The warning comes following Ahmadinejad visit to an Island claimed by both Tehran and UAE. Saudi Prince: Any harm to any of the countries touches us all.
Saudi Arabia repeated on Wednesday that it would not tolerate threats to the Gulf Arab states' sovereignty, the latest warning to Iran after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to an island claimed by both Tehran and the United Arab Emirates.
The warning, the third in as many weeks by a member of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), comes amid increased nervousness in the region over Iran.
Shi'ite-led unrest is resurgent in Bahrain a year after the ruling Al Khalifa family brought in Saudi and UAE troops to help suppress an uprising seen by Sunni Muslim Gulf rulers as sectarian in nature and driven by Shi'ite giant Iran.
"Any harm that comes across any of our countries is harm that touches us all," Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Nayef said in a speech at a meeting of GCC interior ministers in Riyadh.
Nayef also condemned what he called Iran's "occupation" of the island and its role in events in Bahrain.
"We stress that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the council countries are standing in a unified line with Bahrain and the UAE to protect sovereignty and stability, considering their security a part of the council's security as a whole."
Ahmadinejad made a rare visit on April 11 to Abu Musa, one of three Gulf islands also claimed by the UAE and located near oil shipping routes at the mouth of the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz.
Bahrain's Formula One race last month drew fresh attention to ongoing clashes between Bahraini security forces and mostly Shi'ite protesters, although the main Shi'ite Islamist Wefaq party denies any links with Iran.
Tensions with Iran have increased since the Gulf Arab countries' western allies tightened sanctions over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. Tehran says its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful.
Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in a speech over the weekend that Gulf Arab states are pushing ahead with plans for a political union that would involve joint foreign and defense policies, an idea floated by Saudi King Abdullah last December.
After Ahmadinejad's visit to Abu Musa, some 60 km (40 miles) off the UAE coast, the Islamic Republic said its sovereignty over the three islands was not negotiable but it has also called for talks with the UAE to clear up "misunderstandings".
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, quoted by the student news agency ISNA, said Iran wanted to "have the best possible relations with the UAE, as our trade and economic relations are significant."
May 3, 2012
Hamas says holding secret diplomatic talks with EU states
Europe and the U.S. have been rethinking Mideast policy since the Arab Spring uprisings toppled several pro-Western regimes in favor of Islamists.
Hamas has been holding secret political talks with five European Union member states in recent months, a senior member of the Gaza-based Islamist movement said on Wednesday.
The EU's official stance indicates that it will not deal with Hamas unless the group renounces violence and recognizes Israel.
Europe and the U.S. have been rethinking Mideast policy since the Arab Spring uprisings toppled several pro-Western regimes in favor of Islamists.
Osama Hamdan, who handles foreign relations for Hamas, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that talks with European government officials focus on the Hamas positions toward Israel and paralyzed Mideast peace efforts.
Hamdan would not name the countries. Three Hamas officials in Hamas-ruled Gaza said Britain, France and Holland are among them.
In response to the AP story, the U.K.' Commonwealth Office released a statement, saying: "We do not have any direct contact with Hamas."
"The Quartet have set out clearly that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previously signed agreements. Hamas must make credible movement towards these conditions, which remain the benchmark against which its intentions should be judged," the statement added.
Hamas has been holding secret political talks with five European Union member states in recent months, a senior member of the Gaza-based Islamist movement said on Wednesday.
The EU's official stance indicates that it will not deal with Hamas unless the group renounces violence and recognizes Israel.
Europe and the U.S. have been rethinking Mideast policy since the Arab Spring uprisings toppled several pro-Western regimes in favor of Islamists.
Osama Hamdan, who handles foreign relations for Hamas, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that talks with European government officials focus on the Hamas positions toward Israel and paralyzed Mideast peace efforts.
Hamdan would not name the countries. Three Hamas officials in Hamas-ruled Gaza said Britain, France and Holland are among them.
In response to the AP story, the U.K.' Commonwealth Office released a statement, saying: "We do not have any direct contact with Hamas."
"The Quartet have set out clearly that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previously signed agreements. Hamas must make credible movement towards these conditions, which remain the benchmark against which its intentions should be judged," the statement added.
Israel's military censor to monitor Facebook, Twitter, blogs
Chief censor says new system will not infringe on personal information nor scrutinize private Facebook accounts.
Israel's military launched a new system this week to monitor information on the Internet, the chief military censor said on Tuesday.
Col. Sima Vaknin-Gil said that the new system will monitor visual and textual information on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, on blogs and on traditional news sites.
Speaking at the Digit 2012 conference at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Vaknin-Gil explained that the new system will examine information using key words labeled in advance. The system will be able to monitor information that was previously difficult to reach. "I think that you can't try to catch everything," she said, "because that will make the censor lose its relevance, and furthermore – its morality."
Vaknin-Gil added that "as the chief censor, I have no intention of going into people's personal diaries, and it important for me to note that we do not 'sit' on private Facebook accounts."
Referring to recent incidents of censored information being published on social networks and blogs – notably by Jewish-American blogger Richard Silverstein - Vaknin-Gil said that "the censor is perceived as a body trying to control the Internet, to no avail. This is mistake – we try to operate within the Internet only in terms of elements related to us."
"The censor cannot reject everything," she added. "The censor can only touch things that are likely to harm the security of the state, and these incidents are few."
Israel's military launched a new system this week to monitor information on the Internet, the chief military censor said on Tuesday.
Col. Sima Vaknin-Gil said that the new system will monitor visual and textual information on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, on blogs and on traditional news sites.
Speaking at the Digit 2012 conference at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Vaknin-Gil explained that the new system will examine information using key words labeled in advance. The system will be able to monitor information that was previously difficult to reach. "I think that you can't try to catch everything," she said, "because that will make the censor lose its relevance, and furthermore – its morality."
Vaknin-Gil added that "as the chief censor, I have no intention of going into people's personal diaries, and it important for me to note that we do not 'sit' on private Facebook accounts."
Referring to recent incidents of censored information being published on social networks and blogs – notably by Jewish-American blogger Richard Silverstein - Vaknin-Gil said that "the censor is perceived as a body trying to control the Internet, to no avail. This is mistake – we try to operate within the Internet only in terms of elements related to us."
"The censor cannot reject everything," she added. "The censor can only touch things that are likely to harm the security of the state, and these incidents are few."
EU's Ashton plans Israel visit to update Netanyahu on Iran nuclear talks
Ashton's visit, expected to last several hours, comes ahead of the second round nuclear of talks between Iran and Western powers, which will begin May 23 in Baghdad.
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is scheduled to fly in to Jerusalem on Wednesday, to give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a rundown of developments in nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers. The meeting is apparently an effort to prevent Israel from speaking out publicly against the talks.
Ashton's visit, expected to last several hours, comes ahead of the second round of talks, which will begin May 23 in Baghdad.
After the first round of talks in Istanbul last month, Netanyahu accused the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany of giving Iran a "freebie" by providing it with more time to enrich uranium, before the second round of talks. U.S. President Barack Obama has rejected the claim.
Ashton's visit was planned during a visit to Europe this week by National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, said a senior Israeli official.
Amidror met in Brussels with Ashton's deputy, Helga Schmid, who informed him of the strategy undertaken by the negotiating team of the six world powers. The team is headed by Ashton.
The meeting is unusual, because Ashton will meet only with Netanyahu and will not be visiting Ramallah. The Israeli government source said that's because the only topic under discussion will be the Iranian nuclear talks.
Ashton is expected to personally tell Netanyahu about the first round of nuclear talks and about preparations for the next round, in an effort to assuage his concerns that a deal is in the works that would authorize Iran to continue enriching uranium.
Netanyahu is also concerned that Iran will secure a pledge for a suspension of sanctions, including the oil embargo scheduled to go into effect July 1, in exchange for a partial freeze on uranium enrichment. The embargo would be a serious blow to the Iranian economy.
A senior European diplomat who is knowledgeable about the nuclear talks said European officials have been quite pleased with the firm stance Ashton has taken in the negotiations so far.
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton is scheduled to fly in to Jerusalem on Wednesday, to give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a rundown of developments in nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers. The meeting is apparently an effort to prevent Israel from speaking out publicly against the talks.
Ashton's visit, expected to last several hours, comes ahead of the second round of talks, which will begin May 23 in Baghdad.
After the first round of talks in Istanbul last month, Netanyahu accused the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany of giving Iran a "freebie" by providing it with more time to enrich uranium, before the second round of talks. U.S. President Barack Obama has rejected the claim.
Ashton's visit was planned during a visit to Europe this week by National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror, said a senior Israeli official.
Amidror met in Brussels with Ashton's deputy, Helga Schmid, who informed him of the strategy undertaken by the negotiating team of the six world powers. The team is headed by Ashton.
The meeting is unusual, because Ashton will meet only with Netanyahu and will not be visiting Ramallah. The Israeli government source said that's because the only topic under discussion will be the Iranian nuclear talks.
Ashton is expected to personally tell Netanyahu about the first round of nuclear talks and about preparations for the next round, in an effort to assuage his concerns that a deal is in the works that would authorize Iran to continue enriching uranium.
