Mordechai Vanunu wins human rights prize of Brazilian Press Association 
 http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/features/updates/7038-mordechai-vanunu-wins-human-rights-prize-of-brazilian-press-association
Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who exposed details of Israel's nuclear weapons programme to the world in 1986, has been awarded the 2013 human rights prize of the Brazilian Press Association (ABI). ABI awarded the prize to Vananu for his services to humanity, to citizenship rights and the right to information. An additional six "citizens of the world" also received the 2013, including Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and Chelsea Manning. Vanunu exposed Israel's nuclear weapons programme to the British press in 1986 and was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli intelligence and sentenced to 18 years in prison, 11 of which he spent in solitary confinement. Since his release from prison in 2004, Vanunu is subject to broad restrictions on his speech and movement, and it not permitted to leave Israel as he desires. In announcing its decision, ABI stated that it is honouring Israeli citizen Mordechai Vanunu, a hero of humanity who acted to support world peace.

 Israeli Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Units Active in Damascus Battles? http://www.phantomreport.com/israel-intelligence-and-electronic-warfare-units-active-in-damascus-battles
Roughly Translated: Israel military in East Gouta to Damascus? Battles, which began last Friday, a surprise attack on the outposts of the Syrian army in the far East Gouta, may turn out to be the first occasion involving Israelis effectively in the Syrian war along one of the parties.According to sources cross, the Israelis have made a reconnaissance maps and pictures of the Syrian army positions to the nucleus of the attacking force, which was launched from Jordan, under the leadership of co-ordinated intelligence Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Israel. But Israeli contribute in the battle of the big East Gouta was a pillar whole attack.According to information security, the Israelis succeeded before the start of the first wave of the attack to disrupt communications system for the Fourth Division and the Republican Guard and units of the elite forces for «Hezbollah» The factions «Abu al Fadl al Abbas» Iraq in the region During the first hours of the attack, the Israelis used electronic means of encryption, and managed to disrupt radio communications between Syrian groups and their allies on the first line of defense, which was breached quickly, and led to the fall of the seven villages and farms in the area of turf.

 Video: Puerto Rican, Cuban, Palestinian and Black Liberation Political Prisoners Workshop at NLG Convention.... The National Lawyers Guild International Committee’s Cuba, Puerto Rico and Palestine Subcommittees co-sponsored a workshop at the NLG Convention in Puerto Rico, October 25, 2013, entitled ”Political Prisoners and Liberation Struggles: Palestinian Prisoners, the Cuban Five, Puerto Rico and Assata Shakur & the Black Liberation Movement.” Video of the workshop is now available online! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16hoqe_nlg-political-prisioners-and-liberation-struggles-part-1-of-3_news

NLG - Political Prisioners and Liberation Struggles (Part 2 of 3)

 National Lawyers Guild - Political Prisioners and Liberation Struggles: Palestian Prisioners, the Cuban Five and Puerto Rico (2nd of 3 Parts), San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 25, 2013. Video: Eduardo Rivera Pagán / MINH Comunicación
 NLG - Political Prisioners and Liberation Struggles (Part 3 of 3)
The workshop addresses the current state of the respective struggles and their political prisoners.The Puerto Rican people have always resisted colonialism, and have waged campaigns for the release of the thousands of their compatriots who have been imprisoned for their commitment to independence, and have always advocated for their human rights.The U.S. has imprisoned the Cuban Five since 1998 for trying to prevent Florida based terrorism against Cuba. An update on legal & political developments, including newly discovered evidence.The movement of Palestinian political prisoners has received growing attention internationally. The struggle of Palestinian prisoners, given the role of US aid and funding to Israel, is directly connected to that of other prisoners held by the US.Recently, the FBI named Assata Shakur as the first woman on its “Most Wanted Terrorists” list, funding a $2 million bounty for her capture and return from Cuba. The workshop will address Assata’s case as an illustration of the criminalization of the Black Liberation Movement and numerous political prisoners that emerged from it.Speakers:Alberto Rodriguez Alberto Rodriguez is a Puerto Rican Independentista who in 1983 was arrested by a FBI led task force and charged with the impossible crime of Seditious Conspiracy for fighting for the independence of Puerto Rico. After a lengthy federal trial during which many important political issues like the illegality of U.S. colonialism over Puerto Rico were raised, he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. After 16 years of incarceration, he along with most but not all the Puerto Rican Political Prisoners received Executive Clemency from then President Bill Clinton and was released.Soffiyah Elijah Soffiyah Elijah, Executive Director of the Correctional Association of New York, is the first woman and the first person of color to lead the nearly 170-year old organization in its mission to create a fairer and more humane criminal justice system. She served previously as Deputy Director and Clinical Instructor at the Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard Law School, and before that was a member of the faculty and Director and Supervising Attorney of the Defender Clinic at the City University of New York School of Law. Ms. Elijah has also worked as a Supervising Attorney at the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, a Staff Attorney at the Juvenile Rights Division of the Legal Aid Society, and in private practice.An accomplished advocate, scholar, and educator, Ms. Elijah is a frequent presenter on national and international media and at forums on criminal justice policy and human rights issues. Some of her work on behalf of political prisoners has included: post trial/appellate representation of Sundiata Acoli (the other African American survivor besides Assata Shakur from the NJ turnpike shooting), and of Marilyn Buck (who was charged and convicted of involvement in Assata’s escape); representation of the San Francisco 8, and of organizations such as the Venceremos Brigade.Bradley ParkerBrad Parker is Staff Attorney and International Advocacy Officer with Defence for Children International Palestine, an independent child-rights organization dedicated to defending and promoting the rights of children living in occupied Palestine. He was previously the Legal Advocacy Officer with MADRE.Rafael Anglada-Lopez Rafael Anglada López is a lawyer and a civil rights activist. He was a member of the Federación de Universitarios Pro Independencia (FUPI-Federation of Pro-Independence University Students), a delegate for the Puerto Rican Socialist Party before the United Nations, and a reporter for Claridad, the major pro-independence newspaper. Anglada has dedicated his life to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence from the United States and, as an attorney, defending the rights of political dissidents. Atty. Anglada-Lopez has been associated with the defense of the Cuban Five since their trial in Miami in 2000-2001.

