author of more than a dozen books on art, former government minister and former chancellor of Alzahra University in Teheran, who called for the protests when the altered results came in. (She and her husband were originally told that they won, and then several hours later the official announcement was changed.) The million protesters running to the streets calling for an end to radical Islamic rule in Iran came because of her not him. In fact, what you might not read in the media is that at the beginning, most of the protesters were women.
WELL IT'S about time. Radical Islam is worse for women than arguably any other group.... Women are the ones arrested in Iran for having an ankle showing or for wearing lipstick. After three such arrests, women go to prison. At the fourth arrest, they get a public lashing. For Ahmadinejad, the ideal woman is not only covered from head to toe, literally, but is not to be seen in public - ever. Iranians have no idea what his wife looks like because, as per his wishes, she is never seen. Ahmadinejad's vision of an ideal society is not just Israel-less but also women-less.... Women's oppression is the symbol of radical Islamic rule around the world.
So now women are finally protesting in a way that the world can see and hear. And lots of men are joining as well. It took the leadership of a powerful woman to bring them out, but once the truth begins to emerge, there is no turning back. Rahnavard, educated... and fearless, inspired them to believe in change. She is not only seen in public, but she speaks - loudly. Every once in a while she will even remove her chador in protest of the Islamic regime, just to make the point. She is her husband's political partner - they are even seen holding hands in public, which apparently makes Ahmadinejad fume. When Ahmadinejad was elected in 2006, she spoke out from her position as university president against his victory. "He hates women," she said from her pulpit. She was fired shortly thereafter.
Geraldine Brooks, in her outstanding book Nine Parts of Desire about women and Islam, demonstrates unequivocally that radical Islam's fight against the world hinges on the role of women. The more their woman are covered, the more religious men claim to be... What we are really watching in Iran is women taking to the streets, under the unofficial leadership of a woman, to challenge the dark, barbaric rule of radical Islam...
So now US President Barack Obama offers a position of noninvolvement. He doesn't want to interfere, he has said, in "internal" Iranian politics. He's like a police officer walking into an apartment where a man is beating his wife and saying, "It's between the two of you." When he does that, the aggressor smiles and the victim screams in horror. Victims need intervention - and aggressors want everyone to look the other way.
That's why there is really no such thing as neutrality, especially not when a terrorist regime is systematically and brutally killing those who fight for human rights. Neutrality in the face of aggression by definition empowers the aggressor. The only ones to benefit from this false stance of neutrality are the brutal attackers. The victims - in this case, women - are crying out for help.
It is quite telling that the new hero of this movement is a heroine - shot while watching from the side. The video of Neda Soltan horrifically bleeding out and dying is not the only element of the story to get people's attention. Also "before" and "after" photos of her - that is, before and after she was forced into religious subservience by Islamic law - are quite shocking, a transformation from free woman to imprisoned chattel. These photos tell the real story about what is going on in Iran.
Thursday marks three years since Palestinian infiltrators tunneled into Israel from the Gaza Strip, killed Lt. Hanan Barak and St.-Sgt. Pavel Slutsker and dragged our young soldier into captivity.
Hamas has held Schalit incommunicado. Violating international law and human decency, and although Hamas prisoners in Israel are permitted visitors, Gaza's rulers have refused to allow even the Red Cross to see their Israeli hostage.
NEGOTIATIONS under Egyptian auspices for Schalit's release are accelerating. Defense Minister Ehud Barak was in Cairo this week, and a top Egyptian intelligence operative was said to have been in Tel Aviv yesterday on Schalit-related business.
Schalit's parents have not known a day of tranquility in three years and Israel must strive to bring him safely home - but not at any cost: Hamas has been insisting on the release of 1,000 prisoners in exchange for their Israeli hostage.
This newspaper raises no objection to freeing a modest number of prisoners, provided their release won't jeopardize more Israeli lives - though we regret the release yesterday of West Bank Hamas politician Aziz Dweik, while Schalit remains a prisoner.