Netanyahu is also concerned that Iran will secure a pledge for a suspension of sanctions, including the oil embargo scheduled to go into effect July 1, in exchange for a partial freeze on uranium enrichment. The embargo would be a serious blow to the Iranian economy.
A senior European diplomat who is knowledgeable about the nuclear talks said European officials have been quite pleased with the firm stance Ashton has taken in the negotiations so far.
Barak: Olmert, Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs are serving Iran
Defense Minister condemns former PM, as well as Dagan and Diskin for travelling the world and playing down the Iranian threat; Olmert fires back at Barak: He will surely disappear from politics soon.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday harshly condemned former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin for downplaying the threat from Iran, saying the three are serving Tehran.
Barak denounced the three's continued criticisms of him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iranian issue.
In an interview with Yisrael Hayom newspaper, Barak said that the "Olmert gang is traveling around the world and speaking in a way that is serving Iran."
Olmert responded to Barak's criticism later on Thursday, saying that the defense minister will surely disappear from politics soon.
"The fact is that a former prime minister and three heads of Israeli security bodies - that have over the years dealt with the most sensitive matters regarding Israel's security – are positive that Barak, who will surely soon disappear from the Israeli political map, is leaving behind him great damages that harm the state's security and every Israeli citizen must be alarmed," a statement from Olmert's office read.
In the interview, Barak denounced the former prime minister and the former defense chiefs for weakening the Israeli resolve on Iran.
"Olmert, Dagan, and Diskin are travelling the world and are weakening Israeli leaders' accomplishment of turning the Iranian issue into an important and urgent one – not only to Israel but to the world," he said.
Barak, who frequently interviews with foreign networks to speak at length about Iran, said that "there are some issues which could not be discussed openly without the discussion causing damage to the actual issue."
He condemned Diskin for his various statements on Iran, saying that "it is not even his field of specialization or his responsibility."
Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday harshly condemned former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin for downplaying the threat from Iran, saying the three are serving Tehran.
Barak denounced the three's continued criticisms of him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iranian issue.
In an interview with Yisrael Hayom newspaper, Barak said that the "Olmert gang is traveling around the world and speaking in a way that is serving Iran."
Olmert responded to Barak's criticism later on Thursday, saying that the defense minister will surely disappear from politics soon.
"The fact is that a former prime minister and three heads of Israeli security bodies - that have over the years dealt with the most sensitive matters regarding Israel's security – are positive that Barak, who will surely soon disappear from the Israeli political map, is leaving behind him great damages that harm the state's security and every Israeli citizen must be alarmed," a statement from Olmert's office read.
In the interview, Barak denounced the former prime minister and the former defense chiefs for weakening the Israeli resolve on Iran.
"Olmert, Dagan, and Diskin are travelling the world and are weakening Israeli leaders' accomplishment of turning the Iranian issue into an important and urgent one – not only to Israel but to the world," he said.
Barak, who frequently interviews with foreign networks to speak at length about Iran, said that "there are some issues which could not be discussed openly without the discussion causing damage to the actual issue."
He condemned Diskin for his various statements on Iran, saying that "it is not even his field of specialization or his responsibility."
Mar 22, 2012
Netanyahu-Peres divide runs through Iran but centers on Zionism
Their AIPAC speeches revealed not only their differences on Iran, but something much deeper.
Shimon Peres did not seem happy this Sunday when he stood up to address 13,000 delegates of the AIPAC conference in Washington. He was hesitant, constantly glancing down at his script, nothing like the normally self-confident orator. In fact, during some parts of the speech, he seemed almost under duress. It was if he had orders from the Prime Minister's Office: Go Big on the Shoah and on Iran! But he didn't look very comfortable talking about either.
The president toed the line, up to a point. He reminisced about his grandfather who was murdered by the Nazis in 1942, but he didn't go straight on to Tehran. First he managed to squeeze in a mention of his mentor David Ben-Gurion. And then a bit about peace and justice and the Palestinians, and only then three terse paragraphs on the Iranian threat, without any historical context. Finally, with that over, he was free to dwell on subjects much closer to his heart: He segued to brain research and other "possibilities that today sound like science fiction."
Most of the comparisons made this week about the AIPAC speeches and meetings were between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu and their policy differences over Iran. But the contrast between Netanyahu and Peres is just as important to Israel's future, if not more so. The prime minister's AIPAC speech two days after the president's was a much surer and self-confident performance.
Introducing the minister-of-nothing
Netanyahu wasn't squeamish about the Holocaust. Of all the members of his entourage, he chose to recognize Yossi Peled, minister-of-nothing-whatsoever, simply because his father was murdered in Auschwitz - and Peled, a former IDF general, is the only Holocaust survivor in the cabinet. Then Netanyahu moved almost immediately to Iran, which took up nearly the entire speech, but he never forgot the historical connection. Iran was very rarely just Iran, as when Netanyahu compared some of the arguments against attacking Iran's nuclear program to the reasons given by the U.S. government in 1944, not to bomb Auschwitz. Purim gave him yet another opportunity for reaching back into the past when "2,500 years ago a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people" (how unsurprising that Netanyahu gave Obama a Scroll of Esther as a gift ). The fact that Pesach is still a month off didn't prevent him from adding a quote from the Haggadah: "In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people."
It is not that Netanyahu, the historian's son, is overly obsessed with the past, while Peres at 88, just wants to escape into the future. There is a deeper, psychological and ideological divide at work here. It was no coincidence that Peres mentioned Ben-Gurion at AIPAC: The first prime minister did not believe in getting too hung up about the Holocaust. If he had, he would never have been able to sign a reparations agreement with Germany a mere seven years after the end of the Holocaust.
Menachem Begin, the Likud's first prime minister, certainly could not have done so. In three decades of opposition, the only time he ever called upon the public to rise and revolt against the government was at the mass protest against accepting German reparations. And 29 years later, it would be Begin as prime minister who ordered the strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, for exactly the same reasons his successor Netanyahu is espousing now. The Begin Doctrine calls for Israel to act, independently if needs be, to prevent its enemies from achieving a nuclear capability. Peres, then leader of the opposition, was against the Osirak attack, and to this day has not changed his mind. He remains faithful to Ben-Gurion's strategy, that Israel must never risk international isolation by going to war without the backing of foreign powers. That's why he is now distinctly unhappy with Netanyahu's beating on all the war drums.
After AIPAC Peres flew to the West Coast, taking in the IBM Brain Lab, and meeting Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Sergey Brin at Google (just imagine how moments like these torment anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists; the Jews do control the world! ). Not a word about Iran. This is how the Peres brand is kept cool, rapping with the kings of the Internet, five and six decades his junior. But is this just another example of the naivete of the old man who believed that the support of the international community would be enough to ensure that the Oslo Accords would succeed? Should he be wasting valuable time and platforms in the United States talking about the future of brain research while the Iranian centrifuges are revolving and enriching uranium near Qom? He is having fun and promoting Israeli science and technological prowess, but is it not a form of escapism? A preoccupation with the past is not the only reason to support an Iranian attack. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is even more bullish than Netanyahu on Iran, rarely, if ever, uses historical justifications. He prefers to base his decisions on his own brilliant analyses of the future. But it is Peres and Netanyahu who embody the forward-backward dilemma of Zionism.
The Jewish state has no justification or direction without its roots in the past. But it is doomed without a vision for the future. Neuroscience and nanotechnology are very valuable but in themselves but will not secure the future for Israel nor safeguard its identity. An obsession with biblical-apocalyptic scenarios may supply warning signs but does not lend itself to rational decision-making. Both are narcissistic time-absorbing pursuits.
Shimon Peres did not seem happy this Sunday when he stood up to address 13,000 delegates of the AIPAC conference in Washington. He was hesitant, constantly glancing down at his script, nothing like the normally self-confident orator. In fact, during some parts of the speech, he seemed almost under duress. It was if he had orders from the Prime Minister's Office: Go Big on the Shoah and on Iran! But he didn't look very comfortable talking about either.
The president toed the line, up to a point. He reminisced about his grandfather who was murdered by the Nazis in 1942, but he didn't go straight on to Tehran. First he managed to squeeze in a mention of his mentor David Ben-Gurion. And then a bit about peace and justice and the Palestinians, and only then three terse paragraphs on the Iranian threat, without any historical context. Finally, with that over, he was free to dwell on subjects much closer to his heart: He segued to brain research and other "possibilities that today sound like science fiction."
Most of the comparisons made this week about the AIPAC speeches and meetings were between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu and their policy differences over Iran. But the contrast between Netanyahu and Peres is just as important to Israel's future, if not more so. The prime minister's AIPAC speech two days after the president's was a much surer and self-confident performance.