PALESTINIANS HONOURED IN BRASILIAN HOUSE OF DEPUTIES
http://www.brasil247.com/pt/247/brasilia247/122496/Palestinos-recebem-homenagem-na-C%C3%A2mara.htm
"The Palestinians can not be refugees in their own country. Over five million Palestinians should be guaranteed the right to return to their land, "said Mrs Perpetua Almeida (PCdoB-AC), the Solemn Session in Honor of International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the Chamber of Deputies, Brasilia
The speeches were interspersed with artistic presentation of Palestinian figures. "Let us sing together for peace and dignity of all peoples and nations of the region lives," said the ambassador.To an audience of 38 ambassadors, officials and members of the Arab community, the MP said that "today the House is more beautiful for such a noble cause," making special deference to the Arab community."These who have an admirable culture, traditions and secular in the world today are the way they can contribute to a better life."The words of support from Brazilian legislators, the Palestinian ambassador in Brazil, Mohamed Ibrahim Khalil thanked Alzeben, saying the right of Palestinians to their lands is recognized by international law, based on respect for the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the peace of good neighborliness and resolution of conflicts through peaceful means, preserving the human being and the environment. "And recognizing the other's right to live with dignity," he said.

FSA Leader Defects to ISIL and Exposes FSA as a Saudi-Israeli Run Project 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkfW1CWXevQ
 Saddam al-Jamal, leader of the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) Eastern Front and a member of the FSA Staff Board or Supreme Military Council, has recently dissociated himself from the FSA, its Military Council, and the National Coalition and joined al-Qaeda's "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant." Al-Jamal also leads "Allahu Akbar" Brigade in al-Bukamal in the Deir Ezzor area of eastern Syria. He revealed that the person currently responsible for the file of the "Syrian Revolution" is Salman bin Sultan, Bandar's brother, from the Saudi royal family. He also confirmed the involvement many regional and global intelligence services in the running of the FSA, whether it is in attending FSA meetings, training them in Jordan and other locations, and providing them with different types of assistance.
 

What a Surprise: US-Based Iran “Experts” Promoting Israeli Policy
Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leverett, Going to Tehran, Oct 24 2013
As the new round of nuclear diplomacy between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 unfolds, an informal coalition of forces is coalescing in the West to oppose any prospective deal in which the United States would “accept” safeguarded uranium enrichment in Iran. Of course, Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are at the heart of this coalition. Netanyahu’s remarks about the Iran nuclear talks on NBC Meet the Press this past Sunday, see here, are emblematic of the “zero enrichment” camp:

The question is not of hope; the question is of actual result. The test is the result. The result has to be the full dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear program. If that is achieved, that would be very good. If it’s achieved peacefully, it’s even better … I think the pressure has to be maintained on Iran, even increased on Iran, until it actually stops the nuclear program, that is, dismantles it. I think that any partial deal could end up in dissolving the sanctions. There are a lot of countries waiting for a signal, just waiting for a signal, to get rid of their sanctions regime. And I think that you don’t want to go through halfway measures … As far as the freezing of assets, as far as I remember, those assets were frozen for three reasons: one, Iran’s terrorist actions; two, its aggressive actions, particularly in the Gulf; and three, its continued refusal to stop the production of WMDs. You know, if you get all three done, and they stop doing it, well, then I suppose you could unfreeze them … Those sanctions weren’t Israeli sanctions. I’ve always advocated them, but the international community adopted very firm UNSCRs, and here’s what those UNSCRs say: they said Iran should basically dismantle its centrifuges for enrichment (that’s one path to get a nuclear weapon) and stop work on its plutonium heavy-water reactor (that’s the other path for a nuclear weapon). It’s very important to stress that it’s for nuclear weapons. Nobody challenges Iran’s or any country’s pursuit of civilian nuclear energy. But seventeen countries in the world, including your neighbors Canada and Mexico, have very robust programs for civilian nuclear energy, and they don’t enrich with centrifuges, and they don’t have heavy water plutonium reactors. Here comes Iran and says, ‘I want civilian nuclear energy.’ I don’t know why, because they have energy, with gas and oil, coming out of their ears for generations. But suppose you believe them. Then you ask, ‘Why do you insist on maintaining a plutonium heavy water reactor, and on maintaining centrifuges that can only be used for making nuclear weapons?’ And the answer is because they want to have residual capability to make nuclear weapons. And you don’t want that, and UNSCRs don’t want that. And I propose sticking by that.

Anyone who has been following the Iranian nuclear issue with any measure of objectivity will note that Netanyahu mixes up US secondary sanctions with UNSCRs. Likewise, he misrepresents what the relevant UNSCRs actually say about Iran’s nuclear activities, and misstates basic facts about fuel-cycle technology. Never mind all that. Notwithstanding his myriad factual errors, Netanyahu gives authoritative voice to the main rhetorical tropes of the “zero enrichment” camp: Iran has to dismantle its current infrastructure for uranium enrichment, and stop work on the heavy-water reactor currently under construction at Arak. Moreover, even if Iran does these things, this is not enough to warrant a lifting of sanctions. The Islamic Republic must also terminate its relations with democratically validated resistance/ religious/ social service/ political movements like Hizballah in Lebanon, and stop suggesting that disenfranchised Shi’a populations in countries like Bahrain actually have political rights. In the wake of Netanyahu’s Meet the Press appearance, we were struck by the similarity between his positions and those espoused in a WaPo op-ed earlier this week titled “The World Must Tell Iran: No More Half Steps”:

Despite its softened rhetoric, the new Iranian regime can be expected to continue asserting its nuclear ‘rights’ and to press its advantages in a contested Middle East. The Islamic Republic plans to remain an important backer of the Assad dynasty in Syria, a benefactor of Hezbollah and a supporter of Palestinian rejectionist groups. It will persist in its repressive tactics at home and continue to deny the people of Iran fundamental human rights. This is a government that will seek to negotiate a settlement of the nuclear issue by testing the limits of the great powers’ prohibitions. Washington need not accede to such Iranian conceptions. The US and its allies are entering this week’s negotiations in a strong position.  Iran’s economy is withering under the combined pressures of sanctions and its own managerial incompetence. The Iranian populace remains disaffected as the bonds between state and society have been largely severed since the Green Revolution of 2009. The EU is still highly skeptical of Iran, a distrust that Rouhani’s charm offensive has mitigated but not eliminated. Allied diplomats can use as leverage in the forthcoming negotiations the threat of additional sanctions and Israeli military force. Given the stark realities, it is time for the great powers to have a maximalist approach to diplomacy with Iran.  It is too late for more Iranian half-steps and half-measures. Tehran must account for all its illicit nuclear activities and be compelled to make irreversible concessions that permanently degrade its ability to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program at a more convenient time.  Anything less would be a lost opportunity.