However, we remain adamantly opposed to trading Schalit for mass-murderers such as Abdullah Barghouti, who has the blood of 66 Israelis on his hands (Sbarro, etc.); Ibrahim Hamed, who murdered 36 (Moment café, etc); Abbas Sayad (Netanya massacre, Pessah 2006).
It is not surprising that just as talk of an imminent deal on Schalit is circulating, so too is news of a blue-ribbon Defense Ministry panel shortly submitting its proposed guidelines governing future prisoner exchanges. These would constrain decision-makers in making obscenely lopsided exchanges: There would reportedly be no more releases of vast numbers of enemy prisoners for one or two Israeli soldiers, and only terrorist corpses - not live prisoners - could be traded for fallen Israelis.
These guidelines are eminently reasonable, and should - but won't - be applied to the Schalit case.
Once the wrenching Schalit affair is ended, we urge an efficient commission of inquiry into why there was no attempt to rescue the soldier over three years. Israelis have the right to know why the risks to the civilian population in releasing busloads of terrorists were deemed to trump those of a rescue mission.
If the government miscalculates the Schalit endgame, it could inadvertently fortify Hamas, endanger Israeli civilians and set the stage for the next hostage ordeal.
President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we’re seeing now in Iran?
As Bush said, liberty isn’t American, or British, or French. It is human. No, the morality police in Iran are not just “part of Iranian culture” as some critics of Bush have claimed. Nor are public hangings. Nor are arbitrary detentions of doctors, or Holocaust denial conferences.
Peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy. Whatever the “foreign policy realists” or “regime apologists” might claim, there is little doubt in my view that should Iran become a free nation the world will be a safer place for all, not just a better place for Iranians.
I have posted some videos of the Iranian uprising... and I would strongly urge you to watch them.
[Warning: these videos show graphic -- and real -- violence. -ed.]
They show the reality of Iran’s dictatorship, a reality that many international TV networks are refusing to show. Some of these videos are disturbing but I feel they need to be watched to understand the true nature of Iran’s regime and why it should never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
To state the obvious, this is not some video game or Hollywood movie. These events really happened, and they happened last week, and the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, has been extraordinarily slow to criticize them.
Iran's Guardian Council admitted to irregularities in the June 12 presidential election, implying that the number of votes from the June 12 presidential election collected in 50 cities surpasses the number of eligible voters.
Council spokesperson Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in an attempt to play down accusations of election fraud launched by failed presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei.
"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate - the incident happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei was quoted on the Iranian state-funded Website Press TV.
Only 50? Well, that makes me feel better. How about you?
Iran’s most powerful oversight council announced on Monday that the number of votes recorded in 50 cities exceeded the number of eligible voters there by three million, further tarnishing a presidential election that has set off the most sustained challenge to Iran’s leadership in 30 years.
The legitimacy of the vote remains at the core of the dispute. On Monday, the Guardian Council sought to help validate the outcome when it announced there had been discrepancies... which it said involved up to three million votes, not enough to overturn the landslide election margin that the government had announced for Mr. Ahmadinejad. But the recognition of a broad discrepancy between the number of recorded votes and registered voters in some districts only fueled suspicions that the election — and the Guardian Council’s arbitration of it — was unfair.
The Guardian Council is scheduled to certify or nullify the vote on Wednesday, or, some speculated, call for a runoff between the two top vote-getters. It has so far appeared to prejudge the race as fair and legitimate.
The extra votes add to a list of complaints leveled against the election by the reform candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, and other challengers inside and outside Iran. Among them:
How did the government manage to count enough of the 40 million paper ballots to be able to announce results within two hours of the polls closing? How is it that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s margin of victory remained constant throughout the ballot count? Why did the government order polls closed at 10 p.m. when they often stay open until midnight for presidential races? Why were some ballot boxes sealed before candidates’ inspectors could validate they were empty? Why were votes counted centrally, by the Interior Ministry, instead of locally, as in the past? Why did some polling places lock their doors at 6 p.m. after running out of ballots?