Introducing the minister-of-nothing
Netanyahu wasn't squeamish about the Holocaust. Of all the members of his entourage, he chose to recognize Yossi Peled, minister-of-nothing-whatsoever, simply because his father was murdered in Auschwitz - and Peled, a former IDF general, is the only Holocaust survivor in the cabinet. Then Netanyahu moved almost immediately to Iran, which took up nearly the entire speech, but he never forgot the historical connection. Iran was very rarely just Iran, as when Netanyahu compared some of the arguments against attacking Iran's nuclear program to the reasons given by the U.S. government in 1944, not to bomb Auschwitz. Purim gave him yet another opportunity for reaching back into the past when "2,500 years ago a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people" (how unsurprising that Netanyahu gave Obama a Scroll of Esther as a gift ). The fact that Pesach is still a month off didn't prevent him from adding a quote from the Haggadah: "In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people."
It is not that Netanyahu, the historian's son, is overly obsessed with the past, while Peres at 88, just wants to escape into the future. There is a deeper, psychological and ideological divide at work here. It was no coincidence that Peres mentioned Ben-Gurion at AIPAC: The first prime minister did not believe in getting too hung up about the Holocaust. If he had, he would never have been able to sign a reparations agreement with Germany a mere seven years after the end of the Holocaust.
Menachem Begin, the Likud's first prime minister, certainly could not have done so. In three decades of opposition, the only time he ever called upon the public to rise and revolt against the government was at the mass protest against accepting German reparations. And 29 years later, it would be Begin as prime minister who ordered the strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, for exactly the same reasons his successor Netanyahu is espousing now. The Begin Doctrine calls for Israel to act, independently if needs be, to prevent its enemies from achieving a nuclear capability. Peres, then leader of the opposition, was against the Osirak attack, and to this day has not changed his mind. He remains faithful to Ben-Gurion's strategy, that Israel must never risk international isolation by going to war without the backing of foreign powers. That's why he is now distinctly unhappy with Netanyahu's beating on all the war drums.
After AIPAC Peres flew to the West Coast, taking in the IBM Brain Lab, and meeting Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Sergey Brin at Google (just imagine how moments like these torment anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists; the Jews do control the world! ). Not a word about Iran. This is how the Peres brand is kept cool, rapping with the kings of the Internet, five and six decades his junior. But is this just another example of the naivete of the old man who believed that the support of the international community would be enough to ensure that the Oslo Accords would succeed? Should he be wasting valuable time and platforms in the United States talking about the future of brain research while the Iranian centrifuges are revolving and enriching uranium near Qom? He is having fun and promoting Israeli science and technological prowess, but is it not a form of escapism? A preoccupation with the past is not the only reason to support an Iranian attack. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is even more bullish than Netanyahu on Iran, rarely, if ever, uses historical justifications. He prefers to base his decisions on his own brilliant analyses of the future. But it is Peres and Netanyahu who embody the forward-backward dilemma of Zionism.
The Jewish state has no justification or direction without its roots in the past. But it is doomed without a vision for the future. Neuroscience and nanotechnology are very valuable but in themselves but will not secure the future for Israel nor safeguard its identity. An obsession with biblical-apocalyptic scenarios may supply warning signs but does not lend itself to rational decision-making. Both are narcissistic time-absorbing pursuits.
Capitol letter / Iran and Peter Beinart roil the American Jewish pot
Beinart is cementing his role as U.S. Jewry's enfant terrible even as J Street, which will host him this weekend, is engaged in detente with the Israeli embassy. Meanwhile, Iran is proving a boon for Jewish fund-raising.
1. Pro-Israel organizations rarely have good news to share; alarming news about Israel is good for fund-raising. For example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent a letter to supporters in mid-February titled "Breaking news: Iranian calls to destroy Jewish people." It gave examples of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei's vitriol, along with a detailed plan to annihilate Israel posted on a website run by the head of the Iranian parliament's research center.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the center's founder, asked supporters for an emergency contribution as soon as possible, because "there is not a moment to waste as we confront the rapidly evolving situation in the Middle East." He urged donors to fight "Iran's genocidal threats against Israel and the Jewish people worldwide" with contributions starting at $50 and ending with an open bracket, left to the donor's generosity. The center's spokesperson didn't respond when asked how the fund-raising effort is going.
Across the ocean, meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was busy downplaying the Iranian threat. "We categorically condemned" the statements made about Israel by Iran's president and other Iranian officials, Lavrov told Russia's Kommersant newspaper. "It's uncivilized and unworthy of such an ancient country and people with their great culture." He said he sees anti-Israel rhetoric mainly as serving domestic and foreign policy goals, "to keep in an anti-Israeli orbit those on whom Iran wishes to rely in the neighborhood."
But, Lavrov added, "I am absolutely convinced that Iran would never do it," if only because the region is so small: "Israel and Palestine. To threaten to destroy Israel and spare Palestine is probably unrealistic."
2. There was one tiny bit of good news: The Israel Project's European staffers, visiting Washington, DC, proudly told Haaretz that during meetings with 21 high-ranking European diplomats serving in the U.S. capital, they were surprised to find a much more positive attitude toward Israel than ever before.
On possible reason, they speculated, is that the Iranian issue has reached "a critical point" for the European Union, which is very preoccupied by it. Another is that the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is in hibernation - until the end of the U.S. presidential election, until after the Israeli elections, or until the Iranian issue is resolved.
Do these diplomats really reflect the atmosphere at home, I asked, or is it more the Washington influence?
Well, the TIP staffers said, in the past, European diplomats were not shy about making these meetings utterly uncomfortable, with long tirades against Israeli policies. This time, even the settlements were paid no more than lip service, and not mentioned at all in many meetings.
Some diplomats were worried that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas might leave the stage, with no clear alternative. On Syria, no big surprise, nobody really knows what to do. And they fear a strike against Iran might prove disastrous to their economies. Therefore, sanctions are preferable.
3. But sanctions are easier said than done. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a message to Congress that Washington has granted exemptions from sanctions to financial institutions in 11 of the 23 countries that import Iranian crude, due to "significant cuts" in their Iranian oil imports.
Japan was presented by a senior administration official as a model for making efforts to put pressure on Iran: Despite its own extremely troubled year, including the tsunami and the Fukushima reactor meltdown, it cut its oil imports from Iran by 15 to 22 percent.
Now, for 180 days, financial institutions in these countries are exempt from the threat of being cut off from the U.S. financial system. The U.S. administration hopes Iran's other customers will follow suit - including top crude importers like India and China.
But when IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde warns that oil prices could jump 20 to 30 percent if Iran's crude supply is disrupted, such hopes can only go so far.
4. J Street still has its detractors, but at least Israel's embassy in America finally seems to be mending fences with the dovish pro-Israel lobby - to some extent. The lobby's annual conference is titled "Making history," but Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren won't be making history by setting foot in the Convention Center in Washington this weekend. Still, unlike last year, when no official embassy representative was sent, or the year before, when the embassy representative kept as low a profile as possible, this time, Deputy Head of Mission Barukh Binah will attend and even speak.
An embassy source said relations with the lobby have improved, because it has recently taken positions that are more acceptable to the Israeli government - even rejecting the recent call by one of its featured conference speakers, Peter Beinart, for boycotting Jewish settlements. "Israel prefers 'critical dialogue' to no dialogue," stressed the source. "We never actually boycotted them. Binah has the title of ambassador, and until recently used to be responsible for U.S.-Israeli relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He's a serious representative."
J Street seemed quite content. "We are pleased to have the opportunity to hear from Israeli Embassy Deputy Head of Mission Barukh Binah," said Jessica Rosenblum, director of media and communications. "Our leadership and activists are interested in further strengthening our relationship with the Government of Israel's official representatives in the United States, and we appreciate that the embassy is sending such a high-ranking diplomat to attend our conference."
The Obama Administration will send Tony Blinken, national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. It seems that President Barack Obama has decided to bet on AIPAC after all.
One of the major challenges for this year's J Street conference will be to prove that the two-state solution is not dead yet. This year, just keeping the drumbeat of peace alive is not trivial.
One of my web friends who had planned to go to the conference told me he decided to skip it after a week-long visit to Israel. "After speaking with many of my friends and family I realize that the so-called 'two-state solution' is no longer a viable option," he wrote.
"Most Israelis truly believe - time will tell if rightly or wrongly - that there is no partner on the Palestinian side. They understandably perceive Israel's biggest pressing challenge as a nuclear Iran. The Likud party is expected to win 35-37 seats in the next parliamentary election, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement for any compromises in the foreseeable future.
"A new bold idea is desperately needed and I don't see it coming on the horizon. I therefore must honestly conclude that at the moment, J Street's ideas, though theoretically sound, are realistically unattainable. Therefore, I've decided to skip the upcoming conference in DC."
5. If the two-state solution proves unexciting this year, at least Beinart has firmly established his credentials as the Jewish establishment's enfant terrible, repeatedly stirring up stinging conversations on Zionism and why the heck the younger generation of American Jews should care.
Not for attribution, Israeli officials castigate Beinart as someone "who found his profitable niche and continues to dig himself deeper into the controversy." There are also some angry on-record attacks against his new book, "The crisis of Zionism," for being biased, not offering a real alternative, etc. His recent New York Times op-ed provoked a storm as well.
Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren wrote on his Facebook page: "Peter Beinart's call ("To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements," New York Times, 3.19.12 ) places him well beyond the Israeli mainstream, the moderate left, and the vast majority of Israelis who care about peace. The call for boycotting all products made by Israeli communities outside of Jerusalem and beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines is supported only by a marginal and highly radical fringe. Beinart's position, moreover, absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility for the current situation, including their rejection of previous peace offers, their support for terror, and their refusal to negotiate with Israel for the past three years. By reducing the Palestinians to two-dimensional props in an Israeli drama, Beinart deprives them of agency and indeed undermines his own thesis. Without an active Palestinian commitment to a two-state solution - irrespective of boycotts - the peace Beinart seeks cannot be achieved."
1. Pro-Israel organizations rarely have good news to share; alarming news about Israel is good for fund-raising. For example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent a letter to supporters in mid-February titled "Breaking news: Iranian calls to destroy Jewish people." It gave examples of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei's vitriol, along with a detailed plan to annihilate Israel posted on a website run by the head of the Iranian parliament's research center.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the center's founder, asked supporters for an emergency contribution as soon as possible, because "there is not a moment to waste as we confront the rapidly evolving situation in the Middle East." He urged donors to fight "Iran's genocidal threats against Israel and the Jewish people worldwide" with contributions starting at $50 and ending with an open bracket, left to the donor's generosity. The center's spokesperson didn't respond when asked how the fund-raising effort is going.
Across the ocean, meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was busy downplaying the Iranian threat. "We categorically condemned" the statements made about Israel by Iran's president and other Iranian officials, Lavrov told Russia's Kommersant newspaper. "It's uncivilized and unworthy of such an ancient country and people with their great culture." He said he sees anti-Israel rhetoric mainly as serving domestic and foreign policy goals, "to keep in an anti-Israeli orbit those on whom Iran wishes to rely in the neighborhood."
But, Lavrov added, "I am absolutely convinced that Iran would never do it," if only because the region is so small: "Israel and Palestine. To threaten to destroy Israel and spare Palestine is probably unrealistic."
2. There was one tiny bit of good news: The Israel Project's European staffers, visiting Washington, DC, proudly told Haaretz that during meetings with 21 high-ranking European diplomats serving in the U.S. capital, they were surprised to find a much more positive attitude toward Israel than ever before.
On possible reason, they speculated, is that the Iranian issue has reached "a critical point" for the European Union, which is very preoccupied by it. Another is that the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is in hibernation - until the end of the U.S. presidential election, until after the Israeli elections, or until the Iranian issue is resolved.
Do these diplomats really reflect the atmosphere at home, I asked, or is it more the Washington influence?
Well, the TIP staffers said, in the past, European diplomats were not shy about making these meetings utterly uncomfortable, with long tirades against Israeli policies. This time, even the settlements were paid no more than lip service, and not mentioned at all in many meetings.
Some diplomats were worried that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas might leave the stage, with no clear alternative. On Syria, no big surprise, nobody really knows what to do. And they fear a strike against Iran might prove disastrous to their economies. Therefore, sanctions are preferable.
3. But sanctions are easier said than done. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a message to Congress that Washington has granted exemptions from sanctions to financial institutions in 11 of the 23 countries that import Iranian crude, due to "significant cuts" in their Iranian oil imports.
Japan was presented by a senior administration official as a model for making efforts to put pressure on Iran: Despite its own extremely troubled year, including the tsunami and the Fukushima reactor meltdown, it cut its oil imports from Iran by 15 to 22 percent.
Now, for 180 days, financial institutions in these countries are exempt from the threat of being cut off from the U.S. financial system. The U.S. administration hopes Iran's other customers will follow suit - including top crude importers like India and China.
But when IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde warns that oil prices could jump 20 to 30 percent if Iran's crude supply is disrupted, such hopes can only go so far.
4. J Street still has its detractors, but at least Israel's embassy in America finally seems to be mending fences with the dovish pro-Israel lobby - to some extent. The lobby's annual conference is titled "Making history," but Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren won't be making history by setting foot in the Convention Center in Washington this weekend. Still, unlike last year, when no official embassy representative was sent, or the year before, when the embassy representative kept as low a profile as possible, this time, Deputy Head of Mission Barukh Binah will attend and even speak.
An embassy source said relations with the lobby have improved, because it has recently taken positions that are more acceptable to the Israeli government - even rejecting the recent call by one of its featured conference speakers, Peter Beinart, for boycotting Jewish settlements. "Israel prefers 'critical dialogue' to no dialogue," stressed the source. "We never actually boycotted them. Binah has the title of ambassador, and until recently used to be responsible for U.S.-Israeli relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He's a serious representative."
J Street seemed quite content. "We are pleased to have the opportunity to hear from Israeli Embassy Deputy Head of Mission Barukh Binah," said Jessica Rosenblum, director of media and communications. "Our leadership and activists are interested in further strengthening our relationship with the Government of Israel's official representatives in the United States, and we appreciate that the embassy is sending such a high-ranking diplomat to attend our conference."
The Obama Administration will send Tony Blinken, national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. It seems that President Barack Obama has decided to bet on AIPAC after all.
One of the major challenges for this year's J Street conference will be to prove that the two-state solution is not dead yet. This year, just keeping the drumbeat of peace alive is not trivial.
One of my web friends who had planned to go to the conference told me he decided to skip it after a week-long visit to Israel. "After speaking with many of my friends and family I realize that the so-called 'two-state solution' is no longer a viable option," he wrote.
"Most Israelis truly believe - time will tell if rightly or wrongly - that there is no partner on the Palestinian side. They understandably perceive Israel's biggest pressing challenge as a nuclear Iran. The Likud party is expected to win 35-37 seats in the next parliamentary election, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement for any compromises in the foreseeable future.
"A new bold idea is desperately needed and I don't see it coming on the horizon. I therefore must honestly conclude that at the moment, J Street's ideas, though theoretically sound, are realistically unattainable. Therefore, I've decided to skip the upcoming conference in DC."
5. If the two-state solution proves unexciting this year, at least Beinart has firmly established his credentials as the Jewish establishment's enfant terrible, repeatedly stirring up stinging conversations on Zionism and why the heck the younger generation of American Jews should care.
Not for attribution, Israeli officials castigate Beinart as someone "who found his profitable niche and continues to dig himself deeper into the controversy." There are also some angry on-record attacks against his new book, "The crisis of Zionism," for being biased, not offering a real alternative, etc. His recent New York Times op-ed provoked a storm as well.
Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren wrote on his Facebook page: "Peter Beinart's call ("To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements," New York Times, 3.19.12 ) places him well beyond the Israeli mainstream, the moderate left, and the vast majority of Israelis who care about peace. The call for boycotting all products made by Israeli communities outside of Jerusalem and beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines is supported only by a marginal and highly radical fringe. Beinart's position, moreover, absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility for the current situation, including their rejection of previous peace offers, their support for terror, and their refusal to negotiate with Israel for the past three years. By reducing the Palestinians to two-dimensional props in an Israeli drama, Beinart deprives them of agency and indeed undermines his own thesis. Without an active Palestinian commitment to a two-state solution - irrespective of boycotts - the peace Beinart seeks cannot be achieved."
Former Nazi guard John Demjanjuk to be buried in the United States
Demjanjuk died in Germany last Saturday at age of 91; Jewish groups fear his grave would become a neo-Nazi shrine.
Former Nazi guard John Demjanjuk, who died in Germany over the weekend after being convicted last year of killings in a Nazi death camp, is to be buried in the United States, a German undertaker and U.S. officials said Wednesday.
The funeral home in Bavaria, which has been hired by the Demjanjuk family, said the body of the 91-year-old would be flown next week to Cleveland, Ohio.
"He's going back, that's for sure," said a funeral home spokesman.
Ukraine-born Demjanjuk, who entered the United States in 1952, had been stripped of U.S. citizenship in 2004 and was stateless.
The U.S .consulate in Munich said it was "providing consular assistance to Mr. Demjanjuk's family."
The United States extradited Demjanjuk to Germany in 2009 to face trial.
A Munich court sentenced him in May to five years' jail for being an accessory to 27,900 murders at Sobibor, a Nazi extermination camp in occupied Poland, while he was in a guard squad there in 1943. However shortly afterward he was released from custody to live in a German old people's home while his appeal was being processed.
Meanwhile, Jewish advocates fear that Demjanjuk's grave would become a neo-Nazi shrine.
Efraim Zuroff, who leads the Nazi-hunting SimonWiesenthal Center in Jerusalem, said that a Demjanjuk funeral in his adopted hometown would turn into a spectacle.
"I have no doubt that a funeral in Seven Hills would turn into a demonstration of solidarity and support for Demjanjuk, who's the last person on earth who deserves any sympathy, frankly," Zuroff said in a telephone interview.
Demjanjuk Jr. said in an email yesterday that any suggestion of his father's burial or grave site turning into a spectacle was unwarranted.