Who is the author of this Op Ed? An AIPAC spokesperson? One of the many neocon firebrands to whom the WaPo long ago turned over its op-ed page? No and no. The author of the remarkably Netanyahu-like Op Ed cited above is Ray Takeyh, the mainstream media’s long-time “go-to” (if also perennially mistaken) Iran “expert” who advised Dennis Ross’s destructively incompetent handling of the Iran nuclear file during President Obama’s first term and is now back at the CFR. We have no reason to believe that Ray is coordinating his public positions with the Israeli government. But it is remarkable how congruent his views are with those of the most hegemonically-minded Israeli prime minister in living memory.

Syria and Our Educational System
A Discussion With Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Lawrence Davidson and Ilan Pappé
By Daniel Falcone and Noam Chomsky and Richard Falk and Lawrence Davidson and Ilan Pappe

 Syria's civil war that started in March 2011 continues to attract Western attention. Although nearly half of the Syrian population does not support US leadership in the world, the United States has shown a "resolve" to make this one of our international priorities. For many citizens outside of the public arena, Syria is an obscure and irrelevant geographic location. Recent events in the diplomatic field have, however, catapulted the country to headlines across the United States. I spoke with four prominent public intellectuals to discuss the context of Syria within our educational system. This is a roundtable format including the eminent linguist and social scientist Noam Chomsky from MIT, Princeton professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, professor of Middle East studies and author of the Middle East Reader Lawrence Davidson and Israeli historian and author of The Modern Middle East Ilan Pappé.

FALCONE: In The New York Times, recent articles covering Syria keep mentioning the importance of our "resolve." What is meant by American "resolve?"

CHOMSKY: Alternatively, "credibility." What I've called "the Mafia doctrine" in many publications: when the Godfather issues an edict, others must obey, or else. It's too dangerous to allow disobedience. A leading principle of world affairs - though, of course, officials and commentators put it more politely.

FALK: I think "resolve" is a coded way of discussing the willingness to use force in support of what Obama calls America's "core interests." In this sense, a lack of resolve would denote a weakness of political will that would disappoint expectations of the Syrian rebel forces and indirectly others as well, including Israel. In the end, resolve refers to the credibility of American global leadership, which is especially subject to doubt, given the negative outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan - and given Republican obstructionism in Congress and the so-called war fatigue of the citizenry.

DAVIDSON: Within this context, what is meant is a resolve to be the world's policeman. To right the alleged wrongs of those we regard as our enemies (we are not similarly concerned with the wrongs of those we designate our friends) even if we ourselves have carried out similar wrongs.

PAPPÉ: I think what the NYT means by resolve is a stance that does not change easily from day to day on the Syrian crisis. If you ask about what should be the American resolve, then I would say that it cannot be addressed only with regard to the present crisis in Syria. It needs to have a wider conceptual and moral infrastructure. Unless this American administration is willing to diverge from the conventional American policy in the Middle East by changing its basic attitudes on crucial questions, foremost of them Palestine, and support genuinely the rights of people for independence, sovereignty and identity across the board, the only "resolve" one would hope from the USA is to stay out of the Middle East for a while.

FALCONE: Also in conjunction with the articles, there is sort of an insinuation that Iran's "nuclear threat" is being addressed when we address Syria. Doesn't our sabre rattling only force Iran to entertain the idea of advanced weaponry?

CHOMSKY: Definitely. ...

DAVIDSON: ... Absolutely. ... Threatening to attack a principle ally of Iran (Syria) is not the way to encourage cooperation in terms of armaments. However, what if the saber rattling is not designed primarily with Iran in mind, but rather with special interests that want to hear threats to Iran in exchange for their domestic political support? Then it makes sense. 

FALK: It would seem to be the case that pressure on Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is almost totally driven by their need for a deterrent capability to avoid the fate of Iraq, Libya. The use of American military force in Syria thus sends exactly the opposite message as supposedly desired to the leadership in Tehran - and to others. North Korea has been dealt with diplomatically because it has the bomb and might use it if provoked.

PAPPÉ: There was no need for the present charade on Syria to remind the government in Iran that the American dog is wagged by the Israeli tail to be more militant in its policy toward Iran. I am not sure to this very moment that Iran's objective is to obtain "advanced weaponry." The present rulers in Iran do not want to be seen as giving up the idea of "advanced weaponry" due to Israeli and American pressure. The myth, carried out from the end of the Second World War, that only "advanced weaponry" - or even the horrific events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - can produce unimaginable human catastrophes continues to blur our judgment. The worst crimes against humanity in the last half of the previous century and this century are carried out with conventional advanced weapons, upgraded daily by a greedy arms industry, super power's apathy and criminal ideologies. In the Middle East, Iran lags behind many other military powers in this respect.

FALCONE: When President Obama addresses the nation he keeps repeating the phrase, "the international community." What is meant by the international community? 

FALK: As Gandhi famously responded when asked about "Western civilization," "I wish they had one," the same applies to "international community": "I wish there was one." Of course, its use is a convenient way of invoking the collective actions of the world, as through the actions of the United Nations. The misleading implication, however, is to divert attention from the weakness of central institutions and procedures as compared to the strength of leading states. We live in a state-centric world faced with global-scale problems that cannot be met by the actions of single states, no matter how powerful, if assessed from the perspective of military capabilities.

CHOMSKY: The US and whoever goes along with it, often almost no one, as in this case.

DAVIDSON: This is a bit of verbal sleight of hand. The "international community" implies the world's nations. In fact what the president is actually referring to is the US and its allies. And, as we have seen when the British Parliament backed out of the potential attack on Syria, the number of those allies is shrinking.

PAPPÉ: The president probably means those governments which agree with US policy. We can refer back to the UN charter, which saw the peoples, not the governments, as providing the basis for an international opinion. More often than not, there is inconsistency between the two.

FALCONE: I have noticed a lot of teachers using an article from The Washington Post that has gone viral: "9 Questions About Syria You Were Too Embarrassed to Ask" by Max Fisher. The author admits the piece has a limited scope of information. Do Westerners get a cheapened version of Near East affairs in our educational system?

FALK: I think it is less the limited amount of information than the filters that information about the Middle East must pass through before being fairly addressed in the mainstream media. In more intellectual and geopolitical terms, the perceptions of the region are distorted by a combination of Orientalism and the priorities of the state of Israel, including the refusal to discuss the relevance of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal in the context of addressing Iran on its nuclear program.

CHOMSKY: Hopelessly. ...

DAVIDSON: ... Most of the time, teachers who talk about the Middle East do not know the history, culture or present context of the problems they are discussing. So they go to the media, which quote government or academic "experts" (who often are no such thing) or journalists who, by virtue of working for the media, are supposed to know what they are talking about. In the end they know little or nothing beyond a standard line that reflects the perceptions of the US government and its special-interest supporters. That is what the students get. Indeed, that is what we all get. 