Iran is the leader of the Islamist terror network world-wide, the funder and backer of Hizb'allah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and other unsavory groups, and a budding nuclear power led by fanatical, messianic leaders longing to bring on an Islamic Armageddon. The recent uprising there could change all that, making this one of the biggest stories related to the security of Israel, and the entire Western World, in a long time.
What began 9 days ago as a protest of possible rigged results in the June 12th Iranian presidential elections may well have escalated with the number of casualties resulting from brutality on the part of Iranian security forces, including police and members of the Basij militia, and with a report of Iranian state-run press TV that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani's eldest daughter and four other unidentified members of his family were arrested late Saturday. An AP report on Yahoo points to a split amongst Iranian clerics. The big question now is whether the Iran uprising is about rigged elections or full-scale revolution:
Iran's government said Sunday it arrested the daughter and four other relatives of ...Rafsanjani, one of the country's most powerful men, in a move that exposed a rift among the ruling Islamic clerics over the disputed presidential election.
State-run Press TV reported that Rafsanjani's eldest daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, and four other unidentified family members were arrested late Saturday. On Sunday evening, it said the four others had been released but that Hashemi remained in detention.
Last week, state television showed images of Hashemi, 46, speaking to hundreds of supporters of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. He alleges fraud in the June 12 election, which the government said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won.
The arrests are the strongest sign yet of a serious divide among Iran's ruling clerics.
Rafsanjani, 75, heads two powerful institutions. One of them, the cleric-run Assembly of Experts, has the power to monitor and remove the supreme leader, the country's most powerful figure. The second is the Expediency Council, a body that arbitrates disputes between parliament and the unelected Guardian Council, which can block legislation.
The assembly has never publicly reprimanded the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since he succeeded Islamic Revolution founder Aytollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. But the current crisis has rattled the once-untouchable stature of the supreme leader with protesters openly defying his orders to leave the streets.
Underscoring how the protesters have become emboldened despite the regime's repeated and ominous warnings, witnesses said some shouted "Death to Khamenei!" at Saturday's demonstrations — another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the virtually limitless authority of the supreme leader.
Rafsanjani was deeply critical of Ahmadinejad during the presidential campaign and has the potential to lead an internal challenge to Khamenei...
Iran's regime continued to impose a blackout on the most serious internal conflict since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
But fresh images and allegations of brutality emerged as Iranians at home and abroad sought to shed light on a week of astonishing resistance to hard-line Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
The New-York based International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said scores of injured demonstrators who had sought medical treatment after Saturday's clashes were arrested by security forces at hospitals in the capital...
Thousands of supporters of Mousavi, who claims he won the election, squared off Saturday against security forces in a dramatic show of defiance of Khamenei...
Saturday's unrest came a day after Khamenei sternly warned Mousavi and his backers to all off demonstrations or risk being held responsible for "bloodshed, violence and rioting." Delivering a sermon at Friday prayers attended by tens of thousands, Khamenei sided firmly with Ahmadinejad, calling the result "an absolute victory" that reflected popular will and ordering opposition leaders to end their street protests.
The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”
A man... threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of “Join us! Join us!” The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad riot police officers on motorbikes.
The taboo-breaking response was unequivocal. It’s funny how people’s obsessions come back to bite them. I’ve been hearing about Khamenei’s fear of “velvet revolutions” for months now. There was nothing velvet about Saturday’s clashes. In fact, the initial quest to have Moussavi’s votes properly counted and Ahmadinejad unseated has shifted to a broader confrontation with the regime itself.
Garbage burned. Crowds bayed. Smoke from tear gas swirled. Hurled bricks sent phalanxes of police, some with automatic rifles, into retreat to the accompaniment of cheers. Early afternoon rumors that the rally for Moussavi had been canceled yielded to the reality of violent confrontation.
I don’t know where this uprising is leading. I do know some police units are wavering. That commander talking about his family was not alone. There were other policemen complaining about the unruly Basijis. Some security forces just stood and watched. “All together, all together, don’t be scared,” the crowd shouted.