"Over the past 35-plus years our family has had no association with any part of the neo-Nazi groups, ever. We have condemned Nazi crimes as my father is himself a victim of the Nazis regardless of whose version of the case you believe," he said.
Former Nazi guard John Demjanjuk, who died in Germany over the weekend after being convicted last year of killings in a Nazi death camp, is to be buried in the United States, a German undertaker and U.S. officials said Wednesday.
The funeral home in Bavaria, which has been hired by the Demjanjuk family, said the body of the 91-year-old would be flown next week to Cleveland, Ohio.
"He's going back, that's for sure," said a funeral home spokesman.
Ukraine-born Demjanjuk, who entered the United States in 1952, had been stripped of U.S. citizenship in 2004 and was stateless.
The U.S .consulate in Munich said it was "providing consular assistance to Mr. Demjanjuk's family."
The United States extradited Demjanjuk to Germany in 2009 to face trial.
A Munich court sentenced him in May to five years' jail for being an accessory to 27,900 murders at Sobibor, a Nazi extermination camp in occupied Poland, while he was in a guard squad there in 1943. However shortly afterward he was released from custody to live in a German old people's home while his appeal was being processed.
Meanwhile, Jewish advocates fear that Demjanjuk's grave would become a neo-Nazi shrine.
Efraim Zuroff, who leads the Nazi-hunting SimonWiesenthal Center in Jerusalem, said that a Demjanjuk funeral in his adopted hometown would turn into a spectacle.
"I have no doubt that a funeral in Seven Hills would turn into a demonstration of solidarity and support for Demjanjuk, who's the last person on earth who deserves any sympathy, frankly," Zuroff said in a telephone interview.
Demjanjuk Jr. said in an email yesterday that any suggestion of his father's burial or grave site turning into a spectacle was unwarranted.
"Over the past 35-plus years our family has had no association with any part of the neo-Nazi groups, ever. We have condemned Nazi crimes as my father is himself a victim of the Nazis regardless of whose version of the case you believe," he said.
Mar 12, 2012
Egypt official: Israel, Gaza militants agree to ceasefire
Deal expected to take effect at 1 A.M.; no immediate comment made by Israel or Palestinian factions regarding truce.
Israel and militant factions in the Gaza Strip have agreed to an Egyptian-mediated truce to end four days of cross-border violence, a senior Egyptian security official told Reuters on Tuesday.
The official said both sides "agreed to end the current operations" including an unusual undertaking by Israel to "stop assassinations" in a deal expected to take effect at 1 A.M. local time.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. It was not immediately clear when a formal announcement of a ceasefire would be made.
There was no immediate comment by Israel or the Palestinian factions regarding the deal.
Shortly before the official's comment, a senior Israeli official said that if the Palestinians stop firing rockets toward Israel, the Israel Defense Forces will stop reacting with attacks on the Gaza Strip, according to Army Radio.
An Israeli military spokesman declined to comment.
Gaza's Hamas leadership, whose own cadres have kept out of the fighting, had confirmed on Sunday that Egypt was working on a deal to stop the violence.
On Monday, the Egyptian ambassador to the Palestinian Authority said that he expects Israel and Gaza to reach a ceasefire within 48 hours.
"Egypt is determined to reach a ceasefire within 48 hours," said Yasser Othman, adding that a ceasefire would be reached despite current difficulties and the refusal of Israel to stop its activities in the Gaza Strip.
Othman denied claims of a Hamas legislator Yunus al-Astal, that Egypt suggested a ceasefire in exchange for supplying petrol to the Gaza Strip. He added that an Egyptian team was currently in Gaza, in order to solve the petrol supply problem.
Egyptian intelligence officials have been leading efforts to mediate between Israel and Hamas in the last few days, in order to calm the escalation on the Israel-Gaza border.
Egyptian diplomats said on Monday that there is an effort to bring about a ceasefire by Tuesday morning.
"We hope that we will succeed to reach quiet tonight," said one Egyptian diplomat.
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon said that Hamas approached Egyptian intelligence and asked to pass a message to Israel regarding the renewal of calm.
"We do not carry out negotiations with Hamas," Ya'alon said.
"Our response through the Egyptians was very simple, this is basically our policy since the beginning of the current administration: if you are quiet, we will be quiet, if you shoot, or plot attacks, we will hit you, and so the ball is certainly in their court."
The Egyptian diplomat who is involved in the efforts to bring about the ceasefire said that Egyptian intelligence has been talking with Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's diplomatic-security bureau since Sunday, as well as with different Palestinian factions, with an emphasis on Hamas.
According to him, the attempt to reach an agreement for a ceasefire between Sunday night and Monday failed, after the two sides continued fire.
"We are doing everything to end this round of violence at the earliest opportunity possible," the Egyptian diplomat said.
"We will try again to do this today. We are continuing to work in order to have a quiet night. We want both sides to stop firing, but we still have not received final answers."
Israel and militant factions in the Gaza Strip have agreed to an Egyptian-mediated truce to end four days of cross-border violence, a senior Egyptian security official told Reuters on Tuesday.
The official said both sides "agreed to end the current operations" including an unusual undertaking by Israel to "stop assassinations" in a deal expected to take effect at 1 A.M. local time.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. It was not immediately clear when a formal announcement of a ceasefire would be made.
There was no immediate comment by Israel or the Palestinian factions regarding the deal.
Shortly before the official's comment, a senior Israeli official said that if the Palestinians stop firing rockets toward Israel, the Israel Defense Forces will stop reacting with attacks on the Gaza Strip, according to Army Radio.
An Israeli military spokesman declined to comment.
Gaza's Hamas leadership, whose own cadres have kept out of the fighting, had confirmed on Sunday that Egypt was working on a deal to stop the violence.
On Monday, the Egyptian ambassador to the Palestinian Authority said that he expects Israel and Gaza to reach a ceasefire within 48 hours.
"Egypt is determined to reach a ceasefire within 48 hours," said Yasser Othman, adding that a ceasefire would be reached despite current difficulties and the refusal of Israel to stop its activities in the Gaza Strip.
Othman denied claims of a Hamas legislator Yunus al-Astal, that Egypt suggested a ceasefire in exchange for supplying petrol to the Gaza Strip. He added that an Egyptian team was currently in Gaza, in order to solve the petrol supply problem.
Egyptian intelligence officials have been leading efforts to mediate between Israel and Hamas in the last few days, in order to calm the escalation on the Israel-Gaza border.
Egyptian diplomats said on Monday that there is an effort to bring about a ceasefire by Tuesday morning.
"We hope that we will succeed to reach quiet tonight," said one Egyptian diplomat.
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon said that Hamas approached Egyptian intelligence and asked to pass a message to Israel regarding the renewal of calm.
"We do not carry out negotiations with Hamas," Ya'alon said.
"Our response through the Egyptians was very simple, this is basically our policy since the beginning of the current administration: if you are quiet, we will be quiet, if you shoot, or plot attacks, we will hit you, and so the ball is certainly in their court."
The Egyptian diplomat who is involved in the efforts to bring about the ceasefire said that Egyptian intelligence has been talking with Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's diplomatic-security bureau since Sunday, as well as with different Palestinian factions, with an emphasis on Hamas.
According to him, the attempt to reach an agreement for a ceasefire between Sunday night and Monday failed, after the two sides continued fire.
"We are doing everything to end this round of violence at the earliest opportunity possible," the Egyptian diplomat said.
"We will try again to do this today. We are continuing to work in order to have a quiet night. We want both sides to stop firing, but we still have not received final answers."
Mar 11, 2012
Overnight IAF strikes kill Islamic Jihad leader in response to rocket fire
IAF strikes Gaza Strip, kills 24-year-old Hamdan Abu Mutlak and wounds 38 others, in response to ongoing rocket fire on southern Israel.
The Israel Air Forces attacked six locations in overnight strikes on the Gaza Strip, killing an Islamic Jihad leader and wounding 38 Palestinians, including several children.
The strike came in response to the firing of two Grad rockets launched overnight at southern Israel. One rocket was taken down by the Iron Dome system, while the other exploded in an open area, causing no injuries or damage.
On Sunday, residents of southern Israel suffered day under siege as Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired about 50 more rockets at the Negev.
Two Grad-type Katyusha rockets fell in Be'er Sheva after the Iron Dome battery that had been protecting it suffered a technical malfunction.
One rocket hit a school, which was empty since schools in the city were closed Sunday, and the other hit a parked car. Fifteen people were treated for shock, though there were no other casualties. The rockets ¬ and the ball bearings that they ejected hundreds of meters ¬ caused heavy damage to buildings and vehicles. Another rocket hit a chicken coop in Moshav Carmia in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council, causing heavy damage.
In Gaza, medics reported that Israeli air strikes killed three Palestinians, including a 12-year-old boy. A total of 18 Palestinians were killed in IAF strikes since Friday.
Since Friday, 104 rockets were fired toward Israel, 43 of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome defense systems. The IAF carried out 23 strikes in the Gaza Strip.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Sunday that "the current escalation is liable to be lengthy." He said that he plans to have the Iron Dome anti-rocket defense system declared a "national emergency project," so as to expedite the manufacture and deployment of additional batteries. A fourth Iron Dome battery is being prepared for deployment and is expected to be operational within weeks.