PAPPÉ: While in the American academia the knowledge production on the Middle East in general and Syria in particular has been considerably transformed in recent years, the dissemination of these more updated views fails to reach the conventional educational system. For two main reasons: Politics can still subdue and censor views that are not endorsed ideologically, and academics have still not learned how to write openly, directly and, one should say, courageously about these issues.

FALCONE: Can you recommend articles, authors and book titles that can help teachers break the traditional mold of textbook teaching that tend to conceptualize the Near East narrative incorrectly?

DAVIDSON: Well, the best textbook on the market is the one I co-authored with Arthur Goldschmidt, the Concise History of the Middle East (Westview Press). Students and teachers also now have access to web sources that often give an alternate point of view, such as Al Jazeera English and Electronic Intifada. One can balance the standard line on events if one does a bit of searching.

FALK: The literature on the region is generally not very good. The writing on individual countries is far better. There are some books edited by the Iraqi scholar teaching in Canada Tareq Ismael that give good and balanced overviews of regional issues, and I would suggest Edward Said for the cultural underpinnings of misperceptions relating to the region.

FALCONE: Another observation in US media is the marriage of the word terrorist with Muslim. In other words, after last week's shooting at the D.C Naval Yard, news anchors would say, "We still don't know if the suspected killer is a terrorist." What kind of impact might this habitual commentary have on our educational system?

CHOMSKY: The intended meaning is clear: Demonize Muslims, and deflect attention from the obvious but unutterable fact that the US has been the leading terrorist state in the world for many years.

DAVIDSON: The continual linking of the notions of terrorist and terrorism with Muslims and the Middle East is, essentially, an act of propaganda that cannot help but promote "Islamophobia." Shooting down a dozen innocent people (as happened in Washington, DC, last week) at random is an act of terrorism, no matter who does it. What possible justification can there be to restrict the definition to adherents of a particular religion? If the reply is 9/11, the counter fact is that 99.5 percent of the world's Muslims were as appalled at that event as everyone else.

PAPPÉ: Similar demonization of Muslims was done in Norway in the first hours after the massacre carried out by a white supremacist. The demonization has been in the US, long before 9/11, as Edward Said's Unveiling Islam has shown. Films, media, educational system and arts portray Muslims in a racist and negative way. The more interesting question, for which we have no time right now, is who is behind these images.

FALK: There is no doubt that this fusion of terrorist and Muslim feeds virulent forms of Islamophobia, which is also encouraged by such incidents as the Westgate Mall massacre in Nairobi and the Anglican Church bombing in Pakistan. 9/11 greatly intensified this tendency toward fusion, but it had also been nurtured by Israeli propaganda that portrayed their Palestinian and Arab adversaries as "terrorists." In fact, the US government approach after 9/11 was modeled in many of its features on Israeli tactics developed during the long occupation of Palestine.

FALCONE: Have you ever been invited to speak at a high school on the Muslim world? Why might this be so unlikely to happen? 

CHOMSKY: I think you know why it's unlikely. I've occasionally been asked to talk on Israel-Palestine. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it elicits hysteria in the community.

DAVIDSON: I have not been invited into a Muslim high school, but I have been invited to speak to college classes in the Muslim world. I think this is simply because I am better-known in college and university circles. There is no inherent reason why I would be unwelcome at the high school level.

FALK: I have been invited a few times over the years, usually at the initiative of student groups, not the school administration or faculty. This seems unlikely to happen both because of bias and fear of controversy. 

PAPPÉ: Yes, but mostly because those who invited me did not know who I was.

FALCONE: Do you read the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs? What are your thoughts on the publication?

CHOMSKY: Not trustworthy in my opinion, though I often agree with their conclusions.

DAVIDSON: Yes, this is a very good source of information. It is one of those sources that people should use to get an alternative view of what is going on in the region and what are the consequences of US foreign policy. 

PAPPÉ: Excellent and informative publication.

FALK: I believe that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a valuable resource, probably the best offset to the mainstream treatment of the region. It consistently publishes insightful commentary on delicate issues of US foreign policy bearing on the Middle East and also interprets developments in the region in a more illuminating way.

 