Iranian state television on Sunday brought the official confirmed death toll to twenty, when it reported that 13 people were killed in violent clashes between police and what they call "terrorist groups." Seven deaths were confirmed last week.
The report did not specify how the deaths occurred...
CNN reported that at least 19 people were killed on Saturday based on eyewitness accounts of medical officials in Teheran's hospitals. CNN also quoted unconfirmed reports that put the actual death toll at 150.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman clashed over US demands for a freeze on settlements in Palestinian territory.
At a press conference after talks in Washington on Wednesday, Clinton reaffirmed US demands for an end to settlement building but her Israeli counterpart rejected the call.
Perhaps it is naive to expect unbiased news coverage today, especially where Israel is concerned. But the land in question has never been controlled by a Palestinian Arab entity and almost all the settlements are built on empty land where no Arabs lived or are living. So using the phrase "Palestinian territory" can only mean a) that the author of the story doesn't know anything about Middle Eastern history or b) the author is trying to influence the ultimate arrangements for that territory by making people think that it was once owned by the Palestinian Arabs and therefore should revert back to their control
Either way, one would expect accuracy from major news outlets, regardless of their political positions. Words matter.
...At Bar-Ilan University, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu acquiesced to precisely what he was elected to repudiate. US pressure is no excuse for this. Leaders are elected to resist pressure, not to submit to it; to sidestep it, not succumb to it; to divert it, not to yield to it. A myriad of allegedly "pragmatic" arguments can be raised to justify the tone and the substance of his admirably crafted speech. But none of these carries any durable strategic substance. They reflect a clear preference for the fleeting benefits of short-term cunning rather than the enduring fruits of long-term wisdom.
Some might protest at this unbenevolent assessment, claiming that in fact it was a brilliant political maneuver, placing the onus on the Palestinians, exposing their "true face" and cutting the ground away from political rivals such as Kadima. But all this is chaff in the wind. Indeed, if the true face of the Palestinians has not been revealed by the brutal post-Oslo surge in terror, by the murderous response to the far-reaching 2000 Ehud Barak initiative, by vicious fury of their post-disengagement violence, what hope is there that Netanyahu's rehashed version of failed past proposals will drive home this reality?
And as for stymieing Kadima and co-opting some or all of its disgruntled MKs, does Netanyahu really want to make his government - already the largest in the nation's history - even larger? Is adopting his adversaries' proposed policy to neutralize their criticism really a sign of inspired and assertive leadership?
One can only wonder why Netanyahu would agree to accept an approach he has always refused to accept - just when that approach has been utterly discredited and disproved... Indeed, perhaps one of the most astonishing aspects of the ongoing phenomenon of ostensibly "hawkish" politicians adopting, once in power, "dovish" policies they previously repudiated is the fact that these policies have consistently and continuously proved a disastrous failure, thus not only totally vindicating those who rejected them, but making further adherence to them completely incomprehensible.
INSTEAD OF SEIZING on these indisputable failures of the land-for-peace/two-states-for two-peoples approach to repudiate it, Netanyahu embraced it - however reluctantly. Instead of enlisting the events of last 15 years to delegitimize the Palestinian narrative, he endorsed it - however unenthusiastically.... Instead of challenging the US administration to explain its demands that Israel accept a policy the US military itself deemed would gravely undermine its security, he chose to accommodate those demands.
For example Netanyahu could have publicly declared that he agreed with Shimon Peres who warned against the notion of a "demilitarized Palestinian state," cautioning that "demilitarization of the West Bank seems a doubtful remedy. The principal problem is not an agreement on demilitarization, but ensuring the actual implementation of the agreement in practice. The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept" (Tomorrow Is Now, p. 255).
He could have publicly echoed Peres's concern when, in his (briefly) feted book, The New Middle East, he asked: "Even if the Palestinians agree that their state have no army or weapons, who can guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the lowlands? And if the Palestinian state would be unarmed, how would it block terrorist acts perpetrated by extremists, fundamentalists or irredentists?"