Some 200,000 pupils will remain at home again on Monday, as schools remain closed in Be'er Sheva, Ofakim, Ashdod, Yavneh, Ashkelon, Kiryat Malakhi and Netivot, and in all the other smaller communities that are between seven and 40 kilometers from the Gaza Strip.
Earlier on Sunday, security officials said the Iron Dome systems performed extraordinarily over the weekend. The systems use a missile called "Tamir" to intercept incoming rockets, and each missile is priced at approximately NIS 200,000.
The Israel Air Forces attacked six locations in overnight strikes on the Gaza Strip, killing an Islamic Jihad leader and wounding 38 Palestinians, including several children.
The strike came in response to the firing of two Grad rockets launched overnight at southern Israel. One rocket was taken down by the Iron Dome system, while the other exploded in an open area, causing no injuries or damage.
On Sunday, residents of southern Israel suffered day under siege as Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired about 50 more rockets at the Negev.
Two Grad-type Katyusha rockets fell in Be'er Sheva after the Iron Dome battery that had been protecting it suffered a technical malfunction.
One rocket hit a school, which was empty since schools in the city were closed Sunday, and the other hit a parked car. Fifteen people were treated for shock, though there were no other casualties. The rockets ¬ and the ball bearings that they ejected hundreds of meters ¬ caused heavy damage to buildings and vehicles. Another rocket hit a chicken coop in Moshav Carmia in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council, causing heavy damage.
In Gaza, medics reported that Israeli air strikes killed three Palestinians, including a 12-year-old boy. A total of 18 Palestinians were killed in IAF strikes since Friday.
Since Friday, 104 rockets were fired toward Israel, 43 of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome defense systems. The IAF carried out 23 strikes in the Gaza Strip.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned on Sunday that "the current escalation is liable to be lengthy." He said that he plans to have the Iron Dome anti-rocket defense system declared a "national emergency project," so as to expedite the manufacture and deployment of additional batteries. A fourth Iron Dome battery is being prepared for deployment and is expected to be operational within weeks.
Some 200,000 pupils will remain at home again on Monday, as schools remain closed in Be'er Sheva, Ofakim, Ashdod, Yavneh, Ashkelon, Kiryat Malakhi and Netivot, and in all the other smaller communities that are between seven and 40 kilometers from the Gaza Strip.
Earlier on Sunday, security officials said the Iron Dome systems performed extraordinarily over the weekend. The systems use a missile called "Tamir" to intercept incoming rockets, and each missile is priced at approximately NIS 200,000.
Mar 8, 2012
Israeli official: Satellite images back our claims Iran is developing nuclear weapon
Spy satellite photos of an Iranian military facility that show Iran cleaning secret nuclear activity 'reinforce what Israel has been saying all along – Iran's nuclear program isn't benign,' says Israeli official.
An Israeli official claims satellite images that raised suspicions Iran is trying to conceal a key nuclear test back Israel's concerns that Tehran is developing an atomic bomb.
The official said the pictures "reinforce what Israel has been saying all along ... the Iranian nuclear program is not benign." He spoke on condition of anonymity pending a formal government response.
On Wednesday, pictures provided by unspecified member countries to the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear agency - appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at Iran's Parchin military site. Diplomats said the images suggested the trucks could be carting away radioactive material created in nuclear testing.
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purpose - a claim Israel and the West reject.
Earlier Thursday, Yukiya Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told CNN that Iran is not telling us everything about its nuclear program.
"We have the indication or information that Iran has engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosive devices," Yukiya Amano told CNN.
Iran faces growing international pressure over its nuclear program, which it insists is peaceful. Israel has hinted that it might resort to a pre-emptive military strike to stop Tehran's program.
The diplomatic account came only a day after the ISNA news agency reported that Iran indicated that it would give the UN nuclear watchdog access to the Parchin complex.
An International Atomic Energy Agency report last year said that Iran had built a large containment chamber at Parchin, southeast of Tehran, to conduct explosives tests that are "strong indicators" of efforts to develop an atom bomb.
Netanyahu: Strike of Iran's nuclear facilities possible within months
Prime minister says he prefers diplomatic pressure stop the Iranian nuclear program and war be avoided.
An attack on Iran could take place within a matter of months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a series of television interviews on Thursday.
"We're not standing with a stopwatch in hand," he said. "It's not a matter of days or weeks, but also not of years. The result must be removal of the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran's hands."
Netanyahu gave separate interviews to all three Israeli television stations, the first he has given since his return from Washington earlier this week. The full interviews will air on Saturday night, but excerpts were broadcast Thursday.
"I hope there won't be a war at all, and that the pressure on Iran will succeed," the prime minister stressed, noting that his preferred choice would be for Iran to halt its nuclear program and dismantle the uranium enrichment facility located in an underground site near Qom. "That would make me happiest," he said. "I think every citizen of Israel would be happy."
"Making decisions isn't the problem; it's making the right decision," Netanyahu added. "If you don't make the decision and don't succeed in preventing this [an Iranian nuke], to whom will you explain this - to the historians? To the generations before you, and the generations that won't come after you?"
He also spoke about the departure of his former bureau chief, Natan Eshel, who was forced to resign over allegations of harassing a subordinate. "I had a connection with Natan Eshel, a connection going back many years," he said. "This is very painful for me personally, and you part ways humanely.
"On the other hand, what he did, or what he confessed to doing ... is very serious. This is a serious, inappropriate thing, and I condemn it."
Netanyahu insisted that he backs the three officials who informed the attorney general of the suspicions against Eshel: his military secretary, Maj. Gen. Yohanan Locker; Cabinet Secretary Zvi Hauser; and the former head of the National Information Directorate, Yoaz Hendel.
"Let there be no doubt: I also think the men who acted, acted rightly," he said. "They had to go complain about this."
Nevertheless, he added, his criticism of them for not informing him was justified: "In my opinion, I'm the head of the system, as prime minister, and they should have told me."
Mar 7, 2012
Would God want Israel to attack Iran?
In our time, the only war Jewish law really permits is defensive war. So what does that say about Iran?
Israeli officials have recently ramped up their arguments for striking Iranian nuclear facilities. So far, there has been silence among Jewish religious thinkers about whether attacking Iran would be consonant with Jewish values.
So what would Judaism say about such a military action? Would God want us to attack Iran?
The Jewish tradition does not speak with one voice on the ethics of war, and distilling this complex issue in this forum risks oversimplification. Still, I understand the tradition to point in a particular direction. Here's why:
In our time, the only war Jewish law permits is defensive war. True, Jewish law theoretically allows Jews to wage an "optional war" to conquer territory or to demonstrate military prowess. But since we no longer have a Sanhedrin (an ancient rabbinic court) or Urim V'tummim (priestly oracles), these wars are currently forbidden, even if they might eventually help protect Jewish lives.
Maimonides defines a defensive war as one waged "to assist Israel from an enemy that has come upon them" (Laws of Kings 5:1). The plain meaning of this ruling is that the only permissible war (in fact, it is called an "obligatory war") is one to repel an attack and to defend lives that are in danger. Moreover, in order to qualify as a defensive war, the enemy must initiate the aggression.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.
Those standards may have worked in ancient and medieval milieus. Invading armies could be spotted from a distance and appropriate defenses could be mustered in sufficient time to resist attacks and defend the population. But in the contemporary context, when the push of a button and a single missile can kill thousands within minutes, many authorities have expanded the definition of a defensive war to include preemptive actions.
In this more liberal definition, an adversary no longer has to invade or fire the first shot to be considered as having initiated hostilities. The clear intention to attack becomes enough to give the Jewish people the right and the religious obligation to prohibit the enemy from doing so. Authorities usually base this understanding on the Talmudic dictum, "If one comes to kill you, rise up early to kill him [first]" (Sanhedrin 72a).
However, authorities do not universally agree that this ruling, originally stated regarding an individual's right to self-defense, applies in the realm of national defense. For instance, Rabbi Aryeh Cohen, a professor of Talmud at Los Angeles' American Jewish University, argues in his 2008 essay "War is Assur (Forbidden)" that it does not apply to national defense. The scenarios, according to Rabbi Cohen, are too different. While an individual can manage, with relative precision, the violence he uses to defend himself, nations deploy violence on a scale that they can never fully control. Even in the most "surgical" of strikes, there is almost always "collateral damage."
Rabbi Cohen concludes that all war is forbidden, even defensive wars. His is not the normative approach, but regardless of whether one supports his opinion, the Talmud seems to imply that preemptive defensive action may only harm the would-be aggressor.
Additionally, the Talmud implies one must be certain that the enemy intends to kill and that the murderous act is imminent. The Talmud does not say, "If you think someone is coming to kill you…" or "If someone eventually plans to kill you." Instead, it places the lethal drive in the present. The hostile is coming to get you, knife in hand, right now. You know he's coming for you. You know his plan is to kill. Only when that standard is met may you "rise up early to kill him."