Ex-Mossad Chief: “Turkey Drives the Americans Crazy — and Us, Too”
 A former director of the Mossad, retired General Danny Yatom, reacts to David Ignatius’s column in The Washington Post (reporting that Turkey gave Iran the names of 10 Mossad-run Iranian spies) by saying the Turks committed a “despicable” and unprecedented violation of international intelligence etiquette — and that will leave Turkish intelligence with no friends at all.
Danny Yatom — speaking from Israel, in a telephone conference call arranged by The Israel Project — said: “Assuming what’s in the Ignatius column is accurate, then this was a despicable act by the Turks — by the head of the MIT, the intelligence organization which is equivalent to the CIA plus the FBI. The guy who heads MIT, Hakan Fidan, has very strong power in Turkey. “Assuming the column is true, this is something unheard of.  I don’t remember, during the many, many years I served in the Israeli intelligence apparatuses and as a close advisor to three prime ministers and in the Israel Defense Forces… I don’t recall this phenomenon when information was used by so-called friendly intelligence services [in this way].“The Turks probably had this information [the name of Iranian contacts] from the Mossad. Because the modus operandi is — usually in such cases — when there are meetings between handlers and their agents — let’s say Israel doing it on Turkish soil — then usually the Israelis inform the Turkish MIT in order to avoid any misunderstandings. This is to avoid any Turkish claim that Israel is breaching the laws of Turkey.“If this is true, then the fact that those 10 spies were burned by purposely informing the Iranians is not only a despicable act — this is an act that brings the Turkish intelligence organization to a position where I assume no one will trust it. Not only did they get the information from Israel … They breached all the rules of cooperation between intelligence organizations.“If this is true, what was done by the head of the Turkish intelligence organization — no doubt with the knowledge of his prime minister [Recep] Erdogan — is something that I don’t recall from the many years of my experience.“This is highly disturbing. We also receive information from friendly intelligence organizations. And no one here or in the U.S. or elsewhere would dare to use this information — received from, let’s say Israel — in order to harm Israel.“Only one — the head of Turkey’s intelligence and the prime minister of Turkey. … Knowing the Turks and knowing the reporter, David Ignatius, I tend to believe him [and not any Turkish denials].“About two years ago, it was published — when Hakan Fidan was nominated to head the MIT — that Ehud Barak’s view was that Fidan was very close to the Iranians and had transferred sensitive information to Iran.“We never ever thought he would do something unprecedented by exposing Israeli agents to the Iranians — probably knowing them [the names] because he got the information from Israel.[[[[[[“The relations between the two intelligence organizations [the Mossad and Turkey's MIT], during my time as director of the Mossad [in 1996 to 1998] were excellent — and were excellent before and after that.]]]]]  But what happened caused us to distrust the Turks, and this is the main reason why the relations are losing their intimacy and are deteriorating.”Yatom said the Turks were, in a way, shooting themselves in the foot.  ”They badly need cooperation with friendly intelligence apparatuses.  The Turks are highly worried about what’s going on in Syria. They are against the Iranian military nuclear program. Of course they need to cooperate with friendly [services] to fight terror in their own country — Turkey.“Who now will trust them and cooperate with them? Who now will share sensitive information with them?“We will see a deterioration in intelligence relations between Turkey’s MIT and all the parallel organizations in friendly countries to Turkey.  We will find the Turkish intelligence isolated from receiving any sensitive information, probably for the foreseeable future.”Yatom also said: “We share a lot of information with the CIA, [Britain's] MI6, [the German} BND and other friendly intelligence apparatuses -- and we used to do it, until recently, with the Turks. Our nations shared the same goals and aims: to fight terror, and to prevent Iran from becoming a military nuclear state.
"If this is true, then what the intelligence apparatus of Turkey did was ... to threaten the lives of those Iranians.  And I don't what is their fate.  Maybe they were executed or will be executed.
"This is not only transferring the names to a democratic regime, but it is transferering the names to a regime with no mercy. No doubt in my mind. If this is true, they either have been executed or they will be executed."
When asked whether the Syrian civil war has brought Turkey and Israel closer together -- out of shared worries and interests, considering that Syria is sandwiched between them -- Yatom said: "Unfortunately it has not happened."Yatom added, "Erdogan is even annoying the United States by purchasing ground-to-air missiles from a company in China which is blamed [by the U.S.] for breaking an embargo by assisting Iran with its missile and nuclear projects.  I don’t think this is the first time Erdogan makes the Americans crazy… And the same with us, so what can we do?”For mutual benefits, Yatom suggested, efforts to get past the Israeli-Turkish problems are worth pursuing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Erdogan exposed Mossad agents in Iran, Really!
 Ignatius is trying to make his readers believe that while Barack Obama is calling Erdogan his best friend, Erdogan is helping USrael’s number one enemy, Iran. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu just confirmed my theory.“This is just a smear campaign. This is not true. It is dirty propaganda,” CNN quoted Davutoglu saying on October 17, 2013.David Ignatius has claimed that Turkey’s top spy, Dr. Hakan Fidan, head of Turkish intelligence MIT played a major part in the exposer of Mossad espionage network in Iran. On June 7, 2010, Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the newly appointed head of MIT, Hakan Fidan, has ties with IHH, the group which organized the Gaza flotilla. Hakan Fidan, as Turkish envoy at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2009, had defended Iran’s right to carry on its civilian nuclear program.On Thursday, Turkish officials claimed that the Washington Post allegation was part of a broader effort to discredit Turkey’s top spymaster, Hakan Fidan.Under the smokescreen, Turkey-Israel has secret alliance to use every mean to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region. Only last week, Erdogan told his top government officials to avoid discussing Turkey-Israel secret alliance in public.“Mr Erdogan’s Cairo visit took place in the midst of Israel’s eight-day war on Gaza. Notwithstanding his habitual posturing over Israel’s war crimes, the focal point of his speech at the Cairo University was Syria. The fact remains that for the past 20 years, Turkey, Israel and NATO have maintained a high level of military and political cooperation against Iraq, Iran, Syria and the resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon. Furthermore, since April 2011, Mr Erdogan’s government has been thoroughly complicit in NATO’s war crimes in Syria,” said Cem Ertur, in A Zionist in disguise: Prime Minister Erdogan’s phony anti-Israel rhetoric, November 30, 2012.

 Israeli Drones Fallin’ from the Skies Like Flies: Third UAV Sabotaged by Hacking
 Israeli media have announced that the IAF has “lost” (Hebrew and English) yet another of its advanced drones, the Hermes-450, one of the most advanced of its fleet.  This marks the third vehicle lost in a similar manner in the past six months.  A fourth drone was “lost” two years ago and reported in a post I published here.  I note my Israeli source reported originally that the drone was operated by Hezbollah and deliberately crashed into the base.  It’s also possible that Hezbollah or Iran took control of an Israeli drone and crashed it into the base; or that its Israeli controllers crashed it purposely because its navigation system had been hacked.  I’ve previously reported (and here) on the various crashes.
Though Israeli security officials invariably call the cause of the failure a “technical malfunction,” it is only that in the sense that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a technical malfunction.  In other words, these crashes were caused by an enemy hacking into the navigation system and taking control of the drone.
Here is how the air force explains its decision to destroy the vehicles in mid-flight:

IDF officials explained at the time that the decision to down the UAV was made due to concerns that control over the drone would be lost, and it might crash into populated areas.

In actuality, they weren’t in control of them and didn’t know what the Iranians or Lebanese would do with them.  They might crash them into a building or air base inside Israel or they might fly it to Lebanon where they could study its components further.Israel’s media itself may not believe the lies offered by the IAF.  This is the Walla! headline:

Drones Falling, and with Them, IDF’s Credibility

The article also notes that the continued failures of the Hermes 450 have harmed the reputation of the IDF.  If I were commander of a drone fleet I wouldn’t allow them to fly again till I had a totally new navigational system that couldn’t be penetrated.  Though Israel did ground portions of its fleet after one of the crashes, it apparently didn’t help.  To me, this indicates either IAF hubris or incompetence.  Of course, Iranian cyber-engineers are no slouches as well. An anonymous Israel source sent me this e mail message which was either written by a terrific bluffer, or by someone who knows what they’re talking about (my bet is on the latter):

The UAV didn’t crash, the UAV control center lost communication due to heavy interference in the COM link. After few very long minutes at which the re establish comm procedure failed, the CCC (control center commander) ordered the self destruction of the UAV. There was lots of drama as it appeared the UAV had a mind of its own or that someone gained positive control.

As I reported in the past, I don’t know for sure whether Iran or Hezbollah is responsible or some combination, but they are the most likely suspects.  Here is what my source says about the latest attack:

The source of the drone hacks was electronically traced to Lebanon, so either Hezbollah did it with Iranian technology or IRG forces there did it themselves.