Similarly he could have endorsed the caustic comments by the Israel Prize laureate for law and former education minister Amnon Rubinstein regarding Palestinian statehood: "Not since the time of Dr. Goebbels has there ever been a case in which the continual repetition of a lie has born such great fruits... Of all the Palestinian lies, there is no lie greater or more crushing than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank."
He could have adopted Rubinstein's vehement rejection of demilitarization as a solution, in which he pointed out it would lead to an untenable situation where of all the member-states in the UN, the Palestinian state would be the only one with such limitations on its sovereignty. It would be the only one without an army and an air force. It would be the only one designated a "second-class state" and in essence would resemble the black protectorates once envisaged during the apartheid era in South Africa.
Indeed, he could have invoked the former senior Meretz minister's warning that demilitarization was both hazardous and futile: "This kind of [national] inferiority - which will never be accepted, neither by foes nor friends - will bring only a deepening of the Palestinian 'humiliation' and with it the perpetuation of the Jewish-Arab conflict. This is the real pitfall involved in the establishment of a separate Palestinian state between us and the desert."
HE COULD HAVE engaged the US public opinion and produced the document drawn up by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under Gen. Earle Wheeler to advise the US president on Israel's security needs, which stated categorically that most of the territory designated for a Palestinian state was "essential to Israel's defense."
He could have cited Eugene Rostow, the senior US diplomat involved in the formulating UN Security Council Resolution 242.... For according to Rostow: "All the studies of the Israeli security problem reached the same conclusion - from the security point of view, Israel must hold the high points in the West Bank and areas along the Jordan River."
He could have driven home the point that the Obama administration cannot profess to be committed to Israel's security and then impose on it a policy that even his own military admits grievously endangers that security. He could have mobilized the leaders of tens of millions of evangelicals, who have a very clear-eyed vision of what the significance of a "two-state solution" would have for their access to places holy to their faith - as events in Bethlehem clearly testify.
In the final analysis Netanyahu chose surrender over resistance, and in so doing he put in grave danger not only his country and his people but the very rationale of Zionism itself.
SOME MAY OBJECT to this harsh assessment but consider the following: Even if the Palestinians reject his conditions, they still will have attained a huge accomplishment. They have extricated from one of greatest opponents of Palestinian statehood acknowledgment of their right to such statehood. Now the arguments will be only as to the parameters of that state and for further international pressure (and from "enlightened" Israelis) for Israel to forgo its insistence on demilitarization and its recognition as the nation-state of Jewish people.
But it would be even worse if the Palestinians agree, and some transient regime accepts Netanyahu's conditions, for, as both Peres and Rubinstein warned, how could Israel guarantee they would be adhered to? There is clearly no way to assure that future regime would honor the commitments of its predecessors, especially it the latter were overthrown precisely because of their "perfidious" accord with hated Zionist entity. There is no way to ascertain that menacing military alliances with Israel's foes will not be made, especially if these are informal. And if they were made, what would Israel do? Attack the Palestinians? Their allies? Both?
But perhaps the most damaging aspect of Netanyahu's vision of "two free peoples living side by side in this small land" is the devastating effect it must have on the very foundations of the Zionist rationale. For what is to be the fate of the Jewish settlements in the areas under Palestinian administration. Clearly there can only be two possibilities: they will either be dismantled or not.
But whether the settlements are to be abandoned or dismantled, the message to the Palestinians is clarion clear: No product of Zionist endeavor is permanent.
The clash between the Palestinians and us is a clash of wills. Its outcome will be decided by whose will breaks first. Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech went a long way to convincing the Palestinians it will not be them.
While the pressure from the US is still relatively mild, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has already capitulated to the idea of a Palestinian state in his speech at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University. What will happen when he begins to slide down the slippery slope, his preconditions are bypassed one-by-one and the US government really begins to tighten the screws?
In my vision of peace... Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other...
This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.
I have already stressed the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.
Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza.
We don't want Kassam rockets on Petah Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion Airport. We want peace.
In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbullah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.
It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.
On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.