These nuances present challenges for those who endorse attacking Iran. First, can the violence be controlled? Is it possible that innocent people will die? Given the strategic difficulties presented by striking Iran, the challenges of dropping one-ton bombs so surgically as to take out only nuclear targets without killing innocents, and the possibility of an assault triggering a wider conflict, this first question ought to give us serious pause. The medicine cannot be worse than the disease.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, does Iran meet the Talmud's standard for preemptive killing? Iran is clearly developing nuclear technology, but do we know Iran is planning to build a weapon? No, we do not. And even if we knew that Iran plans to build a nuke, do we know it plans to use it? No. And even if we knew that Iran planned a nuclear attack, do we know its intention is to kill Jews or destroy Israel? No. And even if we knew that Iran planned to attack Israel, do we know that it is imminent? No; most experts believe Iran is still years away from building a weapon. The Talmud implies that we may not "rise up early to kill first" unless those standards are met.
With the American war in Iraq still fresh in our collective memory, Judaism's standards for just wars become especially poignant. A decade ago, Bush Administration officials began calling for military action against Saddam Hussein. They contended that Hussein had secret weapons stockpiles, was producing weapons of mass destruction, and was supplying weapons to terrorists. Given Hussein's belligerent attitude toward the West, his defiance of the international community, and his track record of brutality at home and abroad, these pieces of evidence were, at the time, offered to prove a clear and imminent threat to the U.S.
So the U.S. invaded, igniting a nearly ten-year war that reportedly resulted in more than 150,000 deaths. Only amid the rubble and corpses did we discover that most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of the war were false. We let fears, not facts, govern our decisions. Our goal was to save innocent lives; we took many, instead.
The Talmud teaches that, in 586 BCE, Judea was destroyed not because its defenses were too weak, but because the Jews were indifferent about shedding blood (Shabbat 33a). Let us pray that history does not repeat itself.
Israeli officials have recently ramped up their arguments for striking Iranian nuclear facilities. So far, there has been silence among Jewish religious thinkers about whether attacking Iran would be consonant with Jewish values.
So what would Judaism say about such a military action? Would God want us to attack Iran?
The Jewish tradition does not speak with one voice on the ethics of war, and distilling this complex issue in this forum risks oversimplification. Still, I understand the tradition to point in a particular direction. Here's why:
In our time, the only war Jewish law permits is defensive war. True, Jewish law theoretically allows Jews to wage an "optional war" to conquer territory or to demonstrate military prowess. But since we no longer have a Sanhedrin (an ancient rabbinic court) or Urim V'tummim (priestly oracles), these wars are currently forbidden, even if they might eventually help protect Jewish lives.
Maimonides defines a defensive war as one waged "to assist Israel from an enemy that has come upon them" (Laws of Kings 5:1). The plain meaning of this ruling is that the only permissible war (in fact, it is called an "obligatory war") is one to repel an attack and to defend lives that are in danger. Moreover, in order to qualify as a defensive war, the enemy must initiate the aggression.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.
Those standards may have worked in ancient and medieval milieus. Invading armies could be spotted from a distance and appropriate defenses could be mustered in sufficient time to resist attacks and defend the population. But in the contemporary context, when the push of a button and a single missile can kill thousands within minutes, many authorities have expanded the definition of a defensive war to include preemptive actions.
In this more liberal definition, an adversary no longer has to invade or fire the first shot to be considered as having initiated hostilities. The clear intention to attack becomes enough to give the Jewish people the right and the religious obligation to prohibit the enemy from doing so. Authorities usually base this understanding on the Talmudic dictum, "If one comes to kill you, rise up early to kill him [first]" (Sanhedrin 72a).
However, authorities do not universally agree that this ruling, originally stated regarding an individual's right to self-defense, applies in the realm of national defense. For instance, Rabbi Aryeh Cohen, a professor of Talmud at Los Angeles' American Jewish University, argues in his 2008 essay "War is Assur (Forbidden)" that it does not apply to national defense. The scenarios, according to Rabbi Cohen, are too different. While an individual can manage, with relative precision, the violence he uses to defend himself, nations deploy violence on a scale that they can never fully control. Even in the most "surgical" of strikes, there is almost always "collateral damage."
Rabbi Cohen concludes that all war is forbidden, even defensive wars. His is not the normative approach, but regardless of whether one supports his opinion, the Talmud seems to imply that preemptive defensive action may only harm the would-be aggressor.
Additionally, the Talmud implies one must be certain that the enemy intends to kill and that the murderous act is imminent. The Talmud does not say, "If you think someone is coming to kill you…" or "If someone eventually plans to kill you." Instead, it places the lethal drive in the present. The hostile is coming to get you, knife in hand, right now. You know he's coming for you. You know his plan is to kill. Only when that standard is met may you "rise up early to kill him."
These nuances present challenges for those who endorse attacking Iran. First, can the violence be controlled? Is it possible that innocent people will die? Given the strategic difficulties presented by striking Iran, the challenges of dropping one-ton bombs so surgically as to take out only nuclear targets without killing innocents, and the possibility of an assault triggering a wider conflict, this first question ought to give us serious pause. The medicine cannot be worse than the disease.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, does Iran meet the Talmud's standard for preemptive killing? Iran is clearly developing nuclear technology, but do we know Iran is planning to build a weapon? No, we do not. And even if we knew that Iran plans to build a nuke, do we know it plans to use it? No. And even if we knew that Iran planned a nuclear attack, do we know its intention is to kill Jews or destroy Israel? No. And even if we knew that Iran planned to attack Israel, do we know that it is imminent? No; most experts believe Iran is still years away from building a weapon. The Talmud implies that we may not "rise up early to kill first" unless those standards are met.
With the American war in Iraq still fresh in our collective memory, Judaism's standards for just wars become especially poignant. A decade ago, Bush Administration officials began calling for military action against Saddam Hussein. They contended that Hussein had secret weapons stockpiles, was producing weapons of mass destruction, and was supplying weapons to terrorists. Given Hussein's belligerent attitude toward the West, his defiance of the international community, and his track record of brutality at home and abroad, these pieces of evidence were, at the time, offered to prove a clear and imminent threat to the U.S.
So the U.S. invaded, igniting a nearly ten-year war that reportedly resulted in more than 150,000 deaths. Only amid the rubble and corpses did we discover that most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of the war were false. We let fears, not facts, govern our decisions. Our goal was to save innocent lives; we took many, instead.
The Talmud teaches that, in 586 BCE, Judea was destroyed not because its defenses were too weak, but because the Jews were indifferent about shedding blood (Shabbat 33a). Let us pray that history does not repeat itself.
World powers agree to restart talks with Iran over nuclear program
Catherine Ashton says time and venue of talks with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S., to be agreed.
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have agreed to restart talks with Iran over its controversial nuclear program, the European Union's foreign policy chief said Tuesday.
"Time and venue of these talks will now be agreed," Catherine Ashton said in a statement.
The offer came despite Iran's recent refusal to allow international inspectors to probe alleged nuclear weapons projects.
Ashton - who has previously negotiated with Iran on behalf of the so-called E3+3 group of states - expressed optimism that renewed talks could resolve the diplomatic impasse.
"We hope that Iran will now enter into a sustained process of constructive dialogue which will deliver real progress in resolving the international community's long-standing concerns on its nuclear program," she said.
In a letter to Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saedi Jalili, Ashton noted that the goal "remains a comprehensive negotiated, long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. "
Although Iran said Tuesday it would allow international inspectors to visit a key suspect site, it also made clear that the conditions for such a visit had to be settled first, Iranian news agency ISNA reported.
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have not yet agreed on the terms of access to nuclear sites, scientists and documents, as Tehran has rejected a number of the nuclear agency's key demands, according to a draft agreement between the two sides.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Monday in Vienna that quick access was important because of indications of recent activities at the site, where nuclear explosions have been allegedly simulated.
While Tehran sent conciliatory signals about Parchin, it has made clear that it does not want to reveal the management structure or foreign purchases for its alleged secret nuclear program, according to a draft agreement with the IAEA.
Both issues go to the heart of the country's alleged nuclear weapons research and development projects, which the IAEA says seem to be linked to the Ministry of Defense.
The document, which was obtained by dpa, was drafted during recent unsuccessful talks between both sides.
Iran struck two items from the list of issues to be tackled, titled "Program management structure" and "Procurement activities,"the document's proposed amendments show.
"They ruled it out categorically," a diplomat closely following the IAEA's work said Tuesday.
The IAEA reported in November that Iran's uranium enrichment Program and apparent efforts to design a nuclear warhead were grouped in the same project structure.
Iran says it enriches uranium only to make fuel for civilian reactors.
The Vienna-based agency also said that actual or attempted procurement of various equipment, "although having other civilian applications, would be useful in the development of a nuclear explosive device".
Tehran's nuclear procurements "would be difficult to explain for Iran because the IAEA has a lot of intelligence information" on this topic, the diplomat said. The nuclear agency says it has collected independent information corroborating the intelligence findings.