In addition, Iran announced recently that it had reverse engineered the same Hermes 450 which was downed yesterday.  If it could reverse engineer it, it can figure out how to hack into the controls as well.  This raises another issue: if it’s true Iran succeeded in copying Israel’s most advanced drone it did so in one of two ways; either it captured a drone in the way I suggest above or it gained access to its technical specs through some sort of espionage.  If it captured a drone, that means there was yet another drone failure in which the Iranians actually succeeded in capturing the vehicle as it did a U.S. drone a year ago.  Iran has boasted it has reverse engineered this vehicle too.Ironically, the Israeli defense industry publication, IsraelDefense, will host a conference (Hebrew) on drone technology and cyber-issues related to it in a few hours.  One of the key issues this Hebrew language articles indicates will be at the center of the event will be the issue of security, both how Israelis may penetrate the drones of their enemies and protect their own from such hacking.  Given these failures, conference attendees will have their work cut out for them. The operative phrase here is: what goes around, comes around.  Israel builds these vehicles to spy on its enemies.  It uses them to kill its enemies.  I should add here that my Israeli source renews his claim about the IRG commander Mojtada Ahmadi, who was murdered a few days ago in Iran.  He says the Mossad assassinated him because, among his offenses, was orchestrating the campaign to sabotage Israel’s drone fleet.  I repeat, I haven’t been able to confirm this claim independently and nothing coming out of Iran says anything other than that he was murdered.  So proceed with caution.Israel’s enemies, in turn, will eventually return the favor once they have mastered the technology.  It’s only a question of when and how.  This is yet another part of the cyberwar drama being played out now between Israel and its enemies.  First you had Stuxnet and Flame, then you had Iranian hackers taking down Saudi oil companies and U.S. banks.  Now we have sabotaged drones and possibly assassinated cyberwar chiefs.  This can go a long way and end up in a very ugly place (and likely will)

Israel’s Politics of Fragmentation
Background  If the politics of deflection exhibit the outward reach of Israel’s grand strategy of territorial expansionism and regional hegemony, the politics of fragmentation serves Israel’s inward moves designed to weaken Palestinian resistance, induce despair, and de facto surrender. In fundamental respects deflection is an unwitting enabler of fragmentation, but it is also its twin or complement.
 The British were particularly adept in facilitating their colonial project all over the world by a variety of divide and rule tactics, which almost everywhere haunted anti-colonial movements, frequently producing lethal forms of post-colonial partition as in India, Cyprus, Ireland, Malaya, and of course, Palestine, and deadly ethnic strife elsewhere as in Nigeria, Kenya, Myanmar, Rwanda. Each of these national partitions and post-colonial traumas has produced severe tension and long lasting hostility and struggle, although each takes a distinctive form due to variations from country to country of power, vision, geography, resources, history, geopolitics, leadership.
 An additional British colonial practice and legacy was embodied in a series of vicious settler colonial movements that succeeded in effectively eliminating or marginalizing resistance by indigenous populations as in Australia, Canada, the United States, and somewhat less so in New Zealand, and eventually failing politically in South Africa and Namibia, but only after decades of barbarous racism.

In Palestine the key move was the Balfour Declaration, which was a colonialist gesture of formal approval given to the Zionist Project in 1917 tendered at the end of Ottoman rule over Palestine. This was surely gross interference with the dynamics of Palestinian self-determination (at the time the estimated Arab population of Palestine was 747,685, 92.1% of the total, while the Jewish population was an estimate 58,728, which amounted to 7.9%) and a decisive stimulus for the Zionist undertaking to achieve supremacy over the land embraced by the British mandate to administer Palestine in accordance with a framework agreement with the League of Nation. The agreement repeated the language of the Balfour Declaration in its preamble: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”(emphasis added) To describe this encouragement of Zionism as merely ‘interference’ is a terribly misleading understatement of the British role in creating a situation of enduring tension in Palestine, which was supposedly being administered on the basis of the wellbeing of the existing indigenous population, what was called “a sacred trust of civilization” in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, established for the “well-being and development” of peoples ”not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.”  The relevance of the politics of fragmentation refers to a bundle of practices and overall approach that assumed the form of inter-ethnic and inter-religious strife during the almost three decades that the mandate arrangements were in effect.*

At the same time, the British was not the whole story by any means: the fanatical and effective exploitation of the opportunity to establish a Jewish homeland of unspecified dimensions manifested the dedication, skill, and great ambition of the Zionist movement; the lack of comparable sustained and competent resistance by the indigenous population abetted the transformation of historic Palestine; and then these  developments were strongly reinforced by the horrors of the Holocaust and the early complicity of the liberal democracies with Naziism that led the West to lend its support to the settler colonial reality that Zionism had become well before the 1948 War. The result was the tragic combination of statehood and UN membership for Israel and the nakba involving massive dispossession creating forced refugee and exile for most Palestinians, and leading after 1967 to occupation, discrimination, and oppression of those Palestinians who remained either in Israel or in the 22% of original Palestine.

It should be recalled that the UN solution of 1947, embodied in GA Resolution 181, after the British gave up their mandatory role was no more in keeping with the ethos of self-determination than the Balfour Declaration, decreeing partition and allocating 55% of Palestine to the Jewish population, 45% to the Palestinians without the slightest effort to assess the wishes of the population resident in Palestine at the time or to allocate the land in proportion to the demographic realities at the time. The UN solution was a new rendition of Western paternalism, opposed at the time by the Islamic and Middle Eastern members of the UN. Such a solution was not as overbearing as the mandates system that was devised to vest quasi-colonial rule in the victorious European powers after World War I, yet it was still an Orientalist initiative aimed at the control and exploitation of the destiny of an ethnic, political, and economic entity long governed by the Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinians (and their Arab neighbors) are often told in patronizing tones by latter day Zionists and their apologists that the Palestinians had their chance to become a state, squandered their opportunity, thereby forfeiting their rights to a state of their own by rejecting the UN partition plan. In effect, the Israeli contention is that Palestinians effectively relinquished their statehood claims by this refusal to accept what the UN had decreed, while Israel by nominally accepting the UN proposals validated their sovereign status, which was further confirmed by its early admission to full membership in the UN. Ever since, Israel has taken advantage of the fluidity of the legal situation by at once pretending to accept the UN approach of seeking a compromise by way of mutual agreement with the  Palestinians while doing everything in its power to prevent such an outcome by projecting its force throughout the entirety of Palestine, by establishing and expanding settlements, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, and by advancing an array of maximalist security claims that have diminished Palestinian prospects.  That is, Israel has publicly endorsed conflict-resolving diplomacy but operationally has been constantly moving the goal posts by unlawfully creating facts on the ground, and then successfully insisting on their acceptance as valid points of departure. In effect, and with American help, Israel has seemingly given the Palestinians a hard choice, which is tacitly endorsed by the United States and Europe: accept the Bantustan destiny we offer or remain forever refugees and victims of annexation, exile, discrimination, statelessness.