Nice words, but naive in the extreme. Perhaps no one can rebut them better than Netanyahu himself did in another address made to the Likud Central Committee in May, 2002. Then-MK Netanyahu took a position against a Palestinian state, the position of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Always a clear and eloquent spokeman for Israel's security when someone else is in power, Netanyahu has once again betrayed his principles and his constituency almost immediately after being elected, when the time came to put his money where his mouth is:
"The biggest mistake that can be made is to promise [to the Palestinians] the establishment of their own independent state." So said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu exactly seven years ago, in a strong warning against giving in to international pressure on Israel in "final status" talks with the Palestinian Authority.
...The Likud Central Committee held a stormy session in which it voted overwhelmingly for then-MK Netanyahu's position against the formation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, and against the position of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sharon had in the months beforehand implied his support for a demilitarized PA state, prompting Netanyahu and other party leaders to put the issue to a vote – and a PA state lost.
"The biggest mistake that can be made is to promise the greatest prize for Palestinian terrorism: the establishment of their own independent state. Most people now feel that a state under Arafat would be a terrorist fortress dedicated to our destruction.
"But some say that without Arafat, with a different leadership and with all sort of reforms, things will be different. Let's see if this is true. We want to ensure that such an entity does not receive more than self-rule. But it will demand all the powers of a state, such as controlling borders, bringing in weapons, control of airspace and the ability to knock down any Israeli plane that enters its area, the ability to sign peace treaties and military alliances with other countries. Once you give them a state, you give them all these things, even if there is an agreement to the contrary, for within a short time they will demand all these things, and they will assume these powers, and the world will stand by and do nothing - but it will stop us from trying to stop them...
"We will thus have created with our own hands a threat to our very existence. On the day that we sign an agreement for a state with limited authorities, what will happen if the Palestinians do what the Germans did after World War I, when they nullified the demilitarized zone? The world did nothing then, and the world will do nothing now as well. Even now, the Palestinians are removing all the restrictions to which they agreed in Oslo – they are smuggling in arms, polluting the water sources, building an army, making military deals with Iran and others, and more... But when we try to take action against this, the world opposes us – and not them...
And this is exactly what has happened in Gaza already, as everyone knew, deep-down, that it would.
"Arafat said it best when talking to reporters the day he signed the Oslo Accords: 'Since we can't defeat Israel in war, we must do it in stages, we must take whatever area of Palestine we can get, establish sovereignty there, and then at the right time, we will have to convince the Arab nations to join us in dealing the final blow to Israel.' Self-rule, yes. But a state with which to destroy the State of Israel - no...
"Throughout the years, all the Likud governments objected to a Palestinian state, and on that platform we were voted into power, and to this mandate all Likud leaders are bound. And yet something strange happened here: Without anyone approving it, without any democratic process - not in the party, not in the government, not in the Knesset, and certainly not in the country - but only with some ill-advised remarks [by Sharon in favor of a PA state], one of the foundation stones of our national security has been shaken, and suddenly the position of Sarid and Peres has become the official policy of the Government of Israel - and as a result, also that of the United States. Ladies and gentlemen, is this how critical decisions on our national existence are made?
Apparently it is when Bibi is in power, as he has just done the exact same thing.
"...We need not be concerned that the international community does not agree with us on this matter. Did the international community foresee the Holocaust? And if it did, did it do anything about it? Did it even lift a finger? It also did nothing about the threat to our existence that faced us from the Iraqi reactor – except to condemn us when Menachem Begin’s government destroyed it... On matters vital to our existence, we always took clear action, even if others didn’t agree with us. Because the bottom line is that saying 'Yes' to a Palestinian state means 'No' to a Jewish State, and vice-versa.”
What is so surreal about this discussion is that the whole thing has already been tried in totally independent and unoccupied Gaza and it has failed on every point. Gaza is not demilitarized (despite a partial blockade by Israel), it has long since fallen to Hamas and Iranian influence, weopons pour in and then are used against Israel. Why is that forgotten? Why would a 2nd Palestinian entity in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") be any different? What exactly would happen to Gaza if a second entity came into being in Judea and Samaria? Would it be subsumed into the new entity and magically demilitarize?