Besides refusing cooperation on these two issues, Iran also rejected IAEA demands for repeated visits to nuclear sites, to be able to reopen questions after they have been addressed by Iran, and for information about future nuclear projects.
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have agreed to restart talks with Iran over its controversial nuclear program, the European Union's foreign policy chief said Tuesday.
"Time and venue of these talks will now be agreed," Catherine Ashton said in a statement.
The offer came despite Iran's recent refusal to allow international inspectors to probe alleged nuclear weapons projects.
Ashton - who has previously negotiated with Iran on behalf of the so-called E3+3 group of states - expressed optimism that renewed talks could resolve the diplomatic impasse.
"We hope that Iran will now enter into a sustained process of constructive dialogue which will deliver real progress in resolving the international community's long-standing concerns on its nuclear program," she said.
In a letter to Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saedi Jalili, Ashton noted that the goal "remains a comprehensive negotiated, long-term solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. "
Although Iran said Tuesday it would allow international inspectors to visit a key suspect site, it also made clear that the conditions for such a visit had to be settled first, Iranian news agency ISNA reported.
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have not yet agreed on the terms of access to nuclear sites, scientists and documents, as Tehran has rejected a number of the nuclear agency's key demands, according to a draft agreement between the two sides.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Monday in Vienna that quick access was important because of indications of recent activities at the site, where nuclear explosions have been allegedly simulated.
While Tehran sent conciliatory signals about Parchin, it has made clear that it does not want to reveal the management structure or foreign purchases for its alleged secret nuclear program, according to a draft agreement with the IAEA.
Both issues go to the heart of the country's alleged nuclear weapons research and development projects, which the IAEA says seem to be linked to the Ministry of Defense.
The document, which was obtained by dpa, was drafted during recent unsuccessful talks between both sides.
Iran struck two items from the list of issues to be tackled, titled "Program management structure" and "Procurement activities,"the document's proposed amendments show.
"They ruled it out categorically," a diplomat closely following the IAEA's work said Tuesday.
The IAEA reported in November that Iran's uranium enrichment Program and apparent efforts to design a nuclear warhead were grouped in the same project structure.
Iran says it enriches uranium only to make fuel for civilian reactors.
The Vienna-based agency also said that actual or attempted procurement of various equipment, "although having other civilian applications, would be useful in the development of a nuclear explosive device".
Tehran's nuclear procurements "would be difficult to explain for Iran because the IAEA has a lot of intelligence information" on this topic, the diplomat said. The nuclear agency says it has collected independent information corroborating the intelligence findings.
Besides refusing cooperation on these two issues, Iran also rejected IAEA demands for repeated visits to nuclear sites, to be able to reopen questions after they have been addressed by Iran, and for information about future nuclear projects.
France: Iran continues to be 'two-faced' on nuclear issue
French FM says he is skeptical that renewed nuclear talks with Iran will succeed; Iranian parliament speaker accuses world powers of double standards on nuclear issue.
France's Foreign Minister said on Wednesday he was skeptical renewed talks between six world powers and Iran would succeed as Tehran was still not sincere in its willingness to negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany in dealings with Iran, said on Tuesday the six powers had accepted an Iranian offer for talks on its disputed nuclear program.
"I am a little skeptical ... I think Iran continues to be two-faced," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told France's i-Tele television.
"That's why I think we have to continue to be extremely firm on sanctions, which in my view are the best way to prevent a military option that would have unforeseeable consequences."
Iran's approach to the six powers, in a letter dated Feb. 14, comes as it suffers unprecedented economic pain from expanding sanctions against its oil and financial sectors.
Western states are likely to tread cautiously in talks, mindful of past accusations that Iran's willingness to negotiate has been a stalling tactic to blunt pressure rather than a genuine effort to reach agreement.
With increasing public speculation about possible military action against Iran, the talks could provide some respite in a crisis that has driven up oil prices and threatened to bring the United States into its third major war in a decade.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the first among leaders of the six powers to push for tighter sanctions on Iranian oil and finance, however Juppe on Wednesday signaled that France was wary of resorting to a military strike against Iran.
"There is still a debate in Israel (about a military strike) and it's our responsibility to bring to Israel's attention the unforeseeable consequences it would have," he said.
Sarkozy said in January that time was running out for efforts to avoid military intervention in Iran.
The Iranian parliament speaker on Wednesday expressed doubts about the outcome of the upcoming nuclear talks, the official news agency IRNA reported.
"If they (world powers) want to continue their previous course or get some advantages by threats, then the talks would have no achievements," Ali Larijani said.
The remarks by Larijani suggest that Iran would once again not accept the key demand by the world powers - the suspension of uranium enrichment.
"The world powers know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons and even say that Iran has no such weapons but still they put pressure," said Larijani, who was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator from 2005 to 2007.
The speaker accused world powers of following a double standard by "saying nothing" to countries which are already thought to have atomic bombs and, unlike Iran, do not cooperate with the relevant nuclear organizations, such as Israel.
"If the powers insisted on this double standard policy, then they will gain nothing from the next talks," Larijani added.
France's Foreign Minister said on Wednesday he was skeptical renewed talks between six world powers and Iran would succeed as Tehran was still not sincere in its willingness to negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany in dealings with Iran, said on Tuesday the six powers had accepted an Iranian offer for talks on its disputed nuclear program.
"I am a little skeptical ... I think Iran continues to be two-faced," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told France's i-Tele television.
"That's why I think we have to continue to be extremely firm on sanctions, which in my view are the best way to prevent a military option that would have unforeseeable consequences."
Iran's approach to the six powers, in a letter dated Feb. 14, comes as it suffers unprecedented economic pain from expanding sanctions against its oil and financial sectors.
Western states are likely to tread cautiously in talks, mindful of past accusations that Iran's willingness to negotiate has been a stalling tactic to blunt pressure rather than a genuine effort to reach agreement.
With increasing public speculation about possible military action against Iran, the talks could provide some respite in a crisis that has driven up oil prices and threatened to bring the United States into its third major war in a decade.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the first among leaders of the six powers to push for tighter sanctions on Iranian oil and finance, however Juppe on Wednesday signaled that France was wary of resorting to a military strike against Iran.
"There is still a debate in Israel (about a military strike) and it's our responsibility to bring to Israel's attention the unforeseeable consequences it would have," he said.
Sarkozy said in January that time was running out for efforts to avoid military intervention in Iran.
The Iranian parliament speaker on Wednesday expressed doubts about the outcome of the upcoming nuclear talks, the official news agency IRNA reported.
"If they (world powers) want to continue their previous course or get some advantages by threats, then the talks would have no achievements," Ali Larijani said.
The remarks by Larijani suggest that Iran would once again not accept the key demand by the world powers - the suspension of uranium enrichment.
"The world powers know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons and even say that Iran has no such weapons but still they put pressure," said Larijani, who was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator from 2005 to 2007.
The speaker accused world powers of following a double standard by "saying nothing" to countries which are already thought to have atomic bombs and, unlike Iran, do not cooperate with the relevant nuclear organizations, such as Israel.
"If the powers insisted on this double standard policy, then they will gain nothing from the next talks," Larijani added.
Peres, Mark Zuckerberg launch president's international Facebook page
Peres invited Facebook users around the world to 'like' his page and post their own suggestions for advancing world peace.
President Shimon Peres and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg launched the president's international Facebook page on Tuesday, with Zuckerberg to first to press 'like' to the page.
The festivities began at 7 P.M. Israel time (9 A.M. P.S.T.), with a live press conference with web surfers from around the world. Peres and Zuckerberg then launched the page officially at 8 P.M. Israel time (10 A.M. P.S.T.).
Answering a question on the role of social media in promoting peace in the Middle East, Peres said that what networks such as Facebook were doing was "convince people they don't have reason to hate. Hate is an unnecessary addition to our lives."
Using Facebook, the president said, people "begin to talk and ask each other ... 'What is the difference between Israel and other countries? We have the same problems.' They wouldn't take a directive from us, but through you, yes. Because you are not the government; you are a facilitator, not a ruler."
Peres invited Facebook users around the world to 'like' his page and post their own suggestions for advancing world peace.
A clip announcing the page was posted to Peres' official YouTube channel.
President Shimon Peres and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg launched the president's international Facebook page on Tuesday, with Zuckerberg to first to press 'like' to the page.
The festivities began at 7 P.M. Israel time (9 A.M. P.S.T.), with a live press conference with web surfers from around the world. Peres and Zuckerberg then launched the page officially at 8 P.M. Israel time (10 A.M. P.S.T.).
Answering a question on the role of social media in promoting peace in the Middle East, Peres said that what networks such as Facebook were doing was "convince people they don't have reason to hate. Hate is an unnecessary addition to our lives."
Using Facebook, the president said, people "begin to talk and ask each other ... 'What is the difference between Israel and other countries? We have the same problems.' They wouldn't take a directive from us, but through you, yes. Because you are not the government; you are a facilitator, not a ruler."
Peres invited Facebook users around the world to 'like' his page and post their own suggestions for advancing world peace.
A clip announcing the page was posted to Peres' official YouTube channel.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)