Israel has used its media leverage and geopolitical clout to create an asymmetric understanding of identity politics as between Jews and Palestinians. Jews being defined as a people without borders who can gain Israeli nationality no matter where they live on the planet, while Palestinians are excluded from Israeli nationality regardless of how deep their indigenous roots in Palestine itself. This distinction between the two peoples exhibits the tangible significance of Israel as a ‘Jewish State,’ and why such a designation is morally and legally unacceptable in the 21^st century even as it so zealously claimed by recent Israeli leaders, none more than Benyamin Netanyahu.  
 Modalities of Fragmentation
The logic of fragmentation is to weaken, if not destroy, a political opposition configuration by destroying its unity of purpose and strategy, and fomenting to the extent possible conflicts between different tendencies within the adversary movement. It is an evolving strategy that is interactive, and by its nature becomes an important theme of conflict. The Palestinians in public constantly stress the essential role of unity, along with reconciliation to moderate the relevance of internal differences. In contrast, the Israelis fan the flames of disunity, stigmatizing elements of the Palestinian reality that are relevantly submissive, and accept the agenda and frameworks that are devised by Tel Aviv refusing priorities set by Palestinian leaders. Over the course of the conflict from 1948 to the present, there have been ebbs and flows in the course of Palestinian unity, with maximum unity achieved during the time when Yasir Arafat was the resistance leader and maximum fragmentation evident since Hamas was successful in the 2006 Gaza elections, and managed to seize governmental control from Fatah in Gaza a year later. Another way that Israel has promoted Palestinian disunity is to favor the so-called moderates operating under the governance of the Palestinian Authority while imposing inflicting various punishments on Palestinians adhering to Hamas.

–Zionism, the Jewish State, and the Palestinian Minority. Perhaps, the most fundamental form of fragmentation is between Jews and Palestinians living within the state of Israel. This type of fragmentation has two principal dimensions: pervasive discrimination against the 20% Palestinian minority (about 1.5 million) affecting legal, social, political, cultural, and economic rights, and creating a Palestinian subjectivity of marginality, subordination, vulnerability. Although Palestinians in Israel are citizens they are excluded from many benefits and opportunities because they do not possess Jewish nationality. Israel may be the only state in the world that privileges nationality over citizenship in a series of contexts, including family reunification and access to residence. It is also worth observing that if demographic projections prove to be reliable Palestinians could be a majority in Israel as early as 2035, and would almost certainly outnumber Jews in the country by 2048. Not only does this pose the familiar choice for Israel between remaining an electoral democracy and retaining its self-proclaimed Jewish character, but it also shows how hegemonic it is to insist that the Palestinians and the international community accept Israel as a Jewish state.

This Palestinian entitlement, validated by the international law relating to fundamental human rights prohibiting all forms of discrimination, and especially structural forms embedded in law that discriminate on the basis of race and religion. The government of Israel, reinforced by its Supreme Court, endorses the view that only Jews can possess Israeli nationality that is the basis of a range of crucial rights under Israeli law. What is more Jews have Israeli nationality even if lacking any link to Israel and wherever they are located, while Palestinians (and other religious and ethnic minorities) are denied Israeli nationality (although given Israeli citizenship) even if indigenous to historic Palestine and to the territory under the sovereign control of the state of Israel.  

A secondary form of fragmentation is between this minority in Israel and the rest of the Palestinian corpus. The dominant international subjectivity relating to the conflict has so far erased this minority from its imaginary of peace for the two peoples, or from any sense that Palestinian human rights in Israel should be internationally implemented in whatever arrangements are eventually negotiated or emerges via struggle. As matters now stand, the Palestinian minority in Israel is unrepresented at the diplomatic level and lacks any vehicle for the expression of its grievances.

–Occupied Palestine and the Palestinian Diaspora (refugees and enforced exile). Among the most debilitating forms of fragmentation is the effort by Israel and its supporters to deny Palestinian refugees and Palestinians living in the diaspora) their right of return as confirmed by GA Resolution 184? There are between 4.5 million and 5.5 million Palestinians who are either refugees or living in the diaspora, as well as about 1.4 million resident in the West Bank and 1.6 million in Gaza.

The diplomatic discourse has been long shaped by reference to the two state mantra. This includes the reductive belief that the essence of a peaceful future for the two peoples depends on working out the intricacies of ‘land for peace.’ In other words, the dispute is false categorized as almost exclusively about territory and borders (along with the future of Jerusalem), and not about people. There is a tacit understanding that seems to include the officials of the Palestinian Authority to the effect that Palestinians refugee rights will be ‘handled’ via compensation and the right of return, not to the place of original dispossession, but to territory eventually placed under Palestinian sovereignty.

Again the same disparity as between the two sides is encoded in the diplomacy of ‘the peace process,’ ever more so during the twenty years shaped by the Oslo framework. The Israel propaganda campaign was designed to make it appear to be a deal breaker for the Palestinian to insist on full rights of repatriation as it would allegedly entail the end of the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Yet such a posture toward refugees and the Palestinian diaspora cruelly consigns several million Palestinians to a permanent limbo, in effect repudiating the idea that the Palestinians are a genuine ‘people’ while absolutizing the Jews as a people of global scope. Such a dismissal of the claims of Palestinian refugees also flies in the face of the right of return specifically affirmed in relation to Palestine by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 194, and more generally supported by Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Two Warring Realms of the Occupation of Palestine: the Palestine Authority versus Hamas. Again Israel and its supporters have been able to drive an ideological wedge between the Palestinians enduring occupation since 1967. With an initial effort to discredit the Palestine Liberation Organzation that had achieved control over a unified and robust Palestine national movement, Israel actually encouraged the initial emergence of Hamas as a radical and fragmenting alternative to the PLO when it was founded in the course of the First Intifada. Israel of course later strongly repudiated Hamas when it began to carry armed struggle to pre-1967 Israel, most notoriously engaging in suicide bombings in Israel that involved indiscriminate attacks on civilians, a tactic repudiated in recent years.

Despite Hamas entering into the political life of occupied Palestine with American, and winning an internationally supervised election in 2006, and taking control of Gaza in 2007, it has continued to be categorized as ‘a terrorist organization’ that is given no international status. This terrorist designation is also relied upon to impose a blockade on Gaza that is a flagrant form of collective punishment in direct violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Palestine Authority centered in Ramallah has also, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, refused to treat Hamas as a legitimate governing authority or to allow Hamas to operate as a legitimate political presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem or to insist on the inclusion of Hamas in international negotiations addressing the future of the Palestinian people. This refusal has persisted despite the more conciliatory tone of Hamas since 2009 when its leader, Khaled Meshaal, announced a shift in the organization’s goals: an acceptance of Israel as a state beside Palestine as a state provided a full withdrawal to 1967 borders and implementation of the right of return for refugees, and a discontinuation by Hamas of a movement based on armed struggle. Mashel also gave further reassurances of moderation by an indication that earlier goals of liberating the whole of historic Palestine, as proclaimed in its Charter, were a matter of history that was no longer descriptive of its political program.

In effect, the territorial fragmentation of occupied Palestine is reinforced by ideological fragmentation, seeking to somewhat authenticate and privilege the secular and accommodating leadership provided by the PA while repudiating the Islamic orientation of Hamas. In this regard, the polarization in such countries as Turkey and Egypt is cynically reproduced in Palestine as part of Israel’s overall occupation strategy. This includes a concerted effort by Israel to make it appear that material living conditions for Palestinians are much better if the Palestinian leadership cooperates with the Israeli occupiers than if it continues to rely on a national movement of liberation and refuses to play the Oslo game.

The Israeli propaganda position on Hamas has emphasized the rocket attacks on Israel launched from within Gaza. There is much ambiguity and manipulation of the timeline relating to the rockets in interaction with various forms of Israeli violent intrusion. We do know that the casualties during the period of Hamas control of Gaza have been exceedingly one-sided, with Israel doing most of the killing, and Palestinians almost all of the dying. We also know that when ceasefires have been established between Israel and Gaza, there was a good record of compliance on the Hamas side, and that it was Israel that provocatively broke the truce, and then launched major military operations in 2008-09 and 2012 on a defenseless and completely vulnerable population.

Cantonization and the Separation Wall: Fragmenting the West Bank. A further Israeli tactic of fragmentation is to make it difficult for Palestinians to sustain a normal and coherent life. The several hundred check points throughout the West Bank serious disrupt mobility for the Palestinians, and make it far easier for Palestinians to avoid delay and humiliation. It is better for them to remain contained within their villages, a restrictive life reinforced by periodic closures and curfews that are extremely disruptive. Vulnerability is accentuated by nighttime arrests, especially of young male Palestinians, 60% of whom have been detained in prisons before they reach the age of 25, and the sense that Israeli violence, whether issuing from the IDF or the settlers enjoys impunity, and often is jointly carried out.

The Oslo framework not only delegated to the PA the role of maintaining ‘security’ in Palestinian towns and cities, but bisected the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, with Israeli retaining a residual security right throughout occupied Palestine. Area C, where most of the settlements are located, is over 60% of the West Bank, and is under exclusive control of Israel.
This fragmentation at the core of the Oslo framework has been a key element
in perpetuating Palestinian misery.

The fragmentation in administration is rigid and discriminatory, allowing Israeli settlers the benefits of Israel’s rule of law, while subjecting Palestinians to military administration with extremely limited rights, and even the denial of a right to enjoy the benefit of rights. Israel also insists that since it views the West Bank as disputed territory rather than ‘occupied’ it is not legally obliged to respect international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. This fragmentation between Israeli settlers and Palestinian residents is so severe that it has been increasingly understood in international circles as a form of apartheid, which the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court denominates as one type of ‘crime against humanity.’ 

The Separation Wall is an obvious means of separating Palestinians from each other and from their land. It was declared in 2004 to be a violation of international law by a super majority of 14-1 in the International Court of Justice, but to no avail, as Israel has defied this near unanimous reading of international law by the highest judicial body in the UN, and yet suffered no adverse consequences. In some West Bank communities Palestinians are surrounded by the wall and in others Palestinian farmers can only gain access to and from their land at appointed times when wall gates are opened.

Fragmentation and Self-Determination  The pervasiveness of fragmentation is one reason why there is so little belief that the recently revived peace process is anything more than one more turn of the wheel, allowing Israel to proceed with its policies designed to take as much of what remains of Palestine as it wants so as to realize its own conception of Jewish self-determination. Just as Israel refuses to restrict the Jewish right of return, so it also refuses to delimit its boundaries. When it negotiates internationally it insists on even more prerogatives under the banner of security and anti-terrorism. Israel approach such negotiations as a zero-sum dynamic of gain for itself, loss for Palestine, a process hidden from view by the politics of deflection and undermining the Palestinian capacity for coherent resistance by the politics of fragmentation.
 

---

* There are two issues posed, beyond the scope of this post, that bear on Palestinian self-determination emanating from the Balfour Declaration and the ensuing British mandatory role in Palestine: (1) to what extent does “a national home for the Jewish people” imply a valid right of self-determination, as implemented by the establishment of the state of Israel? Does the idea of ‘a national home’ encompass statehood? (2) to what extent does the colonialist nature of the Balfour Declaration and the League mandate system invalidate any actions taken?

Founding Mothers of Ashkenazi Jews May Be Converts, Study Finds
Elizabeth Lopatto, Bloomberg, Oct 8 2013
About 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from Europe, not the Near East, according to a study that suggests a mass conversion of women to Judaism may have occurred in Europe more than 2,000 years ago (actually it was between 740 and 900 CE – RB). The findings come from studying mitochondrial DNA, which passes from mother to offspring, in about 3,500 people, the authors wrote in a paper in the journal Nature Communications. About 80% of the maternal linages of Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, the scientists found. The Ashkenazi are the most common Jewish ethnic division. Previous efforts to trace origins of Ashkenazi Jews have been spotty and controversial, the authors wrote. The latest research used a larger database than in previous attempts, allowing them to unravel the entire mitochondrial genomes. The authors, led by Gil Atzmon of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, wrote:

A detailed genealogical history for every maternal lineage in the Ashkenazim is now within reach. In fact, it should soon be possible to reconstruct the outlines of the entire dispersal history of each community.

The four major female founders of the Ashkenazi show roots in Europe 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. So do most of the minor founders, the study found. Only 8% of the mitochondrial DNA shows signs of being from the Near East. There had been some evidence of mass conversions, especially of women, to Judaism throughout the Mediterranean in the past, the authors wrote in the study. That resulted in about 6 million citizens, or a tenth of the Roman population, who were Jewish